Back-up QB options?

saintfan · 03-18-2010, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by D_it_up

It empties the argument no more than going by 2 plays and a resume that hasn't been added to in 4 years.

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.

SAINT_MICHAEL · 03-18-2010, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

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.

saintfan · 03-18-2010, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL

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.

SAINT_MICHAEL · 03-18-2010, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

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.

03-18-2010, 06:13 PM	#1
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Re: Back-up QB options? Originally Posted by D_it_up It empties the argument no more than going by 2 plays and a resume that hasn't been added to in 4 years. 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.

03-18-2010, 06:46 PM	#2
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446	Re: Back-up QB options? Originally Posted by saintfan 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 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446

03-18-2010, 06:57 PM	#4
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446	Re: Back-up QB options? Originally Posted by saintfan 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 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446

03-18-2010, 06:52 PM	#3
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Re: Back-up QB options? Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL 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.