2009-10 NFL off season thread

[crashcarson15]

Wish they wanted McNabb...

No, I heard the Bills and the Browns want McNabb. I want Kolb as my starting QB. Granted, he wouldn't be throwing very much for me, but I trust him more than I trust McNabb.

I'm not sure how McNabb makes sense for a young and crappy team. I could see Heckert and the Browns making a play for Kolb, and I hope the Eagles don't go for it. Kolb is my starter next season, with AJ Feeley as #2 or #3 depending on what happens with Vick (who I hope is gone, but I wouldn't gripe if he wasn't.) If Kolb goes down, Feeley is more than capable of handing off to McCoy 80+ times per game.

I think the Bills or Browns make far more sense than the Cardinals or Vikings as a destination for McNabb. Teams who haven't won for a while are more likely to trade for a star QB, if only for shirt sales. I still think McNabb will be an Eagle for 2010 though, because without a new contract his trade value is relatively minimal, and who is gonna trade for a guy who would be a free agent after 1 year. But I do think a less succesful team like the Bills or Browns could make some overtures McNabb's way.

The Browns sure as hell don't need "shirt sales". The city is still crazy for the team even after the decline. The Cards or Vikes would make a lot more sense, they're almost there. The Browns would accomplish nothing by bringing in an unhappy McNabb to a team that still wouldn't make the playoffs. If Quinn isn't your starter then draft a QB this year and develop him by letting him play.

[floydnimrod]

The Bengals have once again brought in someone fimiliar with orange and black stripes. This time, it's former Jacksonville WR Matt Jones.

Cincy has also expressed interest in troubled CB Adam 'Pacman' Jones. Sure, why not, right?

...Not to mention the T.O. rumors that have been circulating. God, I wish I could stop liking them!

I'd love all three to play for Cincinnati. Sure they're not winners off the field, but it's not like they are god awful on it. The Bengals are a football team, not a PR firm. If these moves make them a better team, I'm all for it. I'm hoping for a Matt Jones Wildcat package this fall.

[Saintsfan]

Wish they wanted McNabb...

No, I heard the Bills and the Browns want McNabb. I want Kolb as my starting QB. Granted, he wouldn't be throwing very much for me, but I trust him more than I trust McNabb.

I'm not sure how McNabb makes sense for a young and crappy team. I could see Heckert and the Browns making a play for Kolb, and I hope the Eagles don't go for it. Kolb is my starter next season, with AJ Feeley as #2 or #3 depending on what happens with Vick (who I hope is gone, but I wouldn't gripe if he wasn't.) If Kolb goes down, Feeley is more than capable of handing off to McCoy 80+ times per game.

I think the Bills or Browns make far more sense than the Cardinals or Vikings as a destination for McNabb. Teams who haven't won for a while are more likely to trade for a star QB, if only for shirt sales. I still think McNabb will be an Eagle for 2010 though, because without a new contract his trade value is relatively minimal, and who is gonna trade for a guy who would be a free agent after 1 year. But I do think a less succesful team like the Bills or Browns could make some overtures McNabb's way.

The Browns sure as hell don't need "shirt sales". The city is still crazy for the team even after the decline. The Cards or Vikes would make a lot more sense, they're almost there. The Browns would accomplish nothing by bringing in an unhappy McNabb to a team that still wouldn't make the playoffs. If Quinn isn't your starter then draft a QB this year and develop him by letting him play.

IMO the Vikes won't make a move on a veteran QB this off season other than re-signing Favre if he wants to play. They might well draft for one, if a good one falls far enough down the board. IMO the Cards have to either give Leinert a chance or get rid of him, in that case McNabb might be a decent enough call. But again I would suggest the draft is more of a likely place for them to pick up a QB.

I'm not saying that the Browns need a boost in shirt sales, but even if McNabb doesn't help them progress, then they at least have that as a bonus, so it would be a reasonable punt. The Browns have tried starting a rookie QB often enough and its not worked out often enough. I am not sure they SHOULD trade for McNabb, but I think they are far more likely to than either the Cards or the Vikes personally.

