Kolb Mania Continues! Clayton: Kolb Worth Risk

[Arizona's Finest]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=6586667

Makes a fair case for the Anti Kolb Coalition. I like Kolb and I defintley would rather give up a pick or 2 for him then settle on Bulger.

Clayton also mentions Orton as back up plan.

Seriously is this the only story going on right now? Cards havent gotten this much talk since Super Bowl run.

 

[DoTheDew]

Clayton has been preaching all along that we will offer two 2nds for Kolb. If that is the price then he is definitely worth the risk. If it is a first, or worse a first and a player like has been rumored, then hell no.

 

[THESMEL]

Kolb was terrible in his debut as a starter, better than DA and Hall but still terrible.

East coast bias would love to see us give 2- 1st picks for him! They are like that spell on Harry Potter where the bug thingy was in agony, They would love to see the Cards in agony like that. FOREVER

We have Mike Miller our former PGC as OC and Chris miller as a QB coach ( He was turned down by a crappy college) ! You know the ones that developed DA and Hall in the worse QB's in the history of earth.

Cards have a broken picker, and broken thinkers, We'll probably trade Beanie for Kolb.

 

[O]

Kolb was terrible in his debut as a starter, better than DA and Hall but still terrible.

East coast bias would love to see us give 2- 1st picks for him! They are like that spell on Harry Potter where the bug thingy was in agony, They would love to see the Cards in agony like that. FOREVER

We have Mike Miller our former PGC as OC and Chris miller as a QB coach ( He was turned down by a crappy college) ! You know the ones that developed DA and Hall in the worse QB's in the history of earth.

Cards have a broken picker, and broken thinkers, We'll probably trade Beanie for Kolb.

Can we offer you in a trade?

 

[40yearfan]

Can we offer you in a trade?

What would you do with a half-eaten bag of M & M's?

 

[O]

What would you do with a half-eaten bag of M & M's?

Peanuts or plain?

 

[SpokaneCardfan]

Peanuts or plain?

Go to be nuts!!

 

[Cardiac]

Can we offer you in a trade?

What would you do with a half-eaten bag of M & M's?

Peanuts or plain?

Go to be nuts!!

Good stuff gents.

Riddle me this. Why not take the Seahawks proposed plan that Clayton has at the end of the article? We sign Hasselback and then draft a young franchise QB next year.

 

[HoodieBets]

Good stuff gents.

Riddle me this. Why not take the Seahawks proposed plan that Clayton has at the end of the article? We sign Hasselback and then draft a young franchise QB next year.

Because we can't wait 3-5 years to be great. If they as an organization decide hey we are just gonna put on a band aid for a couple years then not only will whiz get fired but fitz will be gone and if he leaves this org is going to look really bad.

 

[TJ]

Kolb was terrible in his debut as a starter, better than DA and Hall but still terrible.

East coast bias would love to see us give 2- 1st picks for him! They are like that spell on Harry Potter where the bug thingy was in agony, They would love to see the Cards in agony like that. FOREVER

We have Mike Miller our former PGC as OC and Chris miller as a QB coach ( He was turned down by a crappy college) ! You know the ones that developed DA and Hall in the worse QB's in the history of earth.

Cards have a broken picker, and broken thinkers, We'll probably trade Beanie for Kolb.

You were turned down by many things. Most importantly, a good English teacher

 

[JeffGollin]

Because we can't wait 3-5 years to be great. If they as an organization decide hey we are just gonna put on a band aid for a couple years then not only will whiz get fired but fitz will be gone and if he leaves this org is going to look really bad.

We wouldn't have to wait for 3-5 years, because Hasselbeck would be good enough to put us in contention and we'd be giving Skelton and Bartell an additional year or two to develop. This would give us three parallel tracks to pursue:

Year 1 & 2 - Hasselbeck with Bartell and Skelton developing as backups

Years 2 or 3 - 5 - Bartell and Skelton

Or Year 2 or 3- 5 - Bartell and Skelton backed up/pushed and eventually replaced by a newly drafted QBOF (if and when he is good enough).

This strategy would address our immediate need while keeping a maximum number of options open to us over the long haul.

 

[kerouac9]

Awesome tags. Two ledes buried in this article:

1) Apparently #7 never really had a shot to be the starting quarterback of the Arizona Cardinals.

2) Charlie Whitehurst turned down Coach Whisenhunt.

 

[HoodieBets]

We wouldn't have to wait for 3-5 years, because Hasselbeck would be good enough to put us in contention and we'd be giving Skelton and Bartell an additional year or two to develop. This would give us three parallel tracks to pursue:

Year 1 & 2 - Hasselbeck with Bartell and Skelton developing as backups

Years 2 or 3 - 5 - Bartell and Skelton

Or Year 2 or 3- 5 - Bartell and Skelton backed up/pushed and eventually replaced by a newly drafted QBOF (if and when he is good enough).

This strategy would address our immediate need while keeping a maximum number of options open to us over the long haul.

This sounds all well and good until matt gets hurt like he normally does every year and we are stuck with an undeveloped skelton for about 4 games a year. Id rather not risk having an aging vet where we don't know what we will get. What if skelton shows all he is is a decent #2? That would set up back close to 6 years, 2 to develop 2 to show and 2 for a new rookie to devlop. If we are at a point where the plan is to go with skelton we can't draft a QB in the first round for the next couple years because it will show that we don't believe in skelton and would ruin any chance of him ever being the QB.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Awesome tags. Two ledes buried in this article:

1) Apparently #7 never really had a shot to be the starting quarterback of the Arizona Cardinals.

