Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

backup qb for next season


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#31 Jackofalltrades

Jackofalltrades

    OWN the Line of Scrimmage

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,847 posts
  • LocationNC

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:54 PM

Lmao stupid is as stupid does lmao.

#32 DC Amp

DC Amp

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:57 PM

Doug Flutie, he can drop kick field goals too.

#33 ReturnOfPFFL

ReturnOfPFFL

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:59 PM

No I would rather have The Golden Calf of Bristol.

Sarcasm



Actually that would be a much better fit for our offense than Sanchez. Plus he can close out 4th quarters. We might actually successfully pull of what the Jets are trying to do with their dual quarterback approach and swap them out right after the 3rd quarter.

Or we could get a good QB...either way,

#34 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 21,089 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 25 November 2012 - 12:57 AM

is it weird that i'd rather have jimmy clausen?

#35 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,723 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 02:09 AM

I say we stick with a veteran as our backup until Cam hits his second contract.

#36 jfo89

jfo89

    MEMBER

  • ALL-PRO
  • 389 posts
  • LocationHuntington Beach, California

Posted 25 November 2012 - 03:19 AM

I think the kid from the play 60 commercial is available..

#37 TheGreatestOfAllTimeCam

TheGreatestOfAllTimeCam

    Cam Nut Hugger

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,141 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 04:54 AM

is it weird that i'd rather have jimmy clausen?

This was my exact thought. Just kind of want to keep him around

#38 Mage

Mage

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,546 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 06:40 AM

Are people really saying no? In the event Anderson leaves, Sanchez would be far better than most backups around the NFL. The only issue is he likely wouldn't come cheap, making this an unlikely scenario. Still, people act as if we have to have a great backup QB. It'd be nice but it's unlikely you'll find one. Thus Sanchez would certainly be a good one.

Another thing is a backup QB is more than just someone who does the job right. That is why you see a guy like Vince Young, as talented as he may be, likely done in the NFL. A backup QB has to be someone who is smart and is able to help out the starter. Not sure if Sanchez is that kind of guy but as bad as Clausen is, he might actually be a great backup. And look at how long shoddy QBs are still in the league ala Charlie Batch solely because they are good at helping and preparing the starter on the sidelines.

Besides, if Newton goes down, we're screwed either way.

#39 CatMan72

CatMan72

    KEEP POUNDING

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,261 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 07:07 AM

LOL, no... we've already got Clausen and that's pretty much the same thing.

#40 Guest_Hokebuck_*

Guest_Hokebuck_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2012 - 08:09 AM

it all depends on which QB best fits the type spread offense we'll be running.



Armanti Edwards! :thumbsu:

#41 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,302 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 08:12 AM

AE will be gone.

#42 iamcline

iamcline

    Thou shalt not spilleth thy Red Bull!

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,776 posts
  • LocationGreensboro, NC

Posted 25 November 2012 - 08:18 AM

it all depends on which QB best fits the type spread offense we'll be running.


I'm hoping we aren't running the spread.

#43 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,302 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 08:24 AM

I'm hoping we aren't running the spread.

lol i was wondering if someone was going to pick up on that.

anyway...yeah, i wouldn't want to run an offense that can put up the offensive numbers like the patriots and saints and the broncos are now. why would i want an offense that is built to capitalize on the new rules protecting the passing game?

it's quite possible that we will be running some form of the spread. the spread is spreading through the league. in a couple years it will be the most run offense in the NFL.

#44 iamcline

iamcline

    Thou shalt not spilleth thy Red Bull!

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,776 posts
  • LocationGreensboro, NC

Posted 25 November 2012 - 08:38 AM

lol i was wondering if someone was going to pick up on that.

anyway...yeah, i wouldn't want to run an offense that can put up the offensive numbers like the patriots and saints and the broncos are now. why would i want an offense that is built to capitalize on the new rules protecting the passing game?

it's quite possible that we will be running some form of the spread. the spread is spreading through the league. in a couple years it will be the most run offense in the NFL.


I wouldn't mind it if we had receivers that could get consistent separation, but as it stands, the spread we run prevents us from running the ball at times to support the passing game.

#45 Argus Plexus

Argus Plexus

    Super Kami Guru

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,763 posts
  • LocationCape Fear Area

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:02 AM

Vinny Greentesticles is better


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com