[BBTV]

Wish they wanted McNabb...

No, I heard the Bills and the Browns want McNabb. I want Kolb as my starting QB. Granted, he wouldn't be throwing very much for me, but I trust him more than I trust McNabb.

I'm not sure how McNabb makes sense for a young and crappy team. I could see Heckert and the Browns making a play for Kolb, and I hope the Eagles don't go for it. Kolb is my starter next season, with AJ Feeley as #2 or #3 depending on what happens with Vick (who I hope is gone, but I wouldn't gripe if he wasn't.) If Kolb goes down, Feeley is more than capable of handing off to McCoy 80+ times per game.

I think the Bills or Browns make far more sense than the Cardinals or Vikings as a destination for McNabb. Teams who haven't won for a while are more likely to trade for a star QB, if only for shirt sales. I still think McNabb will be an Eagle for 2010 though, because without a new contract his trade value is relatively minimal, and who is gonna trade for a guy who would be a free agent after 1 year. But I do think a less succesful team like the Bills or Browns could make some overtures McNabb's way.

Please cite examples of young and crappy teams making trades that cost them key draft picks in order to acquire "star" veteran quarterbacks. Please, just a few. Jersey sales are pretty much split between the clubs IIRC, so it doesn't make any sense for them to give up their future just to sell a couple of shirts and lose for the next 10 years.

Also, his contract is part of what does make him valuable - it's low risk for the acquiring team. They can extend him, or use him to "groom" a draft pick or douche like Matt Leinhart (sp?), or let him play hard for his next deal. It's a perfect situation for Minn. and Ariz. to be in.

[BBTV]

The Bengals have once again brought in someone fimiliar with orange and black stripes. This time, it's former Jacksonville WR Matt Jones.

Cincy has also expressed interest in troubled CB Adam 'Pacman' Jones. Sure, why not, right?

...Not to mention the T.O. rumors that have been circulating. God, I wish I could stop liking them!

I'd love all three to play for Cincinnati. Sure they're not winners off the field, but it's not like they are god awful on it. The Bengals are a football team, not a PR firm. If these moves make them a better team, I'm all for it. I'm hoping for a Matt Jones Wildcat package this fall.

How is TO not a winner off the field? IIRC, he's never been involved in any kind of off-field transgressions. Actually, with the charity work he does for Alzheimer's and other community things, I'd say that he is a winner off the field.

[BBTV]

Why do I continue to torture myself by reading these rantings. Could a mod just ban me from this thread???

Thanks.

[Saintsfan]

Wish they wanted McNabb...

No, I heard the Bills and the Browns want McNabb. I want Kolb as my starting QB. Granted, he wouldn't be throwing very much for me, but I trust him more than I trust McNabb.

I'm not sure how McNabb makes sense for a young and crappy team. I could see Heckert and the Browns making a play for Kolb, and I hope the Eagles don't go for it. Kolb is my starter next season, with AJ Feeley as #2 or #3 depending on what happens with Vick (who I hope is gone, but I wouldn't gripe if he wasn't.) If Kolb goes down, Feeley is more than capable of handing off to McCoy 80+ times per game.

I think the Bills or Browns make far more sense than the Cardinals or Vikings as a destination for McNabb. Teams who haven't won for a while are more likely to trade for a star QB, if only for shirt sales. I still think McNabb will be an Eagle for 2010 though, because without a new contract his trade value is relatively minimal, and who is gonna trade for a guy who would be a free agent after 1 year. But I do think a less succesful team like the Bills or Browns could make some overtures McNabb's way.

Please cite examples of young and crappy teams making trades that cost them key draft picks in order to acquire "star" veteran quarterbacks. Please, just a few. Jersey sales are pretty much split between the clubs IIRC, so it doesn't make any sense for them to give up their future just to sell a couple of shirts and lose for the next 10 years.

