Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints

Back-up QB options?

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Originally Posted by CantonLegend here you can have this one out of my collection.....i dont need it anymore you're welcome Guess that'll hafta do....

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-18-2010, 07:39 PM   #81
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,234
Blog Entries: 5
Re: Back-up QB options?

Originally Posted by CantonLegend View Post
here you can have this one out of my collection.....i dont need it anymore



you're welcome
Guess that'll hafta do.
saintfan is offline  
Latest Blogs
Saints: A glimpse of the future Last Blog: 11-19-2014 By: lee909


What i tell you ! !! ! Last Blog: 11-02-2014 By: SAINTstunna


MID TERM ELECTION Last Blog: 10-29-2014 By: teddybarexxx


Old 03-18-2010, 07:46 PM   #82
100th Post
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 447
Re: Back-up QB options?

Originally Posted by saintfan View Post
Well then argument A is no more valid than argument B. Rekon we're down then to opinion, unless there is more evidence to go on. Brunell has been a successful starter, and there is really no valid evidence to suggest that he can't spot start successfully if needed. That's my take, and I'm not biased in either direction on the guy.
It is just opinion. Mine is that if you see no evidence the Saints would be in trouble if Brunell had to step in and be our starter then I want some of what you're smoking. There is a reason he lost his starting job at Jax and Wash....he's no longer a starter.
SAINT_MICHAEL is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 07:52 PM   #83
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,234
Blog Entries: 5
Re: Back-up QB options?

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL View Post
It is just opinion. Mine is that if you see no evidence the Saints would be in trouble if Brunell had to step in and be our starter then I want some of what you're smoking. There is a reason he lost his starting job at Jax and Wash....he's no longer a starter.
There's a reason Delhomme lost his job too, and yet people were spewing all over themselves at the chance. Thing is, I don't see any evidence that Brunell would suck any harder than anyone else. Now, if we're talking a #3 to groom, then lets have the conversation, but at backup I'm fine going into next season with Mark retaining that role.
saintfan is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 07:57 PM   #84
100th Post
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 447
Re: Back-up QB options?

Originally Posted by saintfan View Post
There's a reason Delhomme lost his job too, and yet people were spewing all over themselves at the chance. Thing is, I don't see any evidence that Brunell would suck any harder than anyone else. Now, if we're talking a #3 to groom, then lets have the conversation, but at backup I'm fine going into next season with Mark retaining that role.
Here's hoping we'll never have to find out who is right. But I agree about Jake. I wasn't rooting for us to get him either.
SAINT_MICHAEL is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 07:58 PM   #85
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,587
Re: Back-up QB options?

The position needs to be upgraded. Brunell has been a great pro. He's a classy guy. But, age and inactivity are not on his side. The Panthers game was on the road, meaningless, and was played with the backups. But any way you want to frame it, Brunell looked like an old, lacking in skills QB. To completely ignore that is not smart. And I don't think the Saints have ignored it. There's just only so much you can do. More importantly, we all hope the backup never sees the field.
Cruize is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 08:02 PM   #86
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,234
Blog Entries: 5
Re: Back-up QB options?

Originally Posted by Cruize View Post
The position needs to be upgraded. Brunell has been a great pro. He's a classy guy. But, age and inactivity are not on his side. The Panthers game was on the road, meaningless, and was played with the backups. But any way you want to frame it, Brunell looked like an old, lacking in skills QB. To completely ignore that is not smart. And I don't think the Saints have ignored it. There's just only so much you can do. More importantly, we all hope the backup never sees the field.
I'll agree that Brunell is too old when I see him play behind the starters. I'm not saying he could come in and win 7 or 8 in a row, and we all know none of us want that to happen, but when I've seen him play he's typically running for his life behind a backup oline and with second or third string players running crappy routes.

If we're gonna upgrade, then who are we gonna upgrade to? I think we have bigger needs.
saintfan is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 08:15 PM   #87
100th Post
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 447
Re: Back-up QB options?

Why do people want to forget how his teams were doing during his end time in Jacksonville and his stint in Washington? The opinion that he doesn't have much left was not formed by his one game against the Panthers. Apparently it is a fairly common belief in the NFL as well. Many teams have hunted for starting QBs over the last 5 years and not many have wanted to give Brunell a shot. I tend to think there is a reason for that. The teams that did didn't do it for long. It doesn't seem like a need until something bad happens.
SAINT_MICHAEL is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 08:17 PM   #88
Faqda Falcons
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ruston, Louisiana
Posts: 3,464
Blog Entries: 3
Re: Back-up QB options?

Originally Posted by CantonLegend View Post
that is just a piece of my argument where as it is your entire argument
Wrong again. You apparently only read what you want to read. Go back and see where I've said that he has played sparingly the last four seasons. At 39 years old, that doesn't bode well for him at all. You can throw in that Warner and Favre both were doing it, but Brunell doesn't even belong in the same category as far as effectiveness. Only age. Regardless, his play on the field, be it regular season, preseason, playing with 2nd or 3rd stringers, or whatever barely warrants a back-up position. I will say again, in my OPINION, he wouldn't start for any team in the NFL, so why would I feel comfortable with him being on the field and winning games for the Saints if something happens to Brees? In short, I wouldn't feel comfortable. At all.
D_it_up is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 08:22 PM   #89
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,234
Blog Entries: 5
Re: Back-up QB options?

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL View Post
Many teams have hunted for starting QBs over the last 5 years and not many have wanted to give Brunell a shot. I tend to think there is a reason for that. The teams that did didn't do it for long. It doesn't seem like a need until something bad happens.
We're not in need of a starter though, and we're not looking for one, and while it is nice to have two starting quality QBs on the roster, like San Diego had while Brees was there, it is certainly not the norm.

People act as if we need somebody to play 16 games. We don't. I mean, Drew, God forbid, could get hurt in the first quarter of the first game, but how many times in the NFL has the starter gone down in game one and missed the entire season?

We're talking about spot duty, and if we're going to upgrade, then to whom? Mark has time in the system. What we should really be focused on is who is #3? Who's the guy we're grooming?

I am the Genie of Sound. Everybody get down!
saintfan is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 08:25 PM   #90
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,234
Blog Entries: 5
Re: Back-up QB options?

Originally Posted by D_it_up View Post
Wrong again. You apparently only read what you want to read. Go back and see where I've said that he has played sparingly the last four seasons. At 39 years old, that doesn't bode well for him at all. You can throw in that Warner and Favre both were doing it, but Brunell doesn't even belong in the same category as far as effectiveness. Only age. Regardless, his play on the field, be it regular season, preseason, playing with 2nd or 3rd stringers, or whatever barely warrants a back-up position. I will say again, in my OPINION, he wouldn't start for any team in the NFL, so why would I feel comfortable with him being on the field and winning games for the Saints if something happens to Brees? In short, I wouldn't feel comfortable. At all.
When did we start judging backups as starters? Brunell would probably tell you he's not a starter anymore. You're talking about Brunell the starter, but the discussion is about a backup.
saintfan is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:45 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts