Harry Greene in frustration

[kerouac9]

How many of the QBs that didn't play also didn't hold out?

One less than those that did. What is the argument that you're making? The majority of first round QBs play as rookies. Three-quarters of the Top 10 QBs play as rookies. How are you going to spin that?

 

[kerouac9]

But you have to at least somewhat prove that Rivers holdout cost him the starting job. Rivers had the whole year to take the job from Brees and couldn't, and then couldn't again the next year.Only a serious injury to Brees got Rivers the job, there's no evidence that if Brees hadn't gotten hurt, RIvers wouldn't still be complaining about not playing and demanding a trade.

Not saying QB's missing time is a good thing, but in that case I don't think it cost Rivers the job, I think Brees was simply a better player.

Look at the two articles I edited in. Everyone at the time knew that Rivers' holdout cost him the starting job, and it's even more apparent now.

 

[Russ Smith]

Look at the two articles I edited in. Everyone at the time knew that Rivers' holdout cost him the starting job, and it's even more apparent now.

I think that was a writer speculating that Rivers was drafted to start. He obviously was SUPPOSED to eventually replace Brees who was considered a bust to that point, but that doesn't mean if he'd signed on time he would have started over Brees immediately.

Personally the way Brees played the last 2 years I think he would have beaten out Rivers in camp fair and square, remember the reports were the Chargers were in love with Rivers, they made the deal to get him, and after all that he still barely got off the bench because he was flat outplayed by Brees.

 

[kerouac9]

I think that was a writer speculating that Rivers was drafted to start. He obviously was SUPPOSED to eventually replace Brees who was considered a bust to that point, but that doesn't mean if he'd signed on time he would have started over Brees immediately.

Personally the way Brees played the last 2 years I think he would have beaten out Rivers in camp fair and square, remember the reports were the Chargers were in love with Rivers, they made the deal to get him, and after all that he still barely got off the bench because he was flat outplayed by Brees.

I don't think so, Russ. Check out this article from Len P at ESPN.com from earlier this summer:

Then followed a lengthy holdout, in which Chargers general manager A.J. Smith lobbed salvos at agent Jimmy Sexton, and suggestions that Rivers' absence from training camp cost him an opportunity to compete for the starting job.

Truth be told, despite the holdout and Smith's bombast, Rivers actually challenged for the starting spot deep into the preseason. What also isn't much known is this: At one point very early in the 2004 season, with Brees struggling, coach Marty Schottenheimer considered elevating Rivers to the starting spot.

Man, there's a lot of revisionist history going on in this thread...

 

[Russ Smith]

I don't think so, Russ. Check out this article from Len P at ESPN.com from earlier this summer:



Man, there's a lot of revisionist history going on in this thread...

Could be, but do you really think Len Pasquarelli has better contacts than the GM of the Chargers did?

For the record in the preseason that year Brees playing against first teams had a QB rating of 103.2, Rivers playing against backups had a QB rating of 46.4. Rivers threw 15 less passes than Brees for 268 less yards, Brees averaged nearly 10 YPA that preseason, to 5.5 for Rivers. Do you REALLY believe the Chargers watched those games and seriously considered Rivers should start?

AS for the struggling early comment, Brees had a strong opener, a bad loss to the Jets(2 picks) and a poor game against Denver, and then ripped off 11 TD's to 1 pick in his next 5 games. Do I think after the Denver game San Diego was thinking if he doesn't start to play better, we are going to get Rivers some reps, sure, but were they about to make the change that early without even playing Rivers in any of those first 3 games, I seriously doubt it.

People like Len P get paid to write about QB controversies, if Cutler has another great preseason game and Jake struggles a bit, just watch how quickly ESPN guys are talking about a QB change in Denver.

FYI I'm not an "insider" anymore so I can't read the rest of that article to see what len has to say

 

[Pariah]

People like Len P get paid to write about QB controversies, if Cutler has another great preseason game and Jake struggles a bit, just watch how quickly ESPN guys are talking about a QB change in Denver.