Also, his contract is part of what does make him valuable - it's low risk for the acquiring team. They can extend him, or use him to "groom" a draft pick or douche like Matt Leinhart (sp?), or let him play hard for his next deal. It's a perfect situation for Minn. and Ariz. to be in.

Off the top of my head, the Cardinals must have given up something for Warner, Matt Cassell cost the Chiefs something, fair enough he was not a veteran. Didn't the Jets have to give up something for Favre?

I think that trading for McNabb for a team like the Vikes or Cardinals is bad bad business. Why trade for a guy who you get one year out of, or have to negotiate an expensive contract, especially given that he would surely command a lot more from a team who have traded for him, than from a team who have picked him up as a free agent? Why would McNabb sign a new contract with any team who've traded for him rather than test free agency? (The difference there being that in the first case the Eagles would have released him, he would be a 'reject' in the second case he would be making the decision to try free agency.)

I'm still not convinced the business of letting McNabb go makes sense, for anyone. The Vikes are probably prepared to wait for Favre, and go with Jackson if he doesn't return, as they would have in 2009, the Cardinals have an expensive former back up that they need to give a chance to, I think the Browns could make a case, but Quinn put in some decent performances late in 2009, the Bills? they seem cash strapped, why would they throw money at such a big gamble? The Eagles would lose a succesful (I know the 0 Superbowl thing, but are we gonna say Marino wasn't succesful and should have been traded by the Dolphins?), veteran QB, and McNabb would have to move to an unfamiliar system, with little long term security.

To me it makes the most sense for McNabb to stay at the Eagles, and either be playing for a new contract or being transitioned into a veteran back up to the new guy, Kolb.

[floydnimrod]

The Bengals have once again brought in someone fimiliar with orange and black stripes. This time, it's former Jacksonville WR Matt Jones.

Cincy has also expressed interest in troubled CB Adam 'Pacman' Jones. Sure, why not, right?

...Not to mention the T.O. rumors that have been circulating. God, I wish I could stop liking them!

I'd love all three to play for Cincinnati. Sure they're not winners off the field, but it's not like they are god awful on it. The Bengals are a football team, not a PR firm. If these moves make them a better team, I'm all for it. I'm hoping for a Matt Jones Wildcat package this fall.

How is TO not a winner off the field? IIRC, he's never been involved in any kind of off-field transgressions. Actually, with the charity work he does for Alzheimer's and other community things, I'd say that he is a winner off the field.

I didn't mean to imply that he was a criminal, but I think it's safe to say he hasn't been the greatest teammate in the locker room. But there was his apparent suicide attempt a few years back.

[rams80]

Off the top of my head, the Cardinals must have given up something for Warner, Matt Cassell cost the Chiefs something, fair enough he was not a veteran. Didn't the Jets have to give up something for Favre?

Warner signed with Arizona as a free agent, and the Jets traded a conditional 4th round draft pick to the Packers for St. Brett of Kiln that could have risen in value had the Jets made the playoffs and advanced in them.

I think that trading for McNabb for a team like the Vikes or Cardinals is bad bad business. Why trade for a guy who you get one year out of, or have to negotiate an expensive contract, especially given that he would surely command a lot more from a team who have traded for him, than from a team who have picked him up as a free agent? Why would McNabb sign a new contract with any team who've traded for him rather than test free agency? (The difference there being that in the first case the Eagles would have released him, he would be a 'reject' in the second case he would be making the decision to try free agency.)

Because they give you a better chance of winning the ing Super Bowl than what you have now.

As for contract issues-Point 1: The salary cap may be going away, which means the trading team can break the bank for McNabb if they want the long term, or they can just use the rental for a chance to win the Super Bowl when your window is closing.

Point 2: If you do succeed in winning the Super Bowl or getting close, wouldn't you want to stay?

