Pro Football Focus diagnoses Kevin Kolb

[Mulli]

I'm with you on everything but this. If you trade for Kolb, you're not only giving up the two second-rounders (which is as far as I'd go for a guy who wasn't nearly as good in spot duty/early starts as Cassel or Schaub), you're also giving up a six-year, $64 million contract and paying him $40 million or more in the first three years of the deal. Somewhere between Matt Cassel's last contract (six years, $63 million, $28 million in the first two years and over $40 million through the third year--that's slightly less than what the Raiders paid JaMarcus Russell) and Aaron Rodgers's extension (six-years, $65 million, $20 million guaranteed--which is a real bargain made after Rodgers had only started 8 games).

Such a commitment precludes any further development or experimentation with John Skelton, and certainly prevents the Cards from investing a high first-round pick in the position whether it's Luck, Barkeley, Foles, or Landry.

If you trade for Kolb, you better be extremely certain that he's going to be a Top 15 QB for the foreseeable future. If you just think he's the best available guy right now, and you're desperate for any long-term answer for the future, go with a stop-gap like Orton.

I don't really have a lot of problem with the promise that Kolb has as a starter (especially for the West Coast offense that we don't run); my issue is with making this guy the centerpiece of your franchise when we're so incredibly desperate for a QB.

This is a sound post.

 

[HoodieBets]

I'm with you on everything but this. If you trade for Kolb, you're not only giving up the two second-rounders (which is as far as I'd go for a guy who wasn't nearly as good in spot duty/early starts as Cassel or Schaub), you're also giving up a six-year, $64 million contract and paying him $40 million or more in the first three years of the deal. Somewhere between Matt Cassel's last contract (six years, $63 million, $28 million in the first two years and over $40 million through the third year--that's slightly less than what the Raiders paid JaMarcus Russell) and Aaron Rodgers's extension (six-years, $65 million, $20 million guaranteed--which is a real bargain made after Rodgers had only started 8 games).

Such a commitment precludes any further development or experimentation with John Skelton, and certainly prevents the Cards from investing a high first-round pick in the position whether it's Luck, Barkeley, Foles, or Landry.

If you trade for Kolb, you better be extremely certain that he's going to be a Top 15 QB for the foreseeable future. If you just think he's the best available guy right now, and you're desperate for any long-term answer for the future, go with a stop-gap like Orton.

I don't really have a lot of problem with the promise that Kolb has as a starter (especially for the West Coast offense that we don't run); my issue is with making this guy the centerpiece of your franchise when we're so incredibly desperate for a QB.

If we don't trade for him and are so bad we have the first pick we will be paying more for luck who has never played a snap which would also kill skeltons growth so what's the difference besise another year or two of futility since we can't expect any rookie QB to take us to the playoffs right away.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

If we don't trade for him and are so bad we have the first pick we will be paying more for luck who has never played a snap which would also kill skeltons growth so what's the difference besise another year or two of futility since we can't expect any rookie QB to take us to the playoffs right away.

Uh, I think everyone here would prefer to have Luck than Kolb. If not, then you don't pay much attention to college football.

 

[Totally_Red]

I'm with you on everything but this. If you trade for Kolb, you're not only giving up the two second-rounders (which is as far as I'd go for a guy who wasn't nearly as good in spot duty/early starts as Cassel or Schaub), you're also giving up a six-year, $64 million contract and paying him $40 million or more in the first three years of the deal. Somewhere between Matt Cassel's last contract (six years, $63 million, $28 million in the first two years and over $40 million through the third year--that's slightly less than what the Raiders paid JaMarcus Russell) and Aaron Rodgers's extension (six-years, $65 million, $20 million guaranteed--which is a real bargain made after Rodgers had only started 8 games).

Such a commitment precludes any further development or experimentation with John Skelton, and certainly prevents the Cards from investing a high first-round pick in the position whether it's Luck, Barkeley, Foles, or Landry.

If you trade for Kolb, you better be extremely certain that he's going to be a Top 15 QB for the foreseeable future. If you just think he's the best available guy right now, and you're desperate for any long-term answer for the future, go with a stop-gap like Orton.

