Blog Entry

Palmer starting? Call me skeptical

Posted on: October 20, 2011 11:12 am
Edited on: October 20, 2011 11:13 am
 
I'm sorry, I don't believe the Oakland Raiders will start Carson Palmer this weekend. Not yet, anyway.

First of all, it makes no sense. Second, just because someone with the Raiders said Palmer starts, that means it's true? I don't know, I was always predisposed to being ... let's say ... skeptical when the Raiders addressed anything dealing with competitive issues.

Meaning? Meaning I'm not convinced we see Palmer on Sunday.

It just seems as if starting a quarterback who hasn't played in over nine months, has no history with your team or his teammates and isn't in football shape isn't such a smart idea. Yeah, I know, he can hand the ball off 30 or more times to Darren McFadden and Michael Bush, then just step out of the way. But at some point he's going to have to throw, right? It just seems as if the Raiders are taking an unnecessary risk.

Which is why I'm not so sure this happens. I know what offensive coordinator Al Saunders said. But I also know NFL coaches and teams like to play games with opponents, keeping them guessing as to whom or what they're about to face. I just wonder why Saunders -- who works with the Raiders, remember -- would be so candid about his starting quarterback on a Kansas City radio station.

Oakland plays the Chiefs. Saunders used to work for the Chiefs. The Chiefs and Raiders have a long-time hatred for each other. And the Chiefs aren't sure whom they're facing, though they said they believe it's Palmer.

Well, if it is, good luck, Oakland. I hope you know what you're doing. You have a bye after this weekend, a perfect spot for coaches and Palmer to play catch up. Then it's Denver, which is a good way to introduce yourself to your team, followed by San Diego. It sounds like such a natural progression I can't imagine the Raiders wouldn't follow it.

I don't know that they won't.







Category: NFL
Comments

Since: Dec 15, 2007
Posted on: October 21, 2011 9:47 am
 

Palmer starting? Call me skeptical

Your starting choices are Carson Palmer or Kyle Boller.  Really?  There's a question about this?



Since: Sep 25, 2009
Posted on: October 20, 2011 6:52 pm
 

Palmer starting? Call me skeptical

The media hacks will be wrong again and then just quietly pretend they weren't wrong and conveniently never mention it again.  If there was a won-loss record for journalists most of them would have been cut a long time ago. 



Since: Feb 25, 2009
Posted on: October 20, 2011 5:09 pm
 

Palmer starting? Call me skeptical

How has this modern version of Carson Palmer (as opposed to the 2005 vresion) proven himself to be an impact payer?
Ah, the well-beaten dead horse of myth and ignorance. You should pay attention to what actually happened instead of parroting the sports media hacks. The 2006 version (you know, the very next year after he was injured) was so statistically similar to the 2005 version that it barely merits mention. Carson Palmer's completion pecentage has never dropped below 60, he's never thrown more TD's than INT's in a season where he's played more than 4 games, and excepting his first year as a starter, his QB rating has never dropped below 82.4. In fact, his career average is 86.9.

By contrast, Jason Campbell's QB rating has never risen above 86.4 for any year he's played the game. Palmer is an upgrade.

BTW, if the injury wasn't the main reason why Palmer's productivity tailed off (and it wasn't), then what was? Does anybody remember what happened to the Bengals between 2005 and now? The injuries, the flame outs, the trades, the character-related cuts, the death of Henry, the inexplicable implosions on every aspect of the game, including the office and coaches? There is a reason Palmer refused to play another down for the Bengals, and it wasn't because he played poorly.



