Look, I like Mangini, but he is a rookie HC no matter how you slice it and he short on experience as well. Second. I don't see how we have the money to spend on a top draft QB. In addition, lots of good young QBs get ruined by being thrown to the wolves too early. Right now on our depth chart, Penny is the starter and Brooks is the backup. It makes perfect sense to start the backup until the starter is ready to play. Just because you don't like Brooks does not refute the logic of this scenario. You can easily insert Penny when he is ready and keep continuity. It is the logical sequence to follow not to mention it makes sense on several levels as I have already explained.
Bollinger didnt do anything at all, he doesnt have a strong arm, and he played at wisconson, no more said. Draft Jay Cutler, he has a strong arm, is mobile, and finally we have some exciment at the QB position since Joe Namath
Yeah...lets pay him a 14M signing bouns too for wining 11 games. That is great that he has a strong arm....so did Browing Nagle. I guess some ppl forget that we are broke as a joke.
well, we're gonna have to pay for a #4 pick anyways, why not a future QB that can fire the ball and scramble, the anti-chad ? I'm sick of these boring cement foot qb's that cant run for crap. I want an exciting team with a QB that can launch the ball and a RB that can break it for the big one
agreed... You're not going to get anywhere with this guy. Brooks is horrible, and I would rather have Cutler in than Brooks. Like you said, we'll be under the cap eventually, and no matter what, we have to pay a 4th rounder anyways.
Right, OL is deep in this draft, we draft OL in the next few rounds to protect the franchise QB for a long time to come
I couldn't agree more. If Chad ain't ready to start, Brooks is the guy. Even if we have a rookie QB it makes absolutely no sense to throw him to the wolves and kill his confidence. Brooks can keep the seat warm. He isn't going to light the world on fire, but at this point who on our offense would? Let our line gel without the pressure of having to protect a guy like Cutler. Who feels bad when its Brooks taking the beating?
Not at all... what you people fail to realize is that we trying to get Ramsey. Were trying to acquire Cutler... or Young (thats a stretch). There's no way Brooks gets the start over both of them. Pennington will start if his contract is restructured because of a clause that his agent will throw in. Healthy or not, thats the way it's going to be. Pennington will not restructure his contract to warm the bench to Brooks. Theres no way.
crazylion26, it looks like you and I are the only ones with any sense on this thread. It's much harder to find a franchise QB than it is to find a offensive line. Offensive lineman can be found later in drafts and in free agency, just look at the patriots, besides logan mankins. Granted they found their franchise QB in the sixth round, but still, if you believe someone is the franchise guy, you have to take them, then build around them.
what makes you think it'll be a "patch work OL?" Let's say we sign a quality guy who can start (i.e. Ashworth). Then we draft a couple of guys who can start (i.e. Brick, McNeil, Giles, Mangold, etc.). We already have Jones who, for his first year starting, played well. And we'll probably have one vet (maybe Mawae?). That may not be the best OL in the league, or even one of the best for that matter; but I also wouldn't call it patch work. With that OL, we don't need to just start Bollinger, thereby sacrificing him as you've implied. A good QB can succede behind an OL of that resemblance. No need to start Brooks. cheers
What i'm saying is that we should draft cutler and build our o-line through the later rounds in the draft and free agency, that is just my opinion, and it is one of many options
I like the idea of starting with Bollinger. I think he can win games for this team. I think he could win 8 if he played the whole year.
When I read this, the first thing I said was, use Brooks as a Crash Test Dummy, brilliant, brilliant. I think we will do something at QB that makes sense for next year. Starting Brooks would surprize me. Not impossible, but I would be surprizing. This will only happen if Pennington is still here and is still not right, and we have not drafted or signed ayone to compete with Chad. If we did have to use Bollinger to start the season, I hope we do a better job of selling it to Brooks. This would be funny, "Brooks we want you to start the season because we think you can really take a beating. Chad is our #1 and still needs time to heal, while you have proven that you can be sacraficed." With the improvement we will make to the offensive line I would actually expect Bollinger to do better, but clearly, he is not our savior.
That wasnt meant towards u Green Hornet, that was meant towards the very THOUGHT of using BROOKS BOLLINGER as starting QB.
Chad is an egotistical jerk off. He's not going to be the same ever again. Count it. Bollinger gave an inspired performance last year. Don't take a dump on the guy until you see him operate with a semi-functional o-line. He didn't have that last year, he was a rookie qb, and I think he has a lot of talent. He might end up being a better player over the long haul than Pennington. He's not frail, he can take a beating. When he had a little time, he could actually throw the ball. He has a better arm than pennington. He has less ego than pennington... it's not all bad folks. He had one bad game against carolina. All of his other performances were mediocre or better than average for a rookie qb.