Locally, that talk has already started creeping onto the airwaves. Two weeks ago there was no way hosts were even entertaining ideas of Cutler challenging for the starters position, now they're asking the question. A few more weeks of preformances like the one he put on in Friday's game and they'll be calling for it.

 

[DevonCardsFan]

Easy folks - I think Harry is by far the best contributer this board has.

By far he is the BEST!!! Just over reacting Matt will sign and all will be forgotten

 

[Russ Smith]

Locally, that talk has already started creeping onto the airwaves. Two weeks ago there was no way hosts were even entertaining ideas of Cutler challenging for the starters position, now they're asking the question. A few more weeks of preformances like the one he put on in Friday's game and they'll be calling for it.

I guess that shouldn't shock me. I will NEVER forget after the preseason in Jake's rookie year when the Republic took a poll on who should start and Jake won by a landslide. Jake had completed LESS than 40% of his passes in preseason and led the team in picks, in fact I think he threw more picks than Case and Graham combined, yet fans overwhelming voted that he should start in the opener.

 

[kerouac9]

AS for the struggling early comment, Brees had a strong opener, a bad loss to the Jets(2 picks) and a poor game against Denver, and then ripped off 11 TD's to 1 pick in his next 5 games. Do I think after the Denver game San Diego was thinking if he doesn't start to play better, we are going to get Rivers some reps, sure, but were they about to make the change that early without even playing Rivers in any of those first 3 games, I seriously doubt it.

This is where I think this argument really goes off the rails, Russ. Since when do teams sub out struggling QBs early in the season in mid-game to try out a rookie? Did Denny do it with John Navarre? Of course not. Teams generally name their new starter after the game or mid-week so that the kid can get all the practice reps that week with the first team.

Subbing the player in mid-game is setting him up to fail. Marty Schottenheimer may not be the greatest coach, but he knows better than to do that. You have to be performing miserably to be subbed out mid-game when you're healthy.

Obviously, Len isn't making the mid-season substitution story up out of thin air, but he didn't get the quote that he wanted. Len's not brewing a QB controversy here; he wrote this article a month ago. What's a more reliable source, what the GM said in the paper two months ago in the midst of a brewing QB controversy, or what Len P. writes once the entire situation is resolved, and Drew Brees is throwing passes in New Orleans?

 

[leinart7]

Green and Graves came out on the record Condon did not!

I will believe what people say on the record over rumors.

Not once has Condon refuted on the record what Green/Graves said.

Here is a summary of what they said:

-Did not lowball Leinart
-1st Offer was Slot+10%+QB Premium
-#11 was a QB so they obviously had a QB premium in there

-They have nowincreased that original fair offer which works out to around 12.6 million to 14 or 15 million!


Why doesn't Condon refute this on the record? Maybe because it's true!

All the Condon stuff has been released mostly to that Yahoo guy and it's never directly from Condon. Condon's only on the record comments are "we're talking no details" the details come off the record (all that less then the slot offer etc in that article).

Plus we've all heard that they feel 9 and 11 signed bad deals.
Also that they're using Green's gift comment to get more money, so much so Green had to comment on that using the Moss and Daunte examples!

The reality is since Green got here Rolle and Fitz got fair deals all our draft picks did and Matt's deal is no different (slot+10%+QB premium).

Condon was hired to get Matt to get picked #3 after he started falling in rumors. He didn't so know he wants to do it this way or how can he justify being hired.

Condon has had QB holdout busts before Cade McNown for eg. Maybe he's trying to set Matt up who knows the reality he's had 2 offers from the Cards we know about: a fair one and a more then fair one and he has not signed yet.

Cutler's agent told him wait to see what Matt signs for don't sign a low end deal. Cutler told his agent I don't want to miss camp I'm signing. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Russ Smith]

This is where I think this argument really goes off the rails, Russ. Since when do teams sub out struggling QBs early in the season in mid-game to try out a rookie? Did Denny do it with John Navarre? Of course not. Teams generally name their new starter after the game or mid-week so that the kid can get all the practice reps that week with the first team.

Subbing the player in mid-game is setting him up to fail. Marty Schottenheimer may not be the greatest coach, but he knows better than to do that. You have to be performing miserably to be subbed out mid-game when you're healthy.

