Unfortunately, I think Chad did lose some ability from January to October, but some of the signs were there late last season when he didn't seem as accurate in some of the losses (Bills @ home comes to mind). Chad's biggest strengths are his accuracy and decision-making, he seemed to love both of those at home on Sundays this season and I have no idea why. I am with you on the evaluation piece, but with 5 years of PT under his belt, you know what you have in Pennington, he been in nearly every situation. Whereas, with Clemens, the sample size is small. (I have always thought Chad was a bizarro Jake Plummer. Plummer would be able to lead you to the playoffs, but you knew he would try and put the team on his back and lose one game for you. Pennington would be able to lead you to the playoffs, but you knew that he'd have to put the team on his back one game, but he couldn't win it for you. Again, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate what he has done for the franchise.)
Both WRs played good games? They played their asses off, but neither was fully capable... There were two passes down the field, that Coles went up for, but couldn't quite get to.... Healthy, Coles makes both catches.... There was a ball in the EZ that Cotchery had in his hands but couldn't hold on to... A healthy Cotchery likely makes that catch.... And that's only when they were thrown to.... Take into consideration how much slower and more tentative Coles was in his cuts, how much harder it was for Cotchery to get off a jam, and how many plays both of them missed, and your argument holds no water
:lol: Ain't it a bitch!? I'd take Chad over Culpepper and I would take Rick Mirer over Grossman anyday.
I think most people recognize Pennington for what he is, a weak armed QB who can manage a game for you but can't carry a team on his back in big games. He was making some mistakes that aren't typical of him this year though so a change was absolutely justified. While some people here overrate him, just as many tend to underrate him as well. My money is on him starting next year if he's not with the Jets, and having a 50/50 shot of starting here if he's still around. The way Clemens has played, he won't be handed the starting role next pre-season unless he steps it up.
This is the key, regardless of all the excuses. People are going to get banged up in the NFL, Cotchery had over 100 yards receiving this week, Coles kept a couple of drives going by himself, I don't want to hear excuses. Why are people so ready to just hand the team over to Clemens for the forseeable future? If he earns it, fine. If someone else earns it, Chad or whoever, that's how it goes. But I can't see limiting our options and putting all our eggs into one basket like that. If Clemens came in and set the league on fire, yes, but continuing the field goal parade we had going already, no.
Do you understand how idiotic giving Chad, or any other declining vet, the job over Kellen, or any other young QB with potential, would be? That is throwing the franchise in reverse.... We're not prepped to make a run right now, so starting a guy who we might be able to get one or two more solid years out of is COMPLETELY POINTLESS. You wanna give Kellen some competition? Draft a mid-round QB and let him compete for the job... If Kellen doesn't pan out, we've got a young guy waiting in the wings... The ONLY reason we should have a vet on the roster is incase of an injury, and to act like a mentor... Giving an older guy a chance to be the starter would effectively stall the team's progress...
That's all theory, you don't know what happens. I'm just saying let the best guy play. Are you old enough to remember Browning Nagle? He was the young hotshot with the big arm, so they gave him the job and threw away a whole season. Partly because Ken O'Brien held out, but mostly becaue of "potential". So we lost a whole season and had to bring in Boomer--an older guy--to play the position. Set us back years. There are no guarantees in the NFL, everything must be earned. Let Clemens earn it, is that so hard to grasp?
I agree with you about throwing the franchise in reverse, but Mangini doesn't have the option of thinking about 2-3 years down the line. He has to win next year or he's likely to be out the door. While it's not a stretch to imagine he'd ride Clemens longer then he should if he's not producing, he's likely to make a switch sooner if things aren't going well due to the likelihood that he'll be coaching to keep his job.
We're not being set back at all by playing a young QB, as we were 1-8 when the change was made.... If we want Kellen to earn his job next season, I whole heartedly would be behind bringing in a mid-round QB, or a young FA to compete for the job.... Once again, on a team that is at least 2-3 years from being competitive, it will do nothing but hinder our progress to play an aging QB
There is no such thing as being 2-3 years from being competitive anymore. It's a year to year league. I agree this year it is not setting us back to play Clemens, it was the right thing to do. But based on his performance, I dont see how anyone can A-hand him the job and B-get rid of the only other guy we have who can do the job. To me that's just stupid. Let it play out, the more options you have the better. Remember also that people get hurt in the NFL, so having two guys isn't the worst thing in the world. But just by looking at your signature I can see you are not objective, not thinking clearly and certainly not up for any thoughtful discussion about it.
