Re: Back-up QB options?
 

Guess that'll hafta do. :monkey:

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

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.

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

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.

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

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.

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.

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

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.

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.

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

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.

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

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?

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

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.

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

It ties together if Brees gets injured for a couple of games or the rest of the season. Want to take a guess on who becomes the starter? If you guessed Brunell, you get another miniature trophy to add to your collection. My point I have been trying to make all along is that I wouldn't feel comfortable about Brunell starting if something happened to Brees and he had to miss x-amount of time. I do not feel that he could come in and win games with his arm. That is my OPINION.

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

Yall leave my boy Brunell alone...he aint that damn old..lol...and he will be the backup again... im just about certain....we have many more needs..

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

Or his brain either!

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

Having a good backup QB that can fill in for an injured starter is like having a spare tire for your car. You're probably not gonna use it much and you hope like heck you don't need it. But if you don't have one it's likely to bite you eventually.

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

thank god we have mark brunell and chase daniel huh?.....thats like 2 spare tires

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

Two spare tires? Sounds like my belly!

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

PTI...but this is what happens when you win the SB. No debating the starter, so we are relegated to arguing who the back-up should be. Ain't it great?

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

Absolutely.

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

Nice avatar LB. Makes me want to go down to the cement pond!

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

It doesn't tie together. If a guy grades as a starter he gets starter money. Backups get backup money. Look at who the backup is on other teams. Mark Brunell is plenty smart and he's been in the system for a while. What's the better option? And can't we at least agree that there are bigger needs on the team? Cause if Brees goes down we're in trouble, and I don't care who the #2 guy is...

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

I will only things I will agree with you on is that if Brees go down we are screwed and that the team has bigger needs. As far as the rest? Not at all, because you apparently have missed my entire point. I'm not concerned about who is getting payed what for what position. What does that even have to do with my point? That has absolutely no bearing on my point. My point is, and I will state this again, that if Brees is injured for a number of games, who would be starting those games? If Brunell is the back up, then that would mean he would be starting the game. I don't care how much knowledge he has in the system or how smart he is. I don't care how many Pro Bowls he's been to or anything from his past. If he can't physically perform well in a back up role, then what makes anyone think that he would physically perform if he had to work with the first team? Knowledge of the system would get him nowhere. The Saints offense would struggle and they would more than likely lose more than they would win. That is why I think the back up QB spot needs to be addressed. Maybe not top of the list, but it definitely could be upgraded. I don't know how much more simple I can say this to get my point across.

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

We'll just have to agree to disagree then I guess. However, assuming Mark is the #2 QB when we start camp, watch the blocking (or lack of blocking) he gets. I recall him being on the run plenty. I just don't think a fair assessment can be made unless/until he gets a couple games with the starters, and I think we all hope and pray that doesn't happen.

Re: Back-up QB options?
 

That I can completely agree with.