I don't really have a lot of problem with the promise that Kolb has as a starter (especially for the West Coast offense that we don't run); my issue is with making this guy the centerpiece of your franchise when we're so incredibly desperate for a QB.

Agree with this.

Combine the money and the draft compensation and the Cardinals would be making a substanial committment to Kevin Kolb. The opinions on the guy are mixed, and it is a bit troubling that Reid is willing to give up on him. I can see Reid's viewpoint though, if he is not going to be your franchise quarterback, get something for him, and reload next year in what is said to be a very good 2012 quarterback draft class.

This is essentially a make-or-break gamble for the Cardinals near-term future. It came to this because the Cardinals put all their eggs in the Matt Leinart basket and then dumped him.

The stop-gap versus possible long-term solution is a big issue here. I'm very hesitant to 'over-pay' for Kolb because of the downside risk that if he fails to live up to expectations, the franchise goes south for the next 2-4 years.

 

[HoodieBets]

Uh, I think everyone here would prefer to have Luck than Kolb. If not, then you don't pay much attention to college football.

What if Luck regresses? Loecker was a #1 lock before he went back for his senior year and no rookie is a sure thing. Playing well in college does not always transition over to the NFL.

 

[kerouac9]

If we don't trade for him and are so bad we have the first pick we will be paying more for luck who has never played a snap which would also kill skeltons growth so what's the difference besise another year or two of futility since we can't expect any rookie QB to take us to the playoffs right away.

Fine, but you have another year of development on Skelton and have a better idea who he is and what he's capable of.

Why can't we "expect any rookie QB to take us to the playoffs right away?" Flacco and Sanchez and Ryan and Roethlisberger did exactly that, and Bradford came within one game of doing so.

 

[Mulli]

Fine, but you have another year of development on Skelton and have a better idea who he is and what he's capable of.

Why can't we "expect any rookie QB to take us to the playoffs right away?" Flacco and Sanchez and Ryan and Roethlisberger did exactly that, and Bradford came within one game of doing so.

And Skelton was only two or three away from it.

 

[HoodieBets]

Fine, but you have another year of development on Skelton and have a better idea who he is and what he's capable of.

Why can't we "expect any rookie QB to take us to the playoffs right away?" Flacco and Sanchez and Ryan and Roethlisberger did exactly that, and Bradford came within one game of doing so.

I never said it can't be done I said don't expect it. Look at every example you gave, each team had a top 3 defense which the cards are far from having so like I said don't expect it.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

What if Luck regresses? Loecker was a #1 lock before he went back for his senior year and no rookie is a sure thing. Playing well in college does not always transition over to the NFL.

To compare Luck to Locker is somewhere beyond ridiculous, and the assertion that Locker was a #1 lock is patently false. Luck is considered the best QB prospect since Peyton, which is why he is an obvious choice over Kolb.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I never said it can't be done I said don't expect it. Look at every example you gave, each team had a top 3 defense which the cards are far from having so like I said don't expect it.

not to mention each of them were coming into situations where their teams were just one year removed from going to the playoffs (except for Bradford), whereas if we're staring at picking a QB next year, that means we will havehad two back to back horrific years and pretty much ALL of our players from our playoff runs will be gone from those teams as there's no way in hell Fitz stays at that point.

 

[HoodieBets]

To compare Luck to Locker is somewhere beyond ridiculous, and the assertion that Locker was a #1 lock is patently false. Luck is considered the best QB prospect since Peyton, which is why he is an obvious choice over Kolb.

Ok say your right should we throw the season? I'm not convinced we are the worst team in the league so unless we do throw it we won't have a shot at him and it would cost us fitz in the process. IMO our only option is to sign/trade for a guy this offseason.

 

[kerouac9]

What if Luck regresses? Loecker was a #1 lock before he went back for his senior year and no rookie is a sure thing. Playing well in college does not always transition over to the NFL.