I'm not against having two guys... I'm against giving a guy who played no better than our struggling first year starter this season and has maybe one or two decent years left in him a job on a young team that isn't ready to contend...
You're missing the point--I don't reccomend we give anyone the job. Not Chad and not Kellen. It's the NFL, they have to compete for the job. What's the sense in getting someone else who has to learn a complicated offense when you have two guys who will be in their third year of the system? It's not like when Brady stepped in and was so good that getting rid of Drew Bledsoe was a no-brainer. It's more like what we had going into last year, competition for the job. That's how it should be when you come off of a bad year.
Very well said. I really like Clayton. The guy can't help it if he's a geek. He's always got excellent information, and is almost always dead-on.
I know what you're saying about giving Chad a chance to win the job, and I think that's just plain stupid.... Why even leave a miniscule chance that you can either: A) delay the progress of your young QB B) delay finding out whether or not the young QB is for real C) shatter a young QB's confidence by replacing him with a guy who played himself out of a job the year before It just does NOT make any sense... We're not winning the Super Bowl with Chad.... Giving him a shot to be a starter is just plain stupid
call me naiive but assuming Kellen doesn't get injured, why do we need a veteran backup? Is it to coach Kellen on the mental aspects of the position while Kellen controls the physical part of the game? If so, nobody is better than Chad. Is it a viable option in case Kellen stinks it up? If so, how long are we giving him, next season, to judge if he's got the stuff or not? I doubt mangini puts money into some second tier veteran, I think, if anything, he gets some third tier - good character - quarterback, at the veteran minimum salary, for depth. Tui is good for morale and I say they keep him. Maybe just another guy like Tui but older and with more in-game experience, but I don't see any need to bring in a Culpepper or Grossman if all or most of '08 will be basically handed to Kellen to see if he's got the stuff.
How is it delaying anything? If Chad is so bad and Clemens can't beat him out in training camp, we're not delaying anything. What else would you need to see? He's having the chance over 10 games this year, through the off-season and camp to win the job. If he can't win it from old broken-down Chad then he's not "for real". The coaches have jobs to keep, they're not going to continue taking it on the chin so that Clemens can grow into the job or keep his confidence up. It's a business, if you're on a bad team there is competition for every job. The question becomes who is in the competition? We know Clemens is, so then do you keep a guy that knows the players and the offense or do you bring in another guy who doesn't? Seems to me it's more beneficial to the team to keep the guy who has proven he can win and knows the team, offense, etc to compete with him. Competition makes you better, if anything it will help Clemens. Chad's already been helping him since he took over the job.
With the luck this team has had at the QB position I think it would be wise to have a decent veteran (better than Tui) as an insurance policy. I agree that Chad would be ideal for the mental grooming.
If there is going to be an older, veteran QB on the roster in 2008 (which I think there should be), he had better know that he's there as a backup and a mentor..... Again, it is NOT progress to start a QB who is not part of your future plans..... For competition sake, bring in another young guy... Be it a mid-round pick, or a young FA (ala Tuiasosopo) to fight for the job.... If you give an old QB the chance to win the job, and he does so, you've pretty much flushed any chance of Kellen becoming the QB of the future down the drain.... Kellen has had 7 games (and one start due to injury) to prove himself... That is NOT enough time... Benching him now (which is an option under your plan to keep Chad aboard and let him compete to be the starter) would be giving up on him way too early, and really quite foolish....
The thing about having an old guy/young guy scenario is that it can work out because each guy has a role. If you bring another young guy in, that's a bigger threat to Clemens and his confidence because now you have another guy who is here to be "the future". So ultimately one of them would have to go. If you have Clemens and Pennington, Clemens can still be your future guy but you don't have to bet the whole farm on him. If Clemens wins the job then Pennington is going to have no choice but to accept the backup job, just as it's going to be if he goes to another team. No matter where he goes he's going to have to win a job, so why not here? It's almost an exact replay of Pat Ryan and Ken O'Brien from the 80s. Ryan was a career backup to Richard Todd and started 1984 because O'Brien missed a lot of camp. O'Brien was the future guy, #1 pick in 83, and he eventually got the job late in 84, had the growing pains and became the guy. But during that process we had Ryan, who knew the ropes, didn't have a great arm, but was a leader and brought some file we lacked with O'Brien. There were times when O'Brien was hurt or ineffective, and we were able to sustain with Ryan, and O'Brien eventually would come back in as the starter. That worked out for a long time and we were mostly a good team. If Clemens is the "real deal" then we'll be fine, if he isn't we'd have a Plan B.
