Benching The Starting QB

**Turk Schonert** · 09-16-2010, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by SpartaChris

I agree with Turk. Who gives a flying fart in space about Fantasy Football? I want my team to win, and I want them to do so by fielding the best possible roster on the field as possible. While I enjoy playing FF, it comes second to winning.

Well said SpartaChris!!

**buzmeg** · 09-16-2010, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Polishguy00

Although I agree with the idea of having a relief pitcher attitude as a real-life head coach, I think it would be absolutely terrible for all of fantasy football. The discovery of the Curse of 370 and running back by committee has already ruined 41% of fantasy football, relief pitcher QBs would ruin it by another 27%. Fantasy football would be 68% less fun than just 6 or 7 years ago.
The horror!

I cannot believe such an astute football fan is playing the Fantasy Football card.

Just keep in mind you are referencing a game/pastime that begins with the word "FANTASY"

**Polishguy00** · 09-16-2010, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Turk Schonert

Where has the real football fan gone? Fantasy football has skewed the thinking of too many people, I want the old true football fan back!! Fantasy football is fine, but lets get back to football thinking/cheering not fantasy thinking/cheering.

I meant that as a joke. My interest in fantasy football has waned over the years. In no way do I think that it should not happen due to affects on fantasy football. Fantasy football continues to be just a thing that adds a little to the games but I would not do things like root against the Bears because my QB is playing them.

I do guarantee that if QB relief occurred, there are more than a few who would use the fantasy football argument.

**Polishguy00** · 09-16-2010, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by buzmeg

I cannot believe such an astute football fan is playing the Fantasy Football card.

Just keep in mind you are referencing a game/pastime that begins with the word "FANTASY"

I should have laid on sarcasm a little thicker. BTW, if you find the remains my former arse after your city tore me a new one this last week, can you send back to Ohio to my attention? Thanks.

**Darren83** · 09-16-2010, 01:26 PM

Excellent thread, Turk. It's conversations like these with someone who played and coached the position at the highest level that separates FPL from the pack.

Perry Fewell made the correct decision going with Ryan Fitzpatrick over Trent Edwards and I hope Chan Gailey does likewise sooner rather than later. Fitz has the ability to move in the pocket and get the ball down field with more confidence than Trent. Terrell Owens said it himself. With Edwards at QB he "felt like I was just running routes." T.O. was effusive in his praise of Fitz, who recommended Owens to his former team. Ryan knows how to scramble for first downs and is not afraid to throw a block on a toss sweep, as he did a few times last season. Plays like that inspire confidence, which is precisely what Trent Edwards does not do.

Fitzpatrick is not a starter, but there are a number of teams who went with a #2 the year prior to drafting the franchise QB. Bobby Hoying-Donovan McNabb and Tommy Maddox-Ben Roethlisberger come to mind. He outplayed Edwards in real games last season, not practice, and should have legitimately competed for the starting job. The QB competition Gailey held was a sham.

Unfortunately, the front office and Gailey treat Edwards like a combination of a coach's son and somebody they've given a pile of guaranteed money. He was a 3rd round pick, not a 3rd overall selection. There are persistent excuses (lack of o-line and quality receivers besides Evans) you don't hear when a franchise QB is discussed. A top QB makes the WR, I don't believe it is the other way around.

Look for Gailey to give Trent the hook when we're 0-5 at the bye. I would have done it at 0-0.

**Polishguy00** · 09-16-2010, 02:07 PM

Getting back to the original thought. I think Jake Delhomme is the most likely candidate even without the ankle injury he has. He is the one on there that has such a bad recent history that it should not be a long season for him if he struggles. Plus, Holmgren clearly has some trust in Seneca Wallace.

I also think that for QB relief to work, the incumbent QB must have the right mind-set. For instance, you could get into a Matt Leinhart situation when you don't need it. Also, I think that Sanchez looked so shell-shocked and not confident that I dunno what would be better for him. Bench him and risk him reacting even more poorly? Is it possible that the top quarterbacks in the league are the ones who could take this kind of thing well and therefore would never need a relief QB? Do you have no QB if you feel a relief QB is needed?

**giantsfan97** · 09-16-2010, 06:02 PM

My $.02 on the relief pitcher/QB thought:

I think the big difference between football and baseball is the amount of games played. In baseball, the manager can decide to relieve the starter it's because 1) he may want to get a look at another pitcher; 2) to save the starter's arm for the marathon season; 3) losing 1 game out of 155 because of a pitching change isn't going to upset anyone

In football, every game is so much more valuable. A coach isn't going to put another QB in just to take a look at him unless he really doesn't like the current starter. A coach doesn't need to save a starter's arm, although if they are losing bad enough he could take out the starter for safety reasons. Can you imagine an NFL coach switching QB's late in a game that he is winning and having that QB lose the lead? Happens all the time in baseball, but in football I think every fan would be outraged.

Any thoughts on this?

**Turk Schonert** · 09-16-2010, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by giantsfan97

My $.02 on the relief pitcher/QB thought:

I think the big difference between football and baseball is the amount of games played. In baseball, the manager can decide to relieve the starter it's because 1) he may want to get a look at another pitcher; 2) to save the starter's arm for the marathon season; 3) losing 1 game out of 155 because of a pitching change isn't going to upset anyone

In football, every game is so much more valuable. A coach isn't going to put another QB in just to take a look at him unless he really doesn't like the current starter. A coach doesn't need to save a starter's arm, although if they are losing bad enough he could take out the starter for safety reasons. Can you imagine an NFL coach switching QB's late in a game that he is winning and having that QB lose the lead? Happens all the time in baseball, but in football I think every fan would be outraged.

Any thoughts on this?

I'm not talking about looking at a QB during a game. I'm talking about your starting QB (not an established franchise QB) is struggling in a game that you are losing. Your QB has thrown int's, he's missed open receivers, he's misread coverages ... he's having a bad day, and that is a major reason that your behind. If you have a backup that you believe in, and the team believes in him, why not put him in the game to change your teams energy and your chances to win? After the game, your starter is still your starter next game, and the backup remains just that ... the backup.

**msclemons** · 09-16-2010, 10:35 PM

I'm thinking, so many teams have quarterback issues, and Turk looked like he was in pretty good shape on the web-casts...

**Turk Schonert** · 09-17-2010, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by msclemons

I'm thinking, so many teams have quarterback issues, and Turk looked like he was in pretty good shape on the web-casts...

Sam, put me in now ... I can win this game! Oh wait, Sam is retired ... oh snap ... so am I. Too many hits to the head. Sorry Clem, but love the thought.