I'm still not convinced the business of letting McNabb go makes sense, for anyone. The Vikes are probably prepared to wait for Favre, and go with Jackson if he doesn't return, as they would have in 2009, the Cardinals have an expensive former back up that they need to give a chance to, I think the Browns could make a case, but Quinn put in some decent performances late in 2009, the Bills? they seem cash strapped, why would they throw money at such a big gamble? The Eagles would lose a succesful (I know the 0 Superbowl thing, but are we gonna say Marino wasn't succesful and should have been traded by the Dolphins?), veteran QB, and McNabb would have to move to an unfamiliar system, with little long term security.

The situation in Philly appears to be toxic, which is why a change makes sense. As for why Arizona or Minnesota would make a move...He's better than what you have now. This is important when your team's window to win a Super Bowl is closing, and it looks to be for both teams.

To me it makes the most sense for McNabb to stay at the Eagles, and either be playing for a new contract or being transitioned into a veteran back up to the new guy, Kolb.

McNabb, and indeed any QB, would never tolerate being transitioned into a backup role with the team they started for.

[BBTV]

Rams, don't waste your time.

[Saintsfan]

Here is my honest rating (and its only my opinion) of the likelihood of McNabb playing with the following teams in 2010

The Minnesota Vikings- Incredibly small chance. (Even without Favre they have Resenfells and Jackson)

Arizona Cardinals- Unlikely given that the team really has to give Leinert his shot.

Cleveland Browns- A possibility, though not a big chance IMO, especially given Brady Quinn's performances in the back end of the 2010 season.

Buffalo Bills- If anyone is gonna make a serious play for McNabb, from the teams so far mentioned in this thread, its the Bills. But I personally doubt the Bills would be prepared to give up enough to get McNabb.

Philadelphia Eagles- More than likely at this stage. 2009 stats were good, could be playing for a new contract, so no reason to think 2010 stats would not be good. Takes pressure of Kolb.

The situation in Philly appears to be toxic, which is why a change makes sense. As for why Arizona or Minnesota would make a move...He's better than what you have now. This is important when your team's window to win a Super Bowl is closing, and it looks to be for both teams.

Some may argue but from a Philly perspective he is better than what they have as understudies, and their Super Bowl window is closing.

I really don't sense that the situation in Philly is toxic. I understand that there is value in moving McNabb on now, while he still has a contract, and you can have some say in where he goes, and he still has trade value. But I don't sense from reading around all of this at the moment, that there is any urgency to move McNabb on from a footballing perspective right now.

[BBTV]

Here is my honest rating (and its only my opinion) of the likelihood of McNabb playing with the following teams in 2010

The Minnesota Vikings- Incredibly small chance. (Even without Favre they have Resenfells and Jackson)

Arizona Cardinals- Unlikely given that the team really has to give Leinert his shot.

Cleveland Browns- A possibility, though not a big chance IMO, especially given Brady Quinn's performances in the back end of the 2010 season.

Buffalo Bills- If anyone is gonna make a serious play for McNabb, from the teams so far mentioned in this thread, its the Bills. But I personally doubt the Bills would be prepared to give up enough to get McNabb.

Philadelphia Eagles- More than likely at this stage. 2009 stats were good, could be playing for a new contract, so no reason to think 2010 stats would not be good. Takes pressure of Kolb.

The situation in Philly appears to be toxic, which is why a change makes sense. As for why Arizona or Minnesota would make a move...He's better than what you have now. This is important when your team's window to win a Super Bowl is closing, and it looks to be for both teams.

Some may argue but from a Philly perspective he is better than what they have as understudies, and their Super Bowl window is closing.

I really don't sense that the situation in Philly is toxic. I understand that there is value in moving McNabb on now, while he still has a contract, and you can have some say in where he goes, and he still has trade value. But I don't sense from reading around all of this at the moment, that there is any urgency to move McNabb on from a footballing perspective right now.

