Page 1 of 3
-
I like Osweiler as a pure backup. He's 27, knows Gase, has started 25 games in the NFL, and has now been humbled by being bounced around a bit. I think that he can be a good guy to have in the QB room with RT17, and on the sideline on gamedays. And if RT were to miss 3-4 games, then he's as good as anyone still out there to come in and run Gase's system for a few weeks and not mess up.
The crowd who wants RT gone, and/or wants someone to push him won't be happy. Too bad. -
bigballa2102, shamegame13, RevRick and 1 other person like this.
-
-
-
I would rather the Dolphins sign Manziel or just keep Moore as their backup. Osweiler is horrible and how any team is actually looking to sign him is ridiculous.
I wouldn’t mind them signing Manziel to a small contract and if it doesn’t work out, it’s no big loss. Yet I still think he would be a better signing than Osweiler, who has clearly showed that he is not an effective NFL QB.shamegame13 likes this. -
Osweiler is about 500 times the NFL quarterback than Manziel.Dummuck, ripper1961, Unlucky 13 and 2 others like this. -
Irishman likes this.
-
What is the lesser of two evils here? I'd be more inclined to give Manziel a shot, as he seems to have been humbled by his fall out of the NFL and has been working to get back in. He seems a better fit for what Gase wants to do on offense, while Brock will just stand in the pocket and either force a pass or take the sack.
Even better, maybe we could a QB in the third round? If Luke Falk was there, why not grab him to develop? Actually, even if Brock or Manziel signed on as the #2 QB, Falk would be great as the #3 development project QB. -
I know some don't like the guy for non-football reasons, but the way I see it there is only upside here and we could end up with a fantastic QB a few years down the road basically for free. Why not roll the dice?Irishman and texanphinatic like this. -
Of course a lot of you think signing Manziel is a rational solution over signing someone who has actually played a snap in the last three years.
resnor likes this. -
Manziel has potential if nothing else. If the guy legit had mental issues, got help for that and the drugs and is on a better path, no reason to not explore it.btfu149 likes this. -
There is no QB that is AVAILABLE that the team would have a chance to win with outside of CKap.
So anyone else they get....who cares? It literally makes no difference.
The best thing we can do is a get someone with the most playing experience in the hopes they can occasionally add something to the QB meetings. That's it.mbsinmisc likes this. -
No and hell no.
-
Or is it just Baker that has non-football problems?KeyFin likes this. -
Disclaimer: I'm just bored.
Players certainly have strengths and weaknesses that can be hidden (or accentuated) by scheme and supporting cast. Of course, this is a frequent topic on this forum in particular. It's fair to wonder whether or not players (particularly QBs) were afforded opportunities to display their worth.
People keep saying Foles is an exception and that generally your backup is going to not perform well. This may be true - but it's also true that Philadelphia adapted their scheme for him to succeed (and that 17% of SBs were won with backup QBs). I remember the narrative on hiring Gase was his ability to adapt his scheme to his players.
Had Philadelphia not made the playoffs: there is no hoopla over him. He averaged a paltry 5.3 yards per attempt. He's still a 1 year wonder and the product of Chip Kelly's short lived NFL success. I remember he looked pretty awful playing for Jeff Fisher a few years back and was a bit of a joke.
Austin Davis (who is a FA) actually played better than Foles in STL, putting up a QBR 16 points higher. His next, and only, shot (?) after was in 2 Cleveland divisional games.
I remember watching (free agent) Geno Smith play last year in place of Eli Manning and thinking that he actually looked decent and was a quality backup. He's only seen significant time in his first 2 years, when he struggled with turnovers, but you may also recall his 350 yard 3 TD game as his last NYJ start.
Basically, what I'm getting at, is there have been a number of relative failures that have gone on to have success as lower level FA signings. Jake Plummer, Kerry Collins, Jake Delhomme, Kurt Warner, and Rich Gannon come to mind. Brian Hoyer went 10-6 in Cleveland. It seems more probable than not that there are still potentially successful QBs on the market if given the means to succeed. It's probably not Brock Osweiler though.Last edited: Mar 23, 2018 -
I rather bring back Matt Moore. I think its unlikely a qb drops to 11 so we might be looking at Luke Falk in the second round.
-
-
The dude is Jake Locker without the talent with a huge ego. -
-
Absolutely nothing good can come from signing Manziel. The dude would corrupt at least part of the locker room. He's toxic.
-
-
-
And then there's of course the fact that he's a pile of **** as a human being.mbsinmisc likes this. -
However, barring that, not all the rest of the QB's are equal. I would absolutely take Manziel over Brock. Manziel may be terrible or flame out ... but **** who knows. We KNOW Brock is terrible and not worth a used diaper. Take a guy with an unknown but potentially higher ceiling instead of a guy everyone knows is just bad. Try to find a guy who was in a bad scheme fit, who was underutilized, who had poor coaching, etc. Foles was a great example. Some early success, then got into a bad situation with a bad scheme and bad coach. -
-
Locker College Stats
40 Games
54% Completion Percentage
7639 Yards
53 TDs
35 INTs
1939 Rushing 29 TDs
Manziel
26 Games
68.9% Completion Percentage
7820 Yards
63 TDs
22 INTs
2169 Rushing 30 TDs
Hahaha. You have to be joking me.shamegame13 and Irishman like this.
Page 1 of 3