MHS831

I looked up the house. This may not be the good sign we thought it was.

I have not checked, but he seems to have been injured a lot lately---I would guess Indy if I were a betting man, a WR to give Wentz a better target--they have $22m in cap room too.

In fairness, he is compared to adam sandler a lot--most of gatorade gets to its destination with minimal spillage.

I had to emotionally adjust when we took Horn and not Slater, and I was also shocked that we did not trade back--possibly taking Slater or Darrisaw with Fields on the board. However, I can say this with some degree of confidence-would we be talking about CB now if we had not taken one of the 2 true elite CBs. I mentioned before the draft (rather reluctantly, I might add) that I felt we HAD to take a shut down, press CB based on the data (71% completion rate outside the numbers, 31st in the league in getting off the field on third down, etc.) We had Scott and Erving on the roster, so it really seemed to me that we were targeting Surtain or Horn (I thought Surtain, to be honest).

He sure does. This could be a poor man's version of Hill or it could become a trend. I mean, Stevens was no slouch in college-he was decent, but a 6-5, 235 lb man with a 4.49 40 who can complete 60% of his passes (college) and run the football from the wildcat, etc. is not a bad change of pace / #3 option. Better than Grier going out in the third quarter to help distribute Gatorade.

Webb is a great example. There is no reason we can't find an athletic #3 who can help in other ways--like finding a roster spot. And to the argument (not your argument) that it is taking a role or position from someone else, you still have 53 football players.

We keep saying, "Brady likes him" but I am not sure that is a ringing endorsement after TB. I wonder how much tinkering Brady did with Hill in NO to make this happen, and if he wants to continue that project. I get what people are saying, but I have always wondered why a #3 QB takes a roster spot. My ideas have been to keep your #3 on the PS, use Bonnefon, and now this--probably the best of the three options. And I agree--the #2 QB is the spot we need to build, so maybe we shall see. We could keep a QB (probably will) on the PS as well.

I don't think Hill has that much talent.

I have been on work release for a month (not Covid) and I am medicated---recipe for some constructive gunslinging.

I think we copied your bet---I am going to need a few more cases of hair gel.

Good thread OP

Yes. vs the Rams at St Louis where they had won 14 straight. We were big underdogs--had to play all games on the road that year to get to SB 38... Unreal

What evidence was there of Taysom Hill doing this before leaving BYU? He was at Green Bay--cut. So he found a way to stay in the league by using substandard QB skills for the NFL and his speed to create a "position" with the Saints. And you are saying Stevens can't do that. As a QB, he would not be in the league right now. He is in the league because he is an athlete who plays QB. In this role, you do not need a 70% passer--you need a multiple threat.

What is being described is not a position--it is a wrinkle. A different look. Something to make the defenses prepare for all week. A chance to create mismatches. What does Grier do?

I am really not trying to mock anyone, just bring good points to the table. I try to have an open mind and love it when someone changes it--but you gotta have a case. "Derp?" Do better.

My support is the athleticism, his skill set, and the scheme I have seen before. I am saying that he is a #3 QB that can provide a unique wrinkle to the offense. Taysom Hill is my evidence. They did not pay him $12m to be a derp. I have provided matchup scenarios, provided his size/speed/skill set, and I have shown the relationship he has with Brady. Tommy is fast straight line--yes. He is. We are not talking about a starter here--we are talking about re-imagining the #3 QB position. That is the part you are missing--well, one of them. You have shown, "Derp Taysom Hill Derp." You almost pinned me there.

No, you are not making arguments. You are stating opinions. Arguments require concrete support. Opinions noted.

Aren't these unsupported opinions of yours that you are making to support an assumption? This game is about match ups--putting your strengths against their weaknesses. So if you have CMC, Marshall, Moore, Anderson, Arnold and Smith in pass formations and bring in Stevens, a 6-5, 235 4.49 QB--how are you matching up with that? 5 skill players that can catch and run sub 4.5 40s. A QB who can run a 4.5 or throw it 65 yards. The defense would have to have 4 DL and 1 LB to stop it. So is your LB, if he is not blocked, good enough to stop Stevens? Are your DBs? That is the move. Stupid, right?

Are you making the argument that we will pay Stevens $12m? It means that he has that much value to the Saints--not the Panthers. Stevens will make under $1m. So what is your point?

Yes, and they felt they could convert him to a TE--maybe replace Hill and his contract, but that did not happen and they could not keep him. We want him to be a player like Hill--not a pure TE, and both are listed as #3 QBs. Obviously Brady loved his athleticism and Hill has value if used correctly--they just did not need 2 Hills in the big easy. We had no Hills, now we have a Hill. At the very least he helps us prepare for New Orleans twice a year, but I sense he will have an expanding role like Hill does. (Hill makes about $12m this year---who cares about the #3 QB?)

Would you say the same for Hill? I would. Is he a special teamer? And even if you are right--is Will Grier a better QB than Stevens? Does Will Grier play special teams? This has gone full circle now---

You are the only person saying that. The Saints had a player who can do what Stevens can do, so they tried him as a pure TE and drafted him because they knew we were going to sign him--gave up a sixth rounder. We like athletes, and we are going to use him like the saints use Hill---The Saints already had a Hill, so it would be stupid to keep him and have 2 Hills--so their plans for him were different that ours will be simply because we will use him like Hill--this is not hard.

If you don't want to talk about the #3 QB, WHY DID YOU CLICK ON THE THREAD THAT CLEARLY DESCRIBES THE TOPIC AS THE #3 QB?

Gingervitas. LOL. Maybe we should add freckles to the bear so we don't offend anyone.