Besides the fact that I couldn't agree less with your predictions if you predicted that starting next year 2 + 2 would equal 5, I'll throw out that you're in no position to "sense" whether or not the situation in Philly is toxic.

At the end-of-year employee party the other night, a couple of players were there, and many of the star-player names got mentioned by the various speakers as a way to get a "cheap pop". McNabb's name was not mentioned, nor were there any photos of him in the room, nor did any of the highlight videos focus on him. The general vibe from the employees (note - I'm not talking about the actual football-decision makers, just the stadium and event staff) (staff management does get direction from the football dept. about who they should and shouldn't promote though) was that he's a POS and would have been booed at the employee party. If that's not toxic, I don't know what is. But feel free to have your opinions from 5,000 miles away.

[Saintsfan]

At the end-of-year employee party the other night, a couple of players were there, and many of the star-player names got mentioned by the various speakers as a way to get a "cheap pop". McNabb's name was not mentioned, nor were there any photos of him in the room, nor did any of the highlight videos focus on him. The general vibe from the employees (note - I'm not talking about the actual football-decision makers, just the stadium and event staff) (staff management does get direction from the football dept. about who they should and shouldn't promote though) was that he's a POS and would have been booed at the employee party. If that's not toxic, I don't know what is. But feel free to have your opinions from 5,000 miles away.

None of that is a reason to get rid of a guy. Plenty of top sportsmen and women are regarded as POS's by people around the teams they play for (need I mention Ty Cobb as the most obvious and famous of examples). If the organisation (and by that I mean the front office and the coaching staff) sees the guy as important to the team on the field, they will remain in the team. Teams cope with an amazing amount of internal conflict sometimes, if those in conflict are seen as important to the performance of the team on the field. And really nothing I have seen or read on the matter (having taken an interest in it following this thread) really leads me to believe that the Eagles are pushing McNabb out of the door. They may end up trading him, but they would be sure to get a good deal out of it first, and I am not sure that the Cardinals or Vikings would be prepared to give up enough in order to get a starting QB who may well only be around for 2 or 3 years.

Consider these few facts. How many QBs have been succesful with more than 1 team? How many teams have ever been prepared to trade for an elite QB? What would the trade value of McNabb be? (I am guessing at least a high round 2 pick, if not a round 1 pick). For teams with low draft picks to give up, I don't see that McNabb is a gamble worth taking.

Take both Warner and Favre as recent examples of QBs who have had success at 2 teams. They both had a spell at a 3rd team, between the two they succeeded at. Even for the best of the best QBs transitioning between systems is very hard. Most front office guys know that. Thats why they prefer to get starting QBs through the draft, or as a relatively risk free free agency signing.

[BBTV]

Consider these few facts. How many QBs have been succesful with more than 1 team? How many teams have ever been prepared to trade for an elite QB? What would the trade value of McNabb be? (I am guessing at least a high round 2 pick, if not a round 1 pick). For teams with low draft picks to give up, I don't see that McNabb is a gamble worth taking.

Thank you for proving my point.

The Browns and Bills would not give up a low draft pick. It would make no sense for them to give up a top 10 pick for a veteran QB. There is 0 chance of it happening. Stop bringing up those teams. Please. I've been arguing this all along. But a team like the Vikings (who has shown that they would go after an elite QB to put them over the edge, albeit via FA last time vs. trade) or Cardinals who have high draft picks (close to the end of first and second round) it's less of a gamble. What's a bigger gamble for the Vikings - giving up the 30th or 62nd pick to draft a guy who won't play right away, or going in to a "championship" season with Tavaris Jackson as the QB. If you answer that giving up that draft pick is more risky, than I'm not sure what to say.

As for QBs being successful with more than one team, it's completely irrelevant. Most "successful" quarterbacks haven't had to play with more than one team, and if they did, it was at the end of their careers when they sucked. The system is what's important here, and McNabb's flaws would be minimized in Childress' offense.