Obviously, Len isn't making the mid-season substitution story up out of thin air, but he didn't get the quote that he wanted. Len's not brewing a QB controversy here; he wrote this article a month ago. What's a more reliable source, what the GM said in the paper two months ago in the midst of a brewing QB controversy, or what Len P. writes once the entire situation is resolved, and Drew Brees is throwing passes in New Orleans?

Well again I can't read the whole article but the part I can see it sounds to me like Len interviewed Rivers and got his view of what happened. I posted a story several months ago that quoted a few Chargers players as saying there were some that felt Rivers was talking a bit too much for a guy who hadn't really done anything yet. They basically said there were players on the team that weren't all that convinced Rivers was really the leader yet.

Rivers came out after Brees signed with the Saints and said this is our chance to do something, and several Chargers took that as doesn't he mean it's "his" chance to do something?

The reason I'm skeptical about this report is you have to remember that it was reportedly Marty that pushed for them getting Rivers, he loved him and didn't believe in Brees much. Then Brees had a huge preseason and 2 great years and this offseason you had Marty saying he wanted them to keep Brees, and Smith ultimately deciding to let Brees walk.

Just seems to me that if Marty was really considering making the QB change that early in Rivers rookie season, it would have been a fairly big deal.

And yes I agree when you change to a rookie QB, you don't do it midgame, but I also don't think you typically make a rookie a starter without giving him ANY reps in a real game, especially one who missed 23 days of camp because of his contract. I would submit that if they were really about to change Qb's they would have given Rivers mopup duty in the Broncos's loss, then given him the starting reps during the week prior to the next game.

I guess my point is I really don't think it was just his not signing that cost Rivers the job, he had nearly 2 years to beat out Brees, with a coach that loves him, and still didn't get the job until Brees left.

 

[leinart7]

Rivers might have been slotted to start but that doesn't mean even with camp he would have actually started since most rookie QBs do not start right off the bat - full camp or no full camp.

 

[RedStorm]

Yeah, he never says anything positive...

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/storypage.php?Story_ID=655&Category=cardinals

I think that "balls" comment was completely beneath you End Zone and pretty lame.

If he didn't have "balls" he would write whatever you guys wanted to hear in the first place.

Geez.

Mike

Right on Mike.....

I have been silent on the whole Lienart/Cards negotiation situation. I hoped Matt would have been in here at the start of camp like everyone else. But, the Cards front office need to be somewhat flexible here. They should be offering Lienart a premium for his position above and beyone the slotting. I understand what precedence this sets but how about a precedence that the Cards are committed to winning and will consider ALL when contracts are negotiated. Not just straight forward slotting..

When a team is sitting on 10-12 mil and still can not sign their self ackowledged QB of the future then that tells you something. After watching Navarre on Saturday, all leverage the Cards thought they had just went out the window...

Lienart will be the starting QB next year and for the next 5 years or so even if he never takes a snap this year. Pay the kid for crying out loud and get him into camp. We WILL NEED HIM this year and for many more to come.

Do the right thing....now...

 

[kerouac9]

Rivers might have been slotted to start but that doesn't mean even with camp he would have actually started since most rookie QBs do not start right off the bat - full camp or no full camp.

Read the thread. Most Rookie 1st rounders do start, and nearly all rookie Top 10 picks do. People keep repeating this like it's true, when it's markedly false.

 

[Russ Smith]

Rivers might have been slotted to start but that doesn't mean even with camp he would have actually started since most rookie QBs do not start right off the bat - full camp or no full camp.

For example, Alex Smith was slated to start from day 1, was even named the starter before preseason, but when he looked like a scared rabbit in the preseason, the 49ers quickly changed their minds and started Rattay. Only after Rattay started 4 games and choked late in one of them, did Smith get named the starter. And Smith had played mopup in 2 of those first 4 games so he got his feet wet before he actually played.

In no way do I think it's a GOOD thing that Leinart isn't signed, he needs to be in camp, I'm merely disagreeing with K9 in that I don't think signing late cost Rivers the Chargers job, I think Brees just took it from him fair and square.

 

[kerouac9]

Well again I can't read the whole article...