Locker wasn't even given a 1st round grade from the NFL Draft Committee after last season. Don't bye the hype from Todd McShay; Locker wasn't that good of a prospect in 2010.

I never said it can't be done I said don't expect it. Look at every example you gave, each team had a top 3 defense which the cards are far from having so like I said don't expect it.

That's not what you said. You stated as a fact that a rookie can't come in and lead a team to the playoffs. That's clearly no longer the case.

And FYI, the 2008 Atlanta Falcons had the 24th-ranked defense in the NFL. Nice try, though.

not to mention each of them were coming into situations where their teams were just one year removed from going to the playoffs (except for Bradford), whereas if we're staring at picking a QB next year, that means we will havehad two back to back horrific years and pretty much ALL of our players from our playoff runs will be gone from those teams as there's no way in hell Fitz stays at that point.

The 2007 Jets were 4-12. A year after that they were 9-7 and out of the playoffs, then they traded up to get Sanchez in the 2009 draft.

the 2007 Atlanta Falcons were 4-12 before they drafted Matt Ryan in the 2008 draft. In 2006 they were 7-9 in a relatively crappy NFC South.

It's not like these things are hard to look up.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Ok say your right should we throw the season? I'm not convinced we are the worst team in the league so unless we do throw it we won't have a shot at him and it would cost us fitz in the process. IMO our only option is to sign/trade for a guy this offseason.

Don't put words in my mouth, nowhere did I say that we should throw the season, or that we have a legit shot at the #1 pick, those are your words, not mine. The argument was whether or not you'd prefer Kolb or Luck, and that's an obvious choice.

 

[HoodieBets]

Don't put words in my mouth, nowhere did I say that we should throw the season, or that we have a legit shot at the #1 pick, those are your words, not mine. The argument was whether or not you'd prefer Kolb or Luck, and that's an obvious choice.

I didn't say you said that I was asking you a question.

And K9 so one of the 5 examples you gave works in your favor and that's enough evidence for you? One player you can think of recently made the playoffs as a rookie without a top 5 defense that's not good odds that our rookie would lead us to the promise land.

 

[Cheesebeef]

The 2007 Jets were 4-12. A year after that they were 9-7 and out of the playoffs, then they traded up to get Sanchez in the 2009 draft.

so... right. they had a team with 9-7 talent on it. Not sure how the above makes your point. Dude got on a team with good talent on it and then they added to it.

the 2007 Atlanta Falcons were 4-12 before they drafted Matt Ryan in the 2008 draft. In 2006 they were 7-9 in a relatively crappy NFC South.

It's not like these things are hard to look up.

sure... but Ryan wasn't mentioned in the post I responded to, thus i didn't bring him up... besides, he's the exception to the rule, no? Sanchez, Roth and Flacco... all guys that went to teams who either came into teams which had just come off winning seasons (Sanchez) or come to teams who had extremely long history of winning Flacco (coming to a team that was one year removed from 13-3) and Roth (going to the Steelers who were one year removed from like 8 straight winning seasons). Which was what I was responding to. We will be NOTHING like those teams if we stink again this year and then lose fitz (which we would) pretty much decimating the overwhelming amount of talent that put us into the playoffs in the first place.

 

[kerouac9]

I didn't say you said that I was asking you a question.

And K9 so one of the 5 examples you gave works in your favor and that's enough evidence for you? One player you can think of recently made the playoffs as a rookie without a top 5 defense that's not good odds that our rookie would lead us to the promise land.

None of those guys played in the NFC West. You stated it as a fact that without a top 5 defense no rookie QB can make the playoffs. I proved your point incorrect. If you want to revise that point to saying that it's "unlikely," then go ahead and do so. I'd agree with you, but I'd add that in a terrible NFC West, it's more likely than anywhere else.

