Does it bother anyone else?

[tonyballs]

I agree about evaluating them on talent alone.

Exactly, because if you want to talk money, guys like Kaepernick and Wilson are in line for huge money, right?

 

[schles192]

Why do you keep mentioning money? Evaluate these guys by talent and talent alone. With that being said, maybe i would swap Stafford for Luck...MAYBE. But probably not...lol. Thats not a knock on Kaepernick or Wilson because they are very good QBs. I just like Staffords upside more...

I would trade for Luck in a heart beat. In a few years he will be the best QB in the league, he can read a D and he is mobile and he is a giant of a man, it will be like Rodgers but with Rapenburgers size.

 

[zyxt9]

CK is the beneficiary of the team he is on. SF has talent that Staff would win the Super Bowl with easily.

Saying CK is better than Staff is equivalent to all those Jets fans who claimed Sanchez was better than Staff because he took the Jets to 2 straight AFC CGs.

As Bo would have said, The TEAM, the TEAM, the TEAM. Put CK on the Lions and they regress because he requires a team that can run and play top 5 defense in order to win. Staff has won without either of those elements being on the team.

Luck, sure, I'd trade for him...but none of the others.

 

[tomdalton22]

Simple system?? lmfao...further proof you dont know wtf you're talking about.

Any one of those guys (Except Cam) could run that system. What is more difficult about that offense than any other that is run in the NFL?

 

[tomdalton22]

I agree about evaluating them on talent alone.

so you don't consider age? If you consider age why not salary? If you can have a cheap QB for 3-4 years that is as good as a QB that is making $15M a year it gives you a HUGE advantage.

 

[Mitchrapp]

so you don't consider age? If you consider age why not salary? If you can have a cheap QB for 3-4 years that is as good as a QB that is making $15M a year it gives you a HUGE advantage.

We're not talking about Staff or Brady here. I'm just looking at the list up above..if those guys continue to be good they'll getting paid so salary would mean little. If they suck, then it doesn't matter.

And of that list, you might think those guys are better than Staff now but I don't so going cheaper but not as good makes little sense to me..

 

[jde7676]

I would definitely take Luck and CK over Stafford without thinking twice. Wilson is right there with Stafford except he might not have the gun or height. He is much more athletic and smarter with the football.

I don't think you can go wrong with any of the 4 though.

Wilson threw a pick once every 39 throws last season where as Stafford did once every 42. So I'm not sure I'd give him credit for being smarter with the football.

 

[mhughes0021]

Wilson threw a pick once every 39 throws last season where as Stafford did once every 42. So I'm not sure I'd give him credit for being smarter with the football.

You're comparing a rookies numbers to staffs? A run heavy offense to ours. Not really fair lol.

And as far as the ease of the offense goes...if culpepper ran it....anyone can.

 

[Mitchrapp]

You're comparing a rookies numbers to staffs? A run heavy offense to ours. Not really fair lol.

And as far as the ease of the offense goes...if culpepper ran it....anyone can.

Culp didn't run it effectively though.

 

[schles192]

Culp didn't run it effectively though.

I think he's talking back in the day when he had 2 hall of fame WR's in Minn.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I think he's talking back in the day when he had 2 hall of fame WR's in Minn.

Oh..