Here you go... Dateline May 12, 2006...

f the San Diego Chargers stretch out the measuring tape on Philip Rivers, they're likely to find their third-year quarterback hasn't grown even a millimeter since he checked in at precisely 6-foot-5 for the NFL scouting combine workouts at Indianapolis two years ago.

Which isn't to say that Rivers doesn't feel a whole lot taller these days.

"It's hard to put into words, because it really is a feeling more than anything else, but, yeah, I think you do carry yourself a little different when you're the starter," said Rivers, who officially assumes the top rung on the quarterback depth chart Monday morning, when the Chargers commence their organized team activities (OTAs, in league-speak shorthand) sessions. "You walk into the weight room and, whether it's true or not, you feel like all eyes are on you, that everyone is watching for you to take the lead and set the tone. That's something that I had been accustomed to for a long time, and the last two years, I missed it. It's like a part of my game was missing. It's like a part of me was missing."

Fortunately for Rivers, he won't become a real-life Humpty Dumpty, because the departure of starter Drew Brees as an unrestricted free agent this spring has made the former North Carolina State star whole again. The fourth overall choice in the 2004 draft, Rivers sat for two years, appearing in just four games total, as Brees directed a San Diego offense that statistically ranked as one of the league's most explosive units.

But this season, the Rivers puzzle will come complete with an instruction manual for full assembly. And his teammates believe the pieces will all come together snugly.

"Oh, yeah, he's ready for this," star tailback LaDainian Tomlinson said.

Actually, Rivers, having served a patient but often awkward apprenticeship, is way more than ready.

Over the past two seasons, Rivers has banked a lot of money but collected plenty of dust and accumulated considerable rust. Now he gets the chance to amass some victories with a franchise that, despite coming off a disappointing 2005 campaign, will nonetheless enter this season with high expectations. And it will be up to Rivers to overcome his scant playing time and keep the offense rolling.

Eight to 10 franchises figure to trot out new starting quarterbacks in 2006, but few signal callers will come under as much scrutiny as Rivers, who established an NCAA record for most career starts and finished his career as the second-leading passer in college history. But in his four NFL regular-season appearances, none of them starts, Rivers has thrown just 30 passes. He threw more than 30 passes in 29 of his 51 starts at North Carolina State.

And consider this: Even free-agent acquisition Craig Nall, the former backup for Brett Favre in Green Bay who is fighting for the starting job in Buffalo, will enter the '06 season with more pass attempts than Rivers.

We're talking about Craig Nall, no offense intended, for gosh sakes. So you think Rivers, in taking over a Chargers team that statistically ranked No. 10 in total offense and was one of just three teams to score more than 400 points in 2004 and in 2005, won't be under the microscope?

It's a focus, though, that Rivers welcomes. And a degree of heightened attention, despite being the good soldier during his two years of inactivity, for which he yearned.

"In my situation, with Drew as the starter, I had to pull back," Rivers acknowledged. "I mean, just little things, like maybe yelling something [funny] to a defensive back in practice if he got beat, or making some sort of suggestion as to how a route should be run, or how a play might be better if we did it a certain way … I had to bite my tongue. I've never had to play like that before. I've always been an emotional player. That's my game. Having to [temper] that, man, it was hard at times. But as hard and humbling as that was at times, it was part of the process. And, in the long run, it'll make me better."

There is no bitterness in Rivers' voice as he speaks about the experiences of his first two years in the league. He was especially close with Brees, and said if there was any quarterback he would want to learn from, it would be the Chargers' former starter.

"It was actually a healthy and competitive situation," Rivers said. "I mean, Drew knew that I wanted to be on the field. And I knew that Drew was going to do everything he could to keep me off the field. That's the way it's supposed to be, right?"

But when it became apparent that the Chargers would not re-sign Brees, and the five-year veteran subsequently signed with New Orleans as an unrestricted free agent, Rivers relegated the past two years to rearview mirror status. Which, given the bizarre nature of those two seasons, could not have been an easily accomplished task.