That, coupled with the fact that DeShawn Jackson and Jeremy Maclin are both on record as stating that they have a better report with Kolb only points to the likelihood that McNabb is gone. It's not a 100% stone-cold mortal lock, but better than 50%.

[Saintsfan]

Consider these few facts. How many QBs have been succesful with more than 1 team? How many teams have ever been prepared to trade for an elite QB? What would the trade value of McNabb be? (I am guessing at least a high round 2 pick, if not a round 1 pick). For teams with low draft picks to give up, I don't see that McNabb is a gamble worth taking.

Thank you for proving my point.

The Browns and Bills would not give up a low draft pick. It would make no sense for them to give up a top 10 pick for a veteran QB. There is 0 chance of it happening. Stop bringing up those teams. Please. I've been arguing this all along. But a team like the Vikings (who has shown that they would go after an elite QB to put them over the edge, albeit via FA last time vs. trade) or Cardinals who have high draft picks (close to the end of first and second round) it's less of a gamble. What's a bigger gamble for the Vikings - giving up the 30th or 62nd pick to draft a guy who won't play right away, or going in to a "championship" season with Tavaris Jackson as the QB. If you answer that giving up that draft pick is more risky, than I'm not sure what to say.

As for QBs being successful with more than one team, it's completely irrelevant. Most "successful" quarterbacks haven't had to play with more than one team, and if they did, it was at the end of their careers when they sucked. The system is what's important here, and McNabb's flaws would be minimized in Childress' offense.

That, coupled with the fact that DeShawn Jackson and Jeremy Maclin are both on record as stating that they have a better report with Kolb only points to the likelihood that McNabb is gone. It's not a 100% stone-cold mortal lock, but better than 50%.

I am assuming that the Browns and Bills have high picks, as there picks appear high on a draft board. (I understand there may be some confusion with the term 'high draft pick').

But if you are a Vikings or a Cardinals, then you have to consider what you will be giving up to get McNabb, and remember that McNabb might well only be around for another 2 or 3 years. I would imagine with a high draft number/low draft pick, you are gonna have to give up a first round selection for a guy who has been a starter for the Eagles, and if rumors are true remember a lot of the reason to trade his away is that he has an awkward personality, so not certain to get on with the team he is going to. So you are an ageing Vikings or Cardinals team passing up the opportunity to plug in some fresh young talent for a guy who will not be around in 2 or 3 years time.

Add on to the fact that at some point the Cardinals are going to have to give Leinert a decent shot, given the investment you have already put in him, and if you are the Vikings you still have Favre around, and would like him to come back, then I don't see any way a deal to Minnesota or Arizona gets done.

And remember that with Jackson at QB the Vikings went 10-6 in 2008, and that with Peterson at RB they aren't as reliant on a great QB. And the fact that good QBs might yet fall deep into the first round in the draft, and neither the Vikes or the Cardinals really have any need or desire to panic trade for McNabb.

If the Eagles want to ship out McNabb, then there are other places McNabb might end up, but I would put good money on it not being Arizona or Minnesota.

[rams80]

Consider these few facts. How many QBs have been succesful with more than 1 team? How many teams have ever been prepared to trade for an elite QB? What would the trade value of McNabb be? (I am guessing at least a high round 2 pick, if not a round 1 pick). For teams with low draft picks to give up, I don't see that McNabb is a gamble worth taking.

Thank you for proving my point.

The Browns and Bills would not give up a low draft pick. It would make no sense for them to give up a top 10 pick for a veteran QB. There is 0 chance of it happening. Stop bringing up those teams. Please. I've been arguing this all along. But a team like the Vikings (who has shown that they would go after an elite QB to put them over the edge, albeit via FA last time vs. trade) or Cardinals who have high draft picks (close to the end of first and second round) it's less of a gamble. What's a bigger gamble for the Vikings - giving up the 30th or 62nd pick to draft a guy who won't play right away, or going in to a "championship" season with Tavaris Jackson as the QB. If you answer that giving up that draft pick is more risky, than I'm not sure what to say.

