Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

start matt moore!


jakesthemistake

Recommended Posts

jake will play...

i truly believe that in some cases its the system more than the QB. Jake makes horrible throws from a horribly coached team when it comes to the passing game. Brees nor Peyton could have good numbers throwing to recievers in our system. We have seen this with every QB that we have put in there under the fox/davidson era.

Moore inexperience would just give us an excuse when he throws a pick. We have much more problems then just jake in the passing game. Smith seems a step slower due to age and moose might as well have a walker. Our TE's are our only real threat and they are only targeted a handful of times per game.

All i am saying is Moore, Jake, Feely...none of them give us more of a chance to win or lose than the others with the system that is in place. Until the current regime is gone we will continue to have a sub par passing game. Might as well start the guy making the most money...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jake will play...

i truly believe that in some cases its the system more than the QB. Jake makes horrible throws from a horribly coached team when it comes to the passing game. Brees nor Peyton could have good numbers throwing to recievers in our system. We have seen this with every QB that we have put in there under the fox/davidson era.

Moore inexperience would just give us an excuse when he throws a pick. We have much more problems then just jake in the passing game. Smith seems a step slower due to age and moose might as well have a walker. Our TE's are our only real threat and they are only targeted a handful of times per game.

All i am saying is Moore, Jake, Feely...none of them give us more of a chance to win or lose than the others with the system that is in place. Until the current regime is gone we will continue to have a sub par passing game. Might as well start the guy making the most money...

dude

10 fuging interceptions

we have the worst QB in the NFL

bench mr Bojangles

and give our fuging rookies a chance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although we blame fox alot for his stubborness, Jake needs to be seen in the same light. After a while when do you say "hey I've become this teams liability. Maybe in order to give my team the best possible chance to win I should let someone take over and see what Happens."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have supported jake through all this, but i have to be honest. after today, with the last drive, not giving him the ball because of previous mistakes says a lot. it's time to start with the future. i would rather us lose with a new quarter back than watch jake single-handedly give the game back with 2 ints avg per game. i mean the last time we ran the ball with out throwing was when wienke sucked...if that says anything. sorry jake. it was a good run. thanks for the super bowl trip in 2003 and all but its time for the future...what future we can muster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
    • You're really gonna pass up the opportunity to make a joke about skidmarks in underwear here?  Alright fine.
×
×
  • Create New...