Mr. Scot

Kinda hard to buy the notion that the guy who was pounding the drum to draft a rookie and build around him is the same guy pushing for Baker Mayfield.

We don't even know who the source is on that other than that it's been repeated on the Huddle.

"Panthers quarterback Baker Mayfield"... It hurts to say it Not a fan of this, but if it happens I will do as I always do and hope for the best.

I usually am

I believe we're going to trade for Baker Mayfield... ...unless we don't

Is the numbskull who claimed inside sources were telling him we were still going to get Watson even after the trade with Cleveland was finalized still on here? I think he left. (which was probably wise)

Athletically? Sure. Mentally? Not so sure.

No they don't. .

I confess there's a part of my brain that wants to see Mayfield's commercials change location to BOA

Don't forget that his dad plays golf with Pat McCrory, and doesn't let having passed away nine years ago slow him down

I see the modern drive to start guys immediately as one of the reasons people were talking about a "quarterback crisis" not too long ago. It's gotten a little better, but NFL quarterback is still the most complicated position in sports. More than one team that drafted an athlete and expected them to skate by on those skills until they learned the position has found that approach lacking. I believe coaching matters, including bad coaching.

I don't see too many people taking the idea of Corral as a day one starter too seriously right now. If we go with what we've got, I expect that to be Darnold. If we acquire Mayfield, then it'll likely be him. Garoppolo? Not so sure.

The Drew Brees that kept Philip Rivers on the bench was hardly "hall of famer" Drew Brees. He was dumped by the Chargers not long after. And again, a lot of guys who do end up starting don't do so because it's in the plans. Heck, look at Brady. As I've said all along, either strategy can work. What the smart guys do isn't limited to one approach. They evaluate the situation. The bad, dumb or desperate teams always want the rookie to start whether it's best or not.

"Warming to" doesn't equate to "naming the starter".

That's what I call the lottery ticket approach. "Oh this one wasn't a winner? Okay, let's just buy another ticket" Or you could, you know, actually try to coach them up and build a better team around them.

So he's retiring for the day?

Willis is a prime example of a guy who needs to sit and learn first. Lance, though? I think it was the plan, but I think he's sitting now not just to learn but also because he's not very good.

And smart couches like Andy Reid and others have done the opposite. As mentioned before, I don't think either one is a universal answer. I think you have to take into account the player, the coach, the team around them and other things to decide what's best. And yes, sometimes it's to sit.

Apparently spying for the Bills or the Commanders again...

The team apparently thinks Christensen might be able to after last year.

How many of those guys sat, though? Can't agree. Prime example? David Carr. Carr received some of the worst coaching I've ever heard of during his early seasons (he wasn't taught to read defenses, just throw to a spot). And of course, they did a piss poor job of protecting him as well. I have to believe those mistakes had an effect.

Oh, I'd say when it comes to developing quarterbacks in the nfl, there's a lot of "stupid", with equal amounts of "impatient" and the occasional "desperate" sprinkled in for good measure. Factor in also that some of those early starts weren't the original plan. Both Justin Herbert and Davis Mills were supposed to sit behind Tyrod Taylor but he got injured both years. Likewise, Russell Wilson was expected to learn behind the great Matt Flynn but it didn't work out.

I'd have to look it over to see the validity of that. Don't have the time to do that at the moment but maybe later. And yes, the trend today is to start quarterbacks early. That's not necessarily an indication that it's the best way to go. Again, a lot of those high picks are taken by bad teams, hence why they end up busting.

I don't know about infinitely more. Don't think it's that lopsided. You have to account for the fact that there are also loads of examples of guys starting from the jump who turn out to be total busts. What could have happened if those guys had been able to sit and learn?