Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
Because nobody in football knows anything about anything. Nobody wants to disrupt the cohesion and chemistry (and the subsequent losing) that their a bad QB brings.
And of course, if they did decide it was time for an upgrade, they'd probably shoot higher than Patrick Ramsey. Thus, a bunch of horrible QBs go in the first round, and bad teams stay bad.
Patrick Ramsey is worth about one more win over the course of an entire 16 game season than, say, Rex Grossman for example. But if you are the Bears, does it really make a lot of sense to cut Grossman and bring in Ramsey when you could have drafted a QB instead? It makes you look indecisive as a franchise and it seems that football execs would MUCH rather be seen as wrong than as indecisive.
|
I'm really lost as to what you're trying to say here but I'll respond anyway.
Teams should make moves to improve their team. If you have a starting caliber QB sitting on a bench somewhere, why would you not want to bring him in, especially a younger guy like Ramsey who already has some starting experience??
Hell, Matt Schaub is a lot less proven than Ramsey at the NFL level and he's been handed a starting gig and the Texans went and cut Carr to clear the position for him. Does that make them indecisive because they decided that Carr wasn't cutting it and they would rather take their chances on Schaub?
If I were the Bears and I decided Grossman wasn't the answer, I sure as hell would try to make a move rather than worrying about how that move would be perceived.