Since: Aug 18, 2006
Posted on: October 20, 2011 5:05 pm
 

Palmer starting? Call me skeptical

Why is everyone banging on Palmer? He has been in the league 9 years. He is younger than Manning and Brady (am not saying he is on that skill level) and nobody is calling them over the hill. He was all Cincy had at one point and they were winning games. I think this is alot like the Gannon move from years back. 1st and a 2nd is alot to give up but Brown was going to bury and forget this guy so they had to go extreme. Think about it, They have a pretty good team over there but I promise you this. Boller = recipe for disaster. Anyone want to say different? People act like he has sitting on the sofa for years. He has missed 10 weeks of football! Think about that for a second. Heisman Winner, Pro QB missing 10 weeks of football. I would have gave up my 1st rounder just to keep Boller on the sidelines. Hue knows this guy and they go way back. I think this is a good move. If this happened in the off season nobody would have flipped about it. Ask yourself this? Without him do they have ANY chance this year? NO! With him do they have a chance? Maybe, San Diego can fold at ANY moment thanks to Norv "team killer" Turner and the Broncos and Chiefs have nothing going on. The Raiders made move to save their season. Great that they have the Panthers coming up and maybe can keep it close. Just saying this CAN/MAYBE save their season. Palmer made it work in Cincy, why not in Oakland?



Since: Apr 11, 2007
Posted on: October 20, 2011 4:13 pm
 

Palmer starting? Call me skeptical

There are a couple of holes in your reasoning, SeahawksFan4eva. How has this modern version of Carson Palmer (as opposed to the 2005 vresion) proven himself to be an impact payer? By throwing 20 picks last year? By stting on his arse so far this year? What impact? The Bengals (or Bungles, if you prefer) have won as many games this young season as they won ALL of last year with Carson Palmer at quarterback. So if you're judging "impact" in terms of VOP (value over replacement), then Carson's is likely negative... at least it appears to be negative when compared to a rookie QB who was taken in the 2nd round.



Since: Apr 11, 2007
Posted on: October 20, 2011 4:13 pm
 

Palmer starting? Call me skeptical

There are a couple of holes in your reasoning, SeahawksFan4eva. How has this modern version of Carson Palmer (as opposed to the 2005 vresion) proven himself to be an impact payer? By throwing 20 picks last year? By stting on his arse so far this year? What impact? The Bengals (or Bungles, if you prefer) have won as many games this young season as they won ALL of last year with Carson Palmer at quarterback. So if you're judging "impact" in terms of VOP (value over replacement), then Carson's is likely negative... at least it appears to be negative when compared to a rookie QB who was taken in the 2nd round.



Since: Dec 5, 2007
Posted on: October 20, 2011 2:54 pm
 

Palmer starting? Call me skeptical

Look at the trash the raiders have had on their team in years past at the QB position. Palmer is a god send in my opinion. The guy knows how to play and he was fully willing to stay in retirement because he couldnt win with the bungles. You got a guy whos proven to be an impact player at the very least, and now he's been pulled out of retirement because he feel like he can win again. Thats a win-win situation no? You dont forget how to play over the course of 9 months, especially when youve built your life around football. All he's gotta do is hand off to Run DMC to beat a pathetic Chiefs team.



Since: Apr 28, 2008
Posted on: October 20, 2011 1:51 pm
 

Palmer starting? Call me skeptical

As I've said in other posts, how the hell do you have a choice but to start Palmer now?  Boller has been excoriated in the press and at this point I don't think he could possible even WANT to play for the Raiders anymore.  I'm not suggesting that he'd throw a game (he wants to remain on the roster and get paid), but the moment he were to make a mistake or face some adversity, he'd crumble.  And you can't bring Palmer in that situation - have him get his first action when the game is already in jeopardy.  You have to start him and get him acclimated to the game environment.



Since: Sep 26, 2006
Posted on: October 20, 2011 12:50 pm
 

Palmer starting? Call me skeptical

I may not make sense to start Palmer, but it makes less sense to start Boller.



Since: Apr 1, 2007
Posted on: October 20, 2011 12:26 pm
 

Palmer starting? Call me skeptical

I had the same thought as you, initially. Then, I considered, who is best suited to come off the bench, Palmer or Boller? That's what Boller does. What Palmer does is start. So, it makes perfect sense for Palmer to start, get him going at game speed, then call on Boller to do what he does. If all goes well and Palmer can continue, great. If not, no big deal, it's like his preseason. He can get in a series or two, maybe more, then sit. But, in any event, Boller can do what he normally does, come of the bench. Makes perfect sense to me.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com