I also believe that the defense will likely be improved this offseason with the addition and continuing development of the players on the roster. The Atlanta Falcons pretty much totally re-made their roster when Matt Ryan lead them to the playoffs.

so... right. they had a team with 9-7 talent on it. Not sure how the above makes your point. Dude got on a team with good talent on it and then they added to it. Our future number one pick in your scenario will come to a team that's coming off consistent 5-11 seasons and likely will have pretty much no one left from their playoff runs. Kinda seems like a completely different situation, no?



sure... but you didn't mention Ryan so i didn't think about him. You mentioned Sanchez, Roth and Flacco... all guys that went to teams who either came into teams which had just come off winning seasons (Sanchez) or come to teams who had extremely long history of winning Flacco (coming to a team that was one year removed from 13-3) and Roth (going to the Steelers who were one year removed from like 8 straight winning seasons). Which was what I was responding to... again, all of those QBs came into MUCH better situations than what any rookie would be coming in here, no?

the only guy in recent memory who came to just a moribund franchise and turned them around in one year and took them to the playoffs was Ryan. He seems like the exception to the rule, no?

I did mention Ryan. Go back and look at the post. Duh. You're the one who said that they came off "playoff" seasons (your measure). Just admit that you were wrong instead of coming after me for proving that your mouth was ahead of the facts.

I've said it multiple times: I think that this team can make the playoffs in 2011 with Bulger or Orton at quarterback. I think the Cardinals are more likely to win the NFC West with the two veterans than with Kolb. In that scenario, then you'd likely have another year to groom Skelton or a 2012 first-round quarterback while we compete to repeat as champs.

I don't think that a rookie QB coming in here is coming into as bad a situation as even Bradford walked in to. The defense, IMO, is talented enough to back up a team. The offense has the skill position players in place for the short- and long-term. IMO the problem with the 2010 Arizona Cardinals was the terrible decision to go with the Anderson/Hall combo, which demoralized the defense because they knew we'd never be able to come back from a three-point deficit.

I don't think there's a question of whether or not the talent is in place to support a rookie QB so much as whether the head coach or front office is in place to build a team around him.

Is this team better off than Tampa last year when Josh Freeman took over? They missed the playoffs but won 10 games.

 

[HoodieBets]

The defense is slightly better we still haven't adressed the LB need and without them and a pass rusher this defense will be as horrible as it was last year.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I did mention Ryan. Go back and look at the post.

ah, you're right. i misread that.

Duh. You're the one who said that they came off "playoff" seasons (your measure). Just admit that you were wrong instead of coming after me for proving that your mouth was ahead of the facts.

oh good lord man... yes, i said playoff seasons, but a 9-7 record is still a good record and shows you have talent on the team, no? but if you want to be a stickler about it, well, be my guest.

point still stands, ALL of those QBs save Ryan came into pretty good situations, no? At least situations that will be MUCH better than ours. this team has been losing top talent for years (probably will again this off-season) and I don't believe there's any way that this team gets back to the playoffs with what i think are pieces of crap at QB (Bulger), even in a weak division and that sets us up for complete and utter failure.

and why do you get so defensive? i wasn't "coming after you". We're having a discussion. rational people can do that AND disagree with each other without having to resort to snark.

I've said it multiple times: I think that this team can make the playoffs in 2011 with Bulger or Orton at quarterback. I think the Cardinals are more likely to win the NFC West with the two veterans than with Kolb.

and i completely disagree.

I don't think that a rookie QB coming in here is coming into as bad a situation as even Bradford walked in to. The defense, IMO, is talented enough to back up a team.

the defense has a solid front 3, what should be a great back 4 and literally NO ONE in the middle of the field. i don't think they could back up jack squat until they figure out that a 3-4 defense is heavily dependent on actually having someone who can play linebacker.

The offense has the skill position players in place for the short- and long-term.

if we go with what are completely washed up QBs (Bulger imo) or QBs who no team wants on their team (Orton who will be thrice traded if we get him), this offense isn't going to have any skill position players on it short term or long term because Larry will be adios. And who even knows if the team keeps Breaston... or if Roberts can actually develop? We've seen that Beanie's in a doghouse and can't stay healthy and we've yet to see anything from our 2nd round running back we just drafted.