Even before the 2004 season, and despite his brilliant college career, Rivers' game was picked apart by some scouts because of his funky, sidearm throwing motion. Then on the draft's first day, he was part of the landmark trade in which the New York Giants chose him fourth overall, and then traded him to San Diego for Eli Manning less than an hour later. Then followed a lengthy holdout, in which Chargers general manager A.J. Smith lobbed salvos at agent Jimmy Sexton, and suggestions that Rivers' absence from training camp cost him an opportunity to compete for the starting job.

Truth be told, despite the holdout and Smith's bombast, Rivers actually challenged for the starting spot deep into the preseason. What also isn't much known is this: At one point very early in the 2004 season, with Brees struggling, coach Marty Schottenheimer considered elevating Rivers to the starting spot.

But just a few days away from officially taking the reins, and even as the offseason speculation continued to swirl over a perceived rift between Smith and Schottenheimer and what it might augur for the franchise, Rivers seemed impervious to any distractions past or present, real or contrived. The lingering controversy over whether Schottenheimer should have started Rivers over Brees in the meaningless '05 season finale, the game in which Brees suffered a shoulder injury? Rivers isn't going to be drawn into the debate.

He is living in the moment, and that means being in an offense that features a superb all-around tailback in Tomlinson, a tight end who can stretch defenses vertically in Antonio Gates and improving wide receivers. The design is not unlike the up-tempo offense in which he played under coordinator Norm Chow in college: Get the ball out, amass plenty of snaps, keep the chains moving, everything predicated on briskness.

It's a blueprint easy for Rivers to reconcile. More important, though, is that he has clearly been embraced by his teammates, young and old, as their new leader.

Rivers, still only 24 years old despite having played four full college seasons and two years in the NFL, has spent considerable time in the offseason working out with teammates. He has been re-energized by being the guy running the practices and presiding again over the impromptu workouts. The swagger is back and, yeah, he does carry himself a little bit taller.

"As much as I don't regret what happened those first two years, this is more fun, definitely," Rivers said. "I'm back to being more myself again. I can say to a [receiver] now, 'Hey, let's try running that [route] this way,' and I don't have to worry about stepping on anyone's toes. And I think the guys respect me. I don't want them thinking, like, 'Well, there's a new quarterback and so we're starting over again.' Or, like, 'Oh well, we're going to have to pick up the slack.' Uh-uh. No way. I know I've got a ways to go, but I think guys realize I can get us there.

"Looking ahead to next week, when the OTAs start, I'm really eager about it. Not anxious, not nervous -- eager. I'm eager to take the lead and see how guys respond to me."

I dunno, Russ. Tons of coaches put their rookie QBs in against live-fire defenses without them getting real-time action in the regular season. I think that happens more times than not. How much mop-up action did Alex Smith get before he got his first start? Ben Roethlisberger? Byron Leftwich took over for Mark Brunell mid-season, but I think that was his first appearance despite missing a good portion of camp as a holdout.

EDIT:...oh, wait... I guess he did. Thirteen pass attempts, completing 11 of them including 2 TDs and no INTs.

EDIT Again: But that's a little different. The Jags lost big in those two games, but the Chargers lost to the Jets by 6 in Week 2 and "only" 15 in Week 3 to Denver.

 

[Russ Smith]

Thanks for posting the story. On the bright side for Rivers it sounds like the team is now behind him, as mentioned there were reports initially they weren't.

Smith played in 2 of the 4 games before he got promoted ahead of Rattay. At the time Nolan said Smith gave them the better chance to win, he clearly didn't, but they were paying the guy so much money that when Rattay showed he was still the same choke under pressure guy, they pretty much had to start Smith.

I guess my point is while I agree with you that not having Leinart signed is a bad thing and may bite us in the butt later this season, I just don't agree that Rivers lost the starting job in San Diego because he signed late.

I can't prove it.

 

[Pariah]

K9, I don't see why you're trotting this article out as proof that River's holdout cost him the starting job. It certainly doesn't indicate that. In fact, if anything, it seems to indicate just the opposite.

Either way, though, it's hardly conclusive of anything.

Then followed a lengthy holdout, in which Chargers general manager A.J. Smith lobbed salvos at agent Jimmy Sexton, and suggestions that Rivers' absence from training camp cost him an opportunity to compete for the starting job.

