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.