NFL Faceoff: Worst QB situation? NFL in London? Missed trade opportunities?
CBSSports.com Community members take on the hottest issues of the day.
| NFL Message Board | Group | Thread: Worst quarterback in the league? | Thread: JaMarcus Russell? | |
| Which of the NFL’s many bad teams has the worst QB situation? | |
 wildcatsfan1: I think it’s the Rams... by a slim margin. There are other bad teams, like the Lions, Chiefs, Browns and Titans, but in those cases the problem isn’t entirely because of quarterback play. It’s easy to blame JaMarcus Russell for the Raiders horrendous offense, but who’s he throwing to? I almost went with the Panthers, but A.J. Feely has done well in this league as a backup. Luke McCown, the Jaguars backup, has also seen some playing time. It was minimal, but it was some. The Rams are stuck with an aging veteran who, in my estimation, is closing in on his expiration date. Kyle Boller, meanwhile, couldn’t even win the Ravens job before Joe Flacco got there. And, really, what competition did he have? On top of that, Stephen Jackson is still a very good back who should be able to open the field up for his quarterback, but even he can’t help these guys. Marc Bulger seems to be injured almost every year, but you don’t notice much of a difference when he’s out. Fortunately for them, they look to be headed towards another bad season and a high draft pick. Maybe if they get into a good spot they can grab a signal-caller out of the college ranks. In any case, the days of the “Greatest Show on Turf” are LONG gone, and I can’t see anybody on that depth chart changing that. They don’t have any talented, young kids they can turn to. There's nobody they can stick out there to take some lumps and learn the game. They have two bad veterans, which is always worse than a having a bad young player who still has time to learn. Bulger and Boller are nowhere near what you would call “franchise” quarterbacks, and neither is going to be there much longer if the Rams can find a suitable solution. |  billdawg12185: The Raiders are in a heap of trouble and, as usual, it spawns from their absolutely terrible drafting. Instead of taking a traditional drop-back passer, Al Davis committed a ton of money the mountain of blubber known as JaMarcus Russell. His entire upside was that he was a mobile QB, but the guy’s so out of shape that he can’t run. He has 38 rushing yards this year. You can’t tell me they wouldn’t be better off with Brady Quinn, who they passed on in the 2007 draft. Quinn isn’t great at this point, but he has lots of growing to do. Plus, he’s already a better passer, and is, at this point, just as mobile as Russell. He has 34 rushing yards in only three games. In any case, the Raiders are masters at shooting themselves in the foot. As far as their backups go, Bruce Gradkowski and Charlie Frye have had some chances, and they’ve repeatedly proven to be completely ineffective at the NFL level. Yep... the Raiders are stuck, and they won’t get out of it until Al Davis stops making the calls. Just check the stats for Darrius Heyward-Bey if you need proof. |
| Is starting an NFL franchise in London a good idea? | |
wildcatsfan1: In a few words... No. Ney. Niet. Non.  Why in the world would Goodell even consider it? One game, or maybe two, next year is more than enough. For one, you would be asking a team to fly over there once a year if they end up in the division with that team, which is undoubtedly an unfair advantage to all the teams that don’t have to make that trip. On top of that, there are plenty of great sports cities in America that don’t have a team and could be great homes. I’ll start with the obvious... Los Angeles. The city supports two teams in most sports. Portland is also a great sports city. Plus, football isn’t a game like hockey or basketball that is quickly expanding internationally. Those sports have players on every team from Europe or Asian. Football is an American sport. Obviously, it’s not something that’s going to make the Olympics anytime soon. So, if the rest of the world doesn’t have a huge interest in it, why shove it on them when there are U.S. cities filled with people who tune in every Sunday? There are plenty of places full of fans that watch from kickoff at 1 p.m. until the end of Sunday Night Football... every week. These fans would love to have a team to call their own. The London idea makes very little sense, and I don’t see how much it could possibly help a sport that is already the premier sports business in America. The other sports are the ones that need to catch up to the NFL, not vice versa. “Don’t fix something that’s not broken.” | billdawg12185: No. Terrible idea. There’s a reason NFL  Europe failed, and that reason is soccer. The guys on the other side of the pond already have their NFL. They commit the same amount of time and energy to cheering for their favorite futbol club that we spend every Sunday. It’s the same reason soccer doesn’t work in the U.S. It would also cause a ton of problems logistically. Obviously, teams from the West Coast will have to play them sometimes, and vis versa. That trip puts every team that takes it at a huge disadvantage. The only way to fix that, then, would be to tinker with the schedule. Make it so teams traveling get an extra day, which would probably mean Tuesday night football. In any case, there are a lot of better places to expand, if that’s what the NFL wants. Los Angeles is the obvious choice, but Mexico City is also a place the league has spent a ton of money trying to develop a fan base. There are also some cities in Canada to look at. All those places already know the game, and wouldn’t really tax the NFL travel-wise. |
| What team needed most to make a move at the trade deadline? | ||
wildcatsfan1: It’s really hard to say. Football isn’t  a sport where blockbuster deals go down every year. It’s very rare to hear of a major move at the trade deadline. I guess, if we wanted to say who could most afford to have ATTEMPTED to address an issue they have in order to make a run at the playoffs, I think I’d go with someone like Chicago. The Bears are a team that is slowly fading, and could have had talks with a team like Carolina, for Steve Smith, or Buffalo, for Terrell Owens. The Bears don’t have a ton of playmakers around Jay Cutler, and Matt Forte has been a bust this year. The defense just got shredded, and it may be that they have to outscore teams in order to win. There were other teams in the hunt that maybe could have made a move, but none that had a problem that seemed to stand out as much as the Bears’ lack of offensive weapons. With that in mind, I think receivers are some of the easier parts to be moved. In contrast, think about the Jets. New York lost Kris Jenkins... but how often is it a team can go out and get a top-end defensive tackle in the middle of the season? It basically doesn’t happen. Receivers, on the other hand, are there to be had. Again, I think this is somewhat of a tricky question, but given all the teams in the playoff hunt, and the availability of players at each position, I would say the Bears should have went for another wide out to help Devin Hester and Cutler. | billdawg12185: This might not be the obvious choice, but I’ll say the Texans. They’re a team really trying to break through to a playoff position, and the way Matt Schaub and Andre Johnson have been playing, they have a shot. They do need a little help, though. Now, as far as the team to cannibalize, you’ve got to look at Carolina. Taking Terrell Owens from Buffalo would be one way to go, but I think Steve Smith or even DeAngelo Williams could have been had for draft picks. Granted, we’re probably talking first-rounders here, but the Texans could have gotten proven talent back in return. I’m not saying that one or two moves could have helped Houston beat out the Colts for the AFC South title, but picking up a complementary receiver or a devastating running back to pair with Steve Slaton would have given them a definite chance at a wild card. And I know that blockbuster trades aren’t the norm in the NFL, but there’s absolutely no reason that should be the case, especially with interchangeable positions like backs and receivers. | |
| | ||