As for QBs being successful with more than one team, it's completely irrelevant. Most "successful" quarterbacks haven't had to play with more than one team, and if they did, it was at the end of their careers when they sucked. The system is what's important here, and McNabb's flaws would be minimized in Childress' offense.

That, coupled with the fact that DeShawn Jackson and Jeremy Maclin are both on record as stating that they have a better report with Kolb only points to the likelihood that McNabb is gone. It's not a 100% stone-cold mortal lock, but better than 50%.

I am assuming that the Browns and Bills have high picks, as there picks appear high on a draft board. (I understand there may be some confusion with the term 'high draft pick').

But if you are a Vikings or a Cardinals, then you have to consider what you will be giving up to get McNabb, and remember that McNabb might well only be around for another 2 or 3 years. I would imagine with a high draft number/low draft pick, you are gonna have to give up a first round selection for a guy who has been a starter for the Eagles, and if rumors are true remember a lot of the reason to trade his away is that he has an awkward personality, so not certain to get on with the team he is going to. So you are an ageing Vikings or Cardinals team passing up the opportunity to plug in some fresh young talent for a guy who will not be around in 2 or 3 years time.

Add on to the fact that at some point the Cardinals are going to have to give Leinert a decent shot, given the investment you have already put in him, and if you are the Vikings you still have Favre around, and would like him to come back, then I don't see any way a deal to Minnesota or Arizona gets done.

And remember that with Jackson at QB the Vikings went 10-6 in 2008, and that with Peterson at RB they aren't as reliant on a great QB. And the fact that good QBs might yet fall deep into the first round in the draft, and neither the Vikes or the Cardinals really have any need or desire to panic trade for McNabb.

If the Eagles want to ship out McNabb, then there are other places McNabb might end up, but I would put good money on it not being Arizona or Minnesota.

Quick question Saintsfan. Do you understand what "The future is now" means? That is the situation that Minnesota and Arizona find themselves in.

The Cardinals gave Lienart a shot. He didn't pan out. He's a bust. McNabb is better than him, move on and dump the pick to get him.

The 2008 Vikings went 7-3 with 38-year old demi-incompetent Gus Frerotte helming them after they started the year 0-2 with Jackson at the wheel. Jackson went in midway through the Detroit game when Frerotte got hurt, and got a 3-1* record. Jackson subsequently led them to an opening-round loss against McNabb's Eagles team. If a 38-year-old Gus Frerotte is considered, nay is better than you, you suck. Period.

*-includes last minute win against a Giants team that was resting its starters.

[Saintsfan]

My bad on Jackson, but even still his record is fine for a well if Favre doesn't come back he will do kind of a way. The Vikings have already stated they are prepared to wait for Favre, and would they risk having the contracts of both Favre and McNabb? Somehow I doubt they would want to make that level of financial commitment. (even without a cap in operation).

As for Leinart, I don't think 12 starts as a rookie is really giving a first round draft pick a go. I think that the Cardinals either have to get rid of Leinart and start again with a rookie, or go with Leinart.

I see the 'future is now' point, but at the same time, I think that neither franchise will necesarily want to entrust there franchise to a guy where the only real reason to even think about getting rid of him is because he has a bad reputation as a man. His playing record is right up there as a QB. All the arguments you make for the Cardinals or Vikings could equally be made for the Eagles really. (Kolb being a guy with 4 TDs and 7 interceptions after all). So if the organisation that knows McNabb very well and has been led by him succesfully for a decade, don't want him, why should anyone else really?

[rams80]

You know the fun thing about the NFL? We don't have promotion/relegation. You don't have to sacrifice a chance at a championship in the name of being consistently good. McNabb can be a rental, a merc to give you a ring. You don't need to like him or keep him around long term. Shoot, I think Childress and Favre hate strongly dislike each other and yet they kept it sort of together for one year. Ultimately, if you get a ring it was worth it. Period.