IMO the problem with the 2010 Arizona Cardinals was the terrible decision to go with the Anderson/Hall combo, which demoralized the defense because they knew we'd never be able to come back from a three-point deficit.

there's no doubt that decision destroyed the season, but saying the D was demoralized because of it is a bit of an oversimplification to me. in week 3, they were given a lead over the Raiders that they promptly tried to give up if not for a complete fluke missed chip-shot by Janikowski with no time left... or them going tortilla against Tampa when handed a fourth quarter lead or going completely belly up against Minny with a 10 point lead and four minutes left in back to back games in the first half of the season. that's not a D that's demoralized. that's a d that just flat out couldn't get it done when it counted (sadly, something we've seen from a lot of wiz's teams).

I don't think there's a question of whether or not the talent is in place to support a rookie QB so much as whether the head coach or front office is in place to build a team around him.

I think ALL of those are questions at this point.

Is this team better off than Tampa last year when Josh Freeman took over? They missed the playoffs but won 10 games.

to be honest, i don't know.

 

[DoTheDew]

My goodness the excuses made for Kolb are out of this world. I've never seen fans so adamantly defend a player from another team. Those in favor of acquiring Kolb just seem to disregard every one of his flaws. Bring up stats and it's a sample size issue. Bring up history and it's "circumstances" getting in the way.

Let's get the facts straight here.

1. Fitz never said signing Kolb would make him stay. All he (supposedly) said is that Kolb was his first choice. Staying or leaving is entirely dependent upon how we do next season. Anyone who thinks signing Kolb magically makes Fitz stay is fooling themselves. Whoever wins us the most games next year gets us Fitz.
2. Kolb does have a high ceiling. He *can* make all the throws.
3. But he has proven that he is inconsistent and that he is fragile. Getting injured every time he's given the chance and throwing his fair share of picks.
4. We aren't as talented as the Eagles. If Kolb could only go 3-4 with them as a starter, expecting a winning record out of him behind our OL, lack of running game, and D is idiotic.

You want to break the bank for Kolb, fine. It's like betting all your money on the 00 in roulette. If you're right, you're filthy rich, but most signs point towards you being wrong and if you are then you're broke and the fun is over for a long time.

 

[HoodieBets]

My goodness the excuses made for Kolb are out of this world. I've never seen fans so adamantly defend a player from another team. Those in favor of acquiring Kolb just seem to disregard every one of his flaws. Bring up stats and it's a sample size issue. Bring up history and it's "circumstances" getting in the way.

Let's get the facts straight here.

1. Fitz never said signing Kolb would make him stay. All he (supposedly) said is that Kolb was his first choice. Staying or leaving is entirely dependent upon how we do next season. Anyone who thinks signing Kolb magically makes Fitz stay is fooling themselves. Whoever wins us the most games next year gets us Fitz.
2. Kolb does have a high ceiling. He *can* make all the throws.
3. But he has proven that he is inconsistent and that he is fragile. Getting injured every time he's given the chance and throwing his fair share of picks.
4. We aren't as talented as the Eagles. If Kolb could only go 3-4 with them as a starter, expecting a winning record out of him behind our OL, lack of running game, and D is idiotic.

You want to break the bank for Kolb, fine. It's like betting all your money on the 00 in roulette. If you're right, you're filthy rich, but most signs point towards you being wrong and if you are then you're broke and the fun is over for a long time.

We were broke before warner and have been since so why not take a risk for once in this franchises history. Everyone says kolb is always hurt but last year was not his fault clay matthews is a mean dude. If people want to bring up stats or injury prone then they have no place even uttering bulger or palmers name. That leaves orton who cant find a lockeroom that likes him. Kolb is the best option. Its funny how the arguements people make to bash kolb are the same points that can be used to bash bulger and palmer.

 

[kerouac9]

there's no doubt that decision destroyed the season, but saying the D was demoralized because of it is a bit of an oversimplification to me. in week 3, they were given a lead over the Raiders that they promptly tried to give up if not for a complete fluke missed chip-shot by Janikowski with no time left... or them going tortilla against Tampa when handed a fourth quarter lead or going completely belly up against Minny with a 10 point lead and four minutes left in back to back games in the first half of the season. that's not a D that's demoralized. that's a d that just flat out couldn't get it done when it counted (sadly, something we've seen from a lot of wiz's teams).