Here the articlle seems to suggest what you're looking for.

Truth be told, despite the holdout and Smith's bombast, Rivers actually challenged for the starting spot deep into the preseason.What also isn't much known is this: At one point very early in the 2004 season, with Brees struggling, coach Marty Schottenheimer considered elevating Rivers to the starting spot.

...but then in the very next sentence it refutes it.

 

[kerouac9]

How in your mind does that second sentence refute the first? Do you seriously have reading comprehension problems? They obviously address seperate periods of time.

Man, you're way out on the ledge there, Pariah. If you have any evidence that Brees had a solid lock on the starting job before Rivers' holdout, and that Rivers was not expected to play at all his rookie season, I'd love to see you post that. I've more than provided evidence for my point of view.

 

[Russ Smith]

How in your mind does that second sentence refute the first? Do you seriously have reading comprehension problems? They obviously address seperate periods of time.

Man, you're way out on the ledge there, Pariah. If you have any evidence that Brees had a solid lock on the starting job before Rivers' holdout, and that Rivers was not expected to play at all his rookie season, I'd love to see you post that. I've more than provided evidence for my point of view.

I think he was saying that the holdout didn't cost Rivers his chance to start, because the article clearly suggested they were close to actually making him the starter early in the year(presumably after the 3rd game) but chose not to?

Now you could argue if not for the holdout, they WOULD have changed right then, but it would just be a guess.

Frankly I forgot what the original point was, just sign Leinart dammit!

 

[Pariah]

How in your mind does that second sentence refute the first? Do you seriously have reading comprehension problems? They obviously address seperate periods of time.

Man, you're way out on the ledge there, Pariah. If you have any evidence that Brees had a solid lock on the starting job before Rivers' holdout, and that Rivers was not expected to play at all his rookie season, I'd love to see you post that. I've more than provided evidence for my point of view.

Based on this last sentence, I think it might be you that has reading comprehension problems.

You've presented nothing that indicates Rivers lost his job because of a holdout.

And, ease up on the abrasive posts, alright? No one is attacking you personally.

 

[kerouac9]

Based on this last sentence, I think it might be you that has reading comprehension problems.

You've presented nothing that indicates Rivers lost his job because of a holdout.

And, ease up on the abrasive posts, alright? No one is attacking you personally.

Rivers could have competed for the starting job without his holdout, and almost won it with his holdout. Brees was benched for Doug-freaking-Flutie the season before.

I'd just like to see you substantiate your claim that Rivers had no chance of starting as a rookie becuase "rookies don't usually start." I think I've presented evidence against both of those.

 

[Pariah]

Rivers could have competed for the starting job without his holdout, and almost won it with his holdout. Brees was benched for Doug-freaking-Flutie the season before.

First, what does the season before have to do with anything? THAT (2004) season Brees was in the probowl -- that's why Rivers couldn't get on the field.

Second, he didn't win the job--that's all we know. You can come up with your own conclusions as to why, but the "eveidence" you presented doesn't prove anything.

I'd just like to see you substantiate your claim that Rivers had no chance of starting as a rookie becuase "rookies don't usually start." I think I've presented evidence against both of those.

You've proven my claim wrong. Only 46% of first round QBs don't play. The "vast majority" play right away.

If you wanted to get technical, however, I didn't specify 1st rounders--you did. So, we could run the numbers on all QBs drafted and see if I'm right under the paramaters in which I made the statement.

 

[kerouac9]

First, what does the season before have to do with anything? THAT (2004) season Brees was in the probowl -- that's why Rivers couldn't get on the field.

Second, he didn't win the job--that's all we know. You can come up with your own conclusions as to why, but the "eveidence" you presented doesn't prove anything.

You've proven my claim wrong. Only 46% of first round QBs don't play. The "vast majority" play right away.

If you wanted to get technical, however, I didn't specify 1st rounders--you did. So, we could run the numbers on all QBs drafted and see if I'm right under the paramaters in which I made the statement.

 

[Renz]

Wonder if Harry is still pining for Jeff George or Kerry Collins?