For this years draft I am not sold on Jay Cutler at #4. He is getting a considerable amount of hype and that is inflating his value. I believe the senior bowl exposed exactly where his talent value lands - right in the 2nd tier of QB's. I'd be more than content to pick up a 2nd day QB like Whitehurst or Croyle who I feel have the same talent level. The only way I consider a QB at #4 is if one of the top tier guys drops to us. Even then I'd think it would be in our best interest to trade down and pickup the best offensive player available. We have SO many holes it doesn't make sense to target any specific player. It hurts me to say that, as I feel Vince Young would be perfect for the Jets or any other team that has an anemic offense. The real crux of my point though - why sign a stop gap veteran QB? I feel that Bollinger showed an impressive amount of improvement as the season went on. Amidst all of the aging and injuries he consistantly got better from game to game. Although his numbers didn't steadily increase - anyone who watched the games saw him get more and more comfortable. He finished the season with a 72.9 QB rating and did it with an amount of talent comparable to what we will have next year(no Mawae, Fabini, a slowed Martin, no Chrebet, no Baker, etc.). I think we would be hard pressed to find a stop gap that would do any better. He could start most of the games next year, maybe all, depending on the development of the rookie we draft. I'm a big believer in a rookie QB holding a clipboard for a season. It will save us some cash to combat the huge cap penalties we will have after cleaning house. It will also relieve some of the pressure on the youngsters we will have on the the OLine as he does have enough mobility to escape the pocket. I am a believer in Bollinger. He ain't gonna be our saviour, but he can definitely do well enough to avoid having to pay some QB retread.
If Bollinger is our starting QB, we won't win more than 2 games all season. There is no way you can have Bollinger QB this team.
I disagree. While I dont think bollinger will be the QB of the future I think he can do a ok job for 1 year. I bet we could win about 6-7 games with bollinger. Considering where this team stands thats not all that bad
No way in hell I agree. Bollinger showed me NOTHING. Whenever a team with a decent defense played us, we didn't stand a chance. The Pats made him look like a fool. It wouldn't bother me if Bollinger was cut.
Quote: Originally Posted by JetsIn2004 If Bollinger is our starting QB, we won't win more than 2 games all season. There is no way you can have Bollinger QB this team. He started 9 games for us last year and won 2 of them. And that was with Herm handcuffs on. I think we'd have a chance of at least a 4 win season with his continued development(maybe more if things break right). This is what we need to prepare ourselves for. Rebuilding ain't pretty it's gritty. Who do you propose we have as QB that can do better with rebuilding in mind ?
I don't think having Bollinger as your QB is worth it. You lose the chance to build the rest of your team since he's so limited. If we're going to rebuild and win 2 games, then let's play a rookie. If the goal is to dump 2006 to be set for 2007 cap wise and talent wise (which would be FINE by me), let's play the ROOKIE. Look. If you can get a vet in here to make us COMPETITIVE (7-8 wins), fine, but if not, play whatever rookie we draft. He'll learn better being on the field.
I don't agree. Yea he looked bad vs. the Pats, but the last time Chad/Vinny beat them was in 2002. So I blame that on Herm's crappy schemes and being out coached. Yea, he looked bad vs. Carolina, but Bollinger was one throw away from beating San Diego and Miami and was one kick away from beating New Orleans. He never had a chance vs. Baltimore in that sham of a game. Our O-line was terrible last year. TERRIBLE. I'm not buying that Kerry Collins or any retread is a better option than Brooks if we're going the route of a veteran quarterback on the cheap next year.
Brooks deserves a serious shot at starter in 06. He was our best Qb this past season, has a dynamite arm, two very serious legs, and a gamer attitude, playing well despite a coach who didn't believe in him, an OLine with more leaks than an Ozark condom, and a one-legged running game. People just have a Randy Newman attitude about his height. At the risk of betraying my advanced years with another 70s ref, I will quote Cesar Cedeno in "Bad News Bears In Breaking Training": "Let the kid play!"
Miami has a decent D and we went down to the wire with them, and although Buffalo's D regressed this year, they were still better than decent, and we beat them....
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that Herm's "handcuffs" kept him from getting killed and completely exposed.
I think Bollinger could be a temporary starter, and definitly be a backup. While he would get us nowhere near the Superbowl, if we asked him too he could definitly win at least 6 or 7 games for us.
I'm not sure there is logic in this statement, but if Pennington is cut, I want Bolly + rookie. If Penny stays, I want Penny + vet. I guess maybe it is a rebuilding vs. retooling arguement. DbJ
we should beaten teams like them badly not playing down to the wire.Bollinger is no more an NFL starting quaterback as you are!
Are you sure we should have beaten teams like them badly? Considering our injury issues and talent level on the field - I don't think we were in a position to beat any team badly, especially not Miami. They were coming in with a 3 game winning streak and finished the season with a 6 game winning streak.