I don't think this is totally fair. Yes, the defense let down, but let's look at those games:

v. Oakland:
In the fourth quarter, the defense allows a 17-yard drive and forces a punt with 11:55 on the clock and the Cards up by 4. Andre Roberts doesn't call off the punt time and DRC muffs the punt and it's recovered at the ARI 16. Cards hold the Raiders to a field goal. The offense can only stay on the field for a minute and thirty seconds after two penalities mean the drive goes backward 11 yards.

The offense failed to get a first down the entire fourth quarter of the game.

v. Tampa Bay
The offense throws two pick sixes (man, Max Hall was amazing, guys!) to go along with two other INTs. The defense responds by returning a fumble for a TD.

Defensive collapse is precipitated by a Max Hall pick-six then getting benched, and Anderson bravely leading the Cards to consecutive three-and-outs.

@ Minnesota
Do you think the offense was doing it's job here? Really? Anderson went 15/26 for 179 yards? The team combined for 55 rushing yards? One offensive TD after a special-teams TD and a fumble return TD? The Vikings had a nearly 11 minute advantage in time of possession.

The Cards got 4 first downs the entire second half.

This defense isn't the Jets, Ravens, or Steelers defense. But the talent is there to win games. Haggans and Washington are NFL players, but it's reprehensible to put Washington and Lenon on the field at the same time. I think that Schofield will be a player whenever Whis decides to give him PT. But the defense can complement an offense that can consistently get first downs. They can be a version of the late 90s Tampa Bucs defense.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I don't think this is totally fair. Yes, the defense let down, but let's look at those games:

v. Oakland:
In the fourth quarter, the defense allows a 17-yard drive and forces a punt with 11:55 on the clock and the Cards up by 4. Andre Roberts doesn't call off the punt time and DRC muffs the punt and it's recovered at the ARI 16. Cards hold the Raiders to a field goal. The offense can only stay on the field for a minute and thirty seconds after two penalities mean the drive goes backward 11 yards.

The offense failed to get a first down the entire fourth quarter of the game.

yes, the offense sucked... still, the D had the Raiders stopped way deep in our territory with what... a couple minutes to go? and rolled over to give up a 30 yards. And this was early in the season, against a team we should have expected to beat and while we for some reason was still in the hunt. and they couldn't get one more stop?

v. Tampa Bay
The offense throws two pick sixes (man, Max Hall was amazing, guys!) to go along with two other INTs. The defense responds by returning a fumble for a TD.

Defensive collapse is precipitated by a Max Hall pick-six then getting benched, and Anderson bravely leading the Cards to consecutive three-and-outs.

the Tampa Game... you say the team couldn't come back from a 3 point deficit and that demoralizes the team... yet, in that game we came back from a 17 point deficit... and the D still collapsed on the very next drive. all that happened AFTER everything you wrote above.

@ Minnesota
Do you think the offense was doing it's job here? Really? Anderson went 15/26 for 179 yards? The team combined for 55 rushing yards? One offensive TD after a special-teams TD and a fumble return TD? The Vikings had a nearly 11 minute advantage in time of possession.

The Cards got 4 first downs the entire second half.

the vikings were a horror show all season and were a horror show all game long against us before we laid down and died. that was a total team loss. the offense couldn't close it out, but the defense rolled over and died.

But even outside of these late game collapses when the season was still up for grabs, this D just came out and got DEMOLISHED off the bat in our other early season losses (when we were still mysteriously above .500 - how that happened I have no idea). They came out and got destroyed right off the bat by San Diego and Atlanta, regardless of what the offense did.

