IntheBullseye.com  

Go Back   IntheBullseye.com > Hot Reads ...In the Bullseye > The Texans

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-15-2009, 09:44 PM
barrett barrett is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nero THE zero View Post
What makes you confident that Sage could lead us to the playoffs? He's a turnover machine.

Further, if a team can't move its back-up QB for a draft pick then it's not in the position to be talking playoffs.

Fact is, Sage only has one year left on his contract, so if you can get a draft pick for him, you take a draft pick for him. You could replace him with Nall or a veteran like Losman or Boller. But, it's just not economical to hang onto a back-up just in case your starter gets hurt.
It's plenty economical if he's not getting paid much.

If we got offered the 3rd rounder we turned down last year, I'd do it since he is in the last year of his contract. I doubt it happens, but that is what it would take for me to agree to getting worse next year.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-16-2009, 09:18 AM
nero THE zero nero THE zero is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Spring
Posts: 366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalemurphy View Post
You'd want Criag Nall starting 3-7 games for this team next year? Not me! And, Sage next year is better for this team than Bollers or Losman next year- both of whom will cost more than Sage.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that we are a playoff team with Sage playing in 16 games. I would suggest that this team could play well with Sage having to play four or five games. That's kind of the point. You say it's not economical to pay for a backup? Look at what NE has done... They're going to pay over $14 million to hold on to Cassel because they're afraid Brady won't be ready by week one. Now that's an expensive insurance policy by the best NFL franchise.
1. No I don't want Craig Nall starting 3-7 games. Do you want Sage starting 3-7 games for this team next year?

2. I said it's not economical to hang on to Sage when (a) he will not be with the team after the 2009 season regardless, and (b) we could get a draft pick in return for him. NE's situation only reinforces that; they are in position to trade Cassel for a very high draft pick. We won't get a 1st for Sage, but we need to get something while we can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy P View Post
I'd trade Sage and turn around and draft John Parker Wilson to be the backup. Sage isn't going to be here forever, so let's get on with it. If Schaub goes down, we're done anyway.

Sage has one year left on this roster. He thinks he is a starter and could probably do that in the right situation. It's just not going to be in Houston. So, next year we will not have a backup and will be on the market looking for one if we just let Sage walk. Why not already have a guy in place getting groomed for that now?

The choice comes down to which is more important: insurance for Schaub this year or insurance for Schaub for the next 4 years?
Exactly.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-16-2009, 12:36 PM
cadams cadams is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 461
Default

There are plenty of serviceable backups available right now. I would trade Sage right now if I could without a second thought.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-16-2009, 12:46 PM
BigBull BigBull is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cadams View Post
There are plenty of serviceable backups available right now. I would trade Sage right now if I could without a second thought.
X2
Of course that means no more bad ints from Sage. Oh well I guess I could live even though I would miss them so much.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-16-2009, 02:48 PM
dalemurphy dalemurphy is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBull View Post
X2
Of course that means no more bad ints from Sage. Oh well I guess I could live even though I would miss them so much.
I would love to see this list on inexpensive, easy-to-get backup QBs that don't throw picks!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-16-2009, 03:08 PM
nero THE zero nero THE zero is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Spring
Posts: 366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalemurphy View Post
I would love to see this list on inexpensive, easy-to-get backup QBs that don't throw picks!
Craig Nall's never thrown an interception.

Seriously though, do you know how ridiculous it sounds to sit here and plead how desperately we need our back-up QB? If you can't pawn your back-up anything for picks than you have no place talking playoffs, much less your back-up QB.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-16-2009, 06:57 PM
barrett barrett is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nero THE zero View Post
Craig Nall's never thrown an interception.

Seriously though, do you know how ridiculous it sounds to sit here and plead how desperately we need our back-up QB? If you can't pawn your back-up anything for picks than you have no place talking playoffs, much less your back-up QB.
how do you reach this conclusion? How are you equating the ability to trade a backup with being a playoff team? If anything the opposite would be true in that a playoff team is able to trade away draft picks to pick up role players needed in the short term.

This team and this staff are starting to feel pressure to win now. They don't get another free throw away year. So I don't see a deal going down unless it makes us a better team next year and no way does a 5th round pick do that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.