Falcons emulating Gibbs, with interest in Garcia?

[JWsleep]

Garcia is good, but a bit past prime, and his back is suspect. But he's played at an all-pro level in the NFL for years. He's a great QB, and would make an excellent backup to Vick.

And if they had to learn this from Gibbs, then I can see why he didn't want to coach there! C'mon, Vick goes down and their whole season collapese. If they aren't in the market for a backup, they should have their heads examined. (Oh, yeah: Note to Jets: You could probably use a backup too. Duh.)

[joecrisp]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

And if they had to learn this from Gibbs, then I can see why he didn't want to coach there! C'mon, Vick goes down and their whole season collapese. If they aren't in the market for a backup, they should have their heads examined. (Oh, yeah: Note to Jets: You could probably use a backup too. Duh.)

Okay, okay-- The title of the thread is obviously pissing people off, and distracting them from my primary question, which is: if the Falcons do in fact sign Garcia, does Rich McKay get warmly praised for spending big free agent dollars on a backup quarterback (who may, as some of you say, be past his prime), whereas Gibbs was roundly criticized for pulling off basically the same move? And while we're pointing out how obvious this move should be for the Falcons, isn't it equally important for the Redskins, who had their own problems with depth at quarterback last year? It should also be noted that, despite the Brunell signing, and the signings of several other key free agents, the Redskins actually have more cap room than the Falcons at this point. That being the case, how is this a good move for the Falcons, while the Brunell signing (aside from giving up a 3rd round pick) was bad for the Redskins?

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by joecrisp

Okay, okay-- The title of the thread is obviously pissing people off, and distracting them from my primary question, which is: if the Falcons do in fact sign Garcia, does Rich McKay get warmly praised for spending big free agent dollars on a backup quarterback (who may, as some of you say, be past his prime), whereas Gibbs was roundly criticized for pulling off basically the same move? And while we're pointing out how obvious this move should be for the Falcons, isn't it equally important for the Redskins, who had their own problems with depth at quarterback last year? It should also be noted that, despite the Brunell signing, and the signings of several other key free agents, the Redskins actually have more cap room than the Falcons at this point. That being the case, how is this a good move for the Falcons, while the Brunell signing (aside from giving up a 3rd round pick) was bad for the Redskins?

The answer, obviously, is that Dan Snyder is involved in one of the tranactions. It amazes me how much animosity he has created. I know he has riled a few writers and executives, but the man is near universally disliked.

[Daseal]

The answer lies in what kind of contract he gets and how many draft picks they gave up (0)