This defense isn't the Jets, Ravens, or Steelers defense. But the talent is there to win games. Haggans and Washington are NFL players, but it's reprehensible to put Washington and Lenon on the field at the same time.

i just don't see it. Haggans is a spot starter. dude was brought in years ago to be a back up special teamer and as he gets older, he's gets slower and less effective. he's not an NFL starting Linebacker. he never was and certainly isn't now. Washington could be an NFL player, but he was nowhere near ready to play last year. And i think we both agree that Lennon and Porter are common street trash. I just think that when you're running a 3-4 D and you have literally nothing in the linebacker core, you're completely screwed no matter what you have sandwiching them.

 

[kerouac9]

i just don't see it. Haggans is a spot starter. dude was brought in years ago to be a back up special teamer and as he gets older, he's gets slower and less effective. he's not an NFL starting Linebacker. he never was and certainly isn't now. Washington could be an NFL player, but he was nowhere near ready to play last year. And i think we both agree that Lennon and Porter are common street trash. I just think that when you're running a 3-4 D and you have literally nothing in the linebacker core, you're completely screwed no matter what you have sandwiching them.

Haggans isn't flashy, but you're all right if he's your third-best linebacker (which he should be at his position). He's not a pass rusher, but he's above-average against the run and he can cover the flats as good as anyone.

He played the second half of the season injured and that really hurt him. Still, he tied for second on the team in sacks. The problem was that Lenon and Porter were such utter zeroes on the field that Haggans ended up being our most consistent LB, and you're not going to win a lot of games that way.

I have a lot of faith in Schofield, but something has to be done with the ILB position next to Washington.

 

[DoTheDew]

We were broke before warner and have been since so why not take a risk for once in this franchises history. Everyone says kolb is always hurt but last year was not his fault clay matthews is a mean dude. If people want to bring up stats or injury prone then they have no place even uttering bulger or palmers name. That leaves orton who cant find a lockeroom that likes him. Kolb is the best option. Its funny how the arguements people make to bash kolb are the same points that can be used to bash bulger and palmer.

So if you're admitting that Kolb is pretty similar to all the other options, then why go for the guy that's going to cost the most?

If all your options are basically equal, you go for the cheapest one not the most expensive.

And there you go making excuses about his injuries again. Warner got nailed by plenty of mean dudes in his stay here but he always got back up and kept playing. Whether by design or horrible OL play, whoever is our QB is going to get hit a lot. We can't have a guy who "it isn't his fault he got hit!" we need someone who's tough as nails if they are going to make it through the season. If none of the people out there make that, then don't mortgage your entire future for someone who you expect to miss a ton of games. Go with cheaper options.

If it came down to give up a first for Kolb and HOPE for the best vs just sticking with Skelton and HOPE for the best, I'd almost be more tempted to just go with Skelton. I don't believe either QB gets us to the playoffs but at least in the Skelton scenario we'd still have the draft to fall back on if things don't work out. I really don't believe Kolb wins the NFCW for us next year. I think people who believe that are sleeping on the Rams. A very young team that had a rookie QB and went 7-9. That is recipe for at least 9-7 and maybe better next year. Meanwhile, we still have major deficiencies on the OL and LB units. Warner could only make us a 9-7/10-6 team when we had more talent a few years ago. What makes people think Kolb can exceed Warner?

 

[HoodieBets]

And there you go making excuses about his injuries again. Warner got nailed by plenty of mean dudes in his stay here but he always got back up and kept playing. Whether by design or horrible OL play, whoever is our QB is going to get hit a lot. We can't have a guy who "it isn't his fault he got hit!" we need someone who's tough as nails if they are going to make it through the season. If none of the people out there make that, then don't mortgage your entire future for someone who you expect to miss a ton of games. Go with cheaper options.

This might be one of the dumbest things ive ever read. I dont know if you know this but you cant help if you get a concussion or not. Just because Warner got hit and got up and played makes no difference, if he got a concussion he wouldnt be able to play either. There are rules about that in the NFL. If you get driven to the ground you are helpless in regards to your head smacking the ground. It doesnt matter if we had the badest dude in the world he cant play with a concussion. You cant call Kolb injury prone because he had a concussion from being driven to the ground from behind with his arms trapped so he couldnt break his fall.