2) Charlie Whitehurst turned down Coach Whisenhunt.

Alot of specualtion on your's and Clayton's part. I wouldn't say Whitehurst turned down Whiz. It was just a better oppurtunity in Seattle. In Seattle, he would be going against an aging, injury prone veteran in Hassleback with no other viable QB on the roster. In Arizona, he was up against a former #1 pick that was likely assumed the starter. If ML would have seized the job then Whitehurst is stuck in the same situation he had just left in SD. I don't blame him at all for going to Seattle. I would have done the same thing. I'm sure if he would have known ML would flame out and Hasselback would be relatively healthy all year, his decision may have been different.

As for ML not being in the mix for starting, you know that is not true. In fact, iirc at the time, they said they signed DA with the purpose of backing up Leinart. Once camp started, the coaches saw the players weren't responding to ML,he wasn't making plays, or he wasn't putting in the effort, and moved in another direction. That's what happened.

 

[Duckjake]

Alot of specualtion on your's and Clayton's part. I wouldn't say Whitehurst turned down Whiz. It was just a better oppurtunity in Seattle. In Seattle, he would be going against an aging, injury prone veteran in Hassleback with no other viable QB on the roster. In Arizona, he was up against a former #1 pick that was likely assumed the starter. If ML would have seized the job then Whitehurst is stuck in the same situation he had just left in SD. I don't blame him at all for going to Seattle. I would have done the same thing. I'm sure if he would have known ML would flame out and Hasselback would be relatively healthy all year, his decision may have been different.

As for ML not being in the mix for starting, you know that is not true. In fact, iirc at the time, they said they signed DA with the purpose of backing up Leinart. Once camp started, the coaches saw the players weren't responding to ML,he wasn't making plays, or he wasn't putting in the effort, and moved in another direction. That's what happened.

Wow. You sure make the Cards seem like a bunch of idiots. "Hey, we just realized this guy who has been a QB on our team for 5 years isn't any good. We HAVE to get rid of him and start a former 6th round draft pick who was absolutely horrible in 2009. And lets back the Wreck up with a guy who has to be the easiest QB to knock down in NFL history.

I'm sure our fans will love going 5-11 and losing 38-7 just a year removed from being NFC West Champs for the second year in a row"

Meanwhile lets draft some more guys in the first round that we can sit on the bench.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Wow. You sure make the Cards seem like a bunch of idiots.

they need no help from Cbus!

 

[Cardiac]

Alot of specualtion on your's and Clayton's part. I wouldn't say Whitehurst turned down Whiz. It was just a better oppurtunity in Seattle. In Seattle, he would be going against an aging, injury prone veteran in Hassleback with no other viable QB on the roster. In Arizona, he was up against a former #1 pick that was likely assumed the starter. If ML would have seized the job then Whitehurst is stuck in the same situation he had just left in SD. I don't blame him at all for going to Seattle. I would have done the same thing. I'm sure if he would have known ML would flame out and Hasselback would be relatively healthy all year, his decision may have been different.

As for ML not being in the mix for starting, you know that is not true. In fact, iirc at the time, they said they signed DA with the purpose of backing up Leinart. Once camp started, the coaches saw the players weren't responding to ML,he wasn't making plays, or he wasn't putting in the effort, and moved in another direction. That's what happened.

This.


There is a different light on a #2 QB then the starter. ML is all free and easy when he isn't the starter then goes captain check down and pouts to the media instead of talking to his HC first. I was backing ML until he went all whiny.

 

[JeffGollin]

This sounds all well and good until matt gets hurt like he normally does every year and we are stuck with an undeveloped skelton for about 4 games a year. Id rather not risk having an aging vet where we don't know what we will get. What if skelton shows all he is is a decent #2?...

We're not going to be able to cover 100% of our downside risks, because all the necessary options available to us aren't all that stellar. So we might be best advised to take the the least risky (though not 100% risk-free) course of action.

We might have to take the calculated risk that Hasselbeck will remain healthy and/or Skelton or Bartell will have developed enough to step in for Hasselbeck if needed.

But if the team still feels that Hasselbeck alone represents too high a risk, we could always bring in a seasoned second-line QB to hedge our bets.

To me, the key to all of this is (a) what are we getting? vs. (b) what we'd have to give up. My great fear is that we'll roll big dice on Kolb only to discover he's no more productive than Derek Anderson was. We wouldn't have to give up anything if we could sign Hasselbeck.

 

[DoTheDew]

Because we can't wait 3-5 years to be great. If they as an organization decide hey we are just gonna put on a band aid for a couple years then not only will whiz get fired but fitz will be gone and if he leaves this org is going to look really bad.

And if we go after Kolb and he ends up not being as great as the hype, then we'll have to wait 3-5 years to even have another QB. Won't be getting one in the draft as we gave up the 1st. Won't be spending money on a FA as we just forked over a nice fat extension to Kolb along with the trade.

You'd have us put all our eggs in one basket on 2 good games and hype. Fitz leaving or staying has everything to do with how successful we are next year. A guy who is unproven could just as easily rush Fitz out the door as he could get him to stay. Don't fool yourself into think Fitz is going to sign an extension the minute we trade for Kolb. He'll wait to see how the season is going.