Also, as a general salary note, there's a very good chance the salary cap is going away for at least next season. It is therefore unnecessary to find room for a player's contract.

On a case by case front; Leinart had his shot-two NFL seasons and he then lost in a preseason QB competition during his 3rd. Arizona couldn't afford to screw around waiting for him to figure things out, so they went with Warner. That point is even more true now. He might be good in an emergency, but beyond that you need more. For flip's sake, the Rams damn near beat the Cardinals last year because Leinart went in to replace an injured Warner.

Jackson's "fine for awhile" does not equate to "will win championship". That latter is what the Vikings want. And that is what the Vikings will seek.

[BBTV]

My bad on Jackson, but even still his record is fine for a well if Favre doesn't come back he will do kind of a way. The Vikings have already stated they are prepared to wait for Favre, and would they risk having the contracts of both Favre and McNabb? Somehow I doubt they would want to make that level of financial commitment. (even without a cap in operation).

As for Leinart, I don't think 12 starts as a rookie is really giving a first round draft pick a go. I think that the Cardinals either have to get rid of Leinart and start again with a rookie, or go with Leinart.

I see the 'future is now' point, but at the same time, I think that neither franchise will necesarily want to entrust there franchise to a guy where the only real reason to even think about getting rid of him is because he has a bad reputation as a man. His playing record is right up there as a QB. All the arguments you make for the Cardinals or Vikings could equally be made for the Eagles really. (Kolb being a guy with 4 TDs and 7 interceptions after all). So if the organisation that knows McNabb very well and has been led by him succesfully for a decade, don't want him, why should anyone else really?

He is not a bad man. He has personality quirks, and rubs a lot of people the wrong way (he thinks he's funny when he's not, he never accepts blame for losses or poor throws, he air-guitars before a huge playoff game and then sucks, etc.) but he's not a bad dude - not in the way that would cause a team to get rid of him just for it. It is debatable whether or not the other players buy in to his leadership (I don't think that they do, which is one of the reasons why the Eagles got rid of all of their "true" leaders over the past few years - they wanted to force McNabb as the leader, and it didn't work out) but again, by itself, it's not enough to get rid of him.

They need to get rid of him because he's proven time and time again that he cannot win with this team, he cannot come up big when it matters most, the fan base can't stand him (both for his play and his personality), and they have a young guy that they have to give a shot before deciding to let him go or not (and said young guy has a better report with the "new blood" nucleus of the team.)

The offense has turned over. Gone are Westbrook, Chad Lewis/LJ Smith, [insert inept receiver here], in are LeShawn McCoy, DeShawn Jackson, JeJeremy Maclin [sic], and Brent Celek. If those guys have bonded with Kolb, then turn the whole damn thing over and ship Chunky Soup out the door.

Oh - and if you're Minnesota, good luck selling Tavaris Jackson to your fan base. That's really showing them that you're going all out. The draft picks are worthless to them right now - this isn't a team that's had sustained success and needs the draft to battle attrition. This is a team that's close, and just needs to do whatever it takes to get over the hump. If they suffer for a little bit after, that's fine - by then, they will have had their parade, won the good will necessary to get funding for their stadium, and cashed a lot of checks.

If Favre doesn't come back, and if the Eagles do in fact deal McNabb, I'll put a "Saintsfan told me so" sig up for two weeks if the trade isn't to Arizona or Minnesota or one or two other teams that I'll finalize later (I'm thinking the two Florida AFC teams, but I don't know enough right now about their situations to really speak confidently about it.) I'm not saying that those two teams are the only contenders, but that they're the ones that need it the most.

Either way, I guarantee that it won't be Cleveland or Buffalo.

[The_Admiral]

Rams, don't waste your time.

*wastes veritable sh-t ton of time*