Get ya back up off the wall
Dec 14, 2007 2007 Season, 2008 Draft, Rosie Rosenfels
[Author's Note: I wrote all but a few sentences of this yesterday afternoon, well before the game. Thankfully, there was nothing last night that would change anything in here, so here ya go.]
The discussion on the potential market value for Sage Rosenfels in the comments to this post was top-notch. That kind of rational back-and-forth (not to mention coherent thought, proper sentence structure, lack of all caps, etc.) is exactly what makes this blog worth doing and what makes me constantly claim that the average blog reader (at least among Texans fans) is far superior to the average commenter on the Chron. /kissing ass
As far as Rosenfels goes, I have a couple more thoughts on the matter.
First, as was pointed out by a couple people, the fact that he is the best backup in the league and/or that he is incredibly valuable as a backup is exactly why the team should test the market for him. Look at it this way: if it happened that Matt Cassell or Jim Sorgi turned out to be every bit as good as the QB in front of him, can you think of a single reason why the Pats and Colts wouldn’t ship them? Yeah, it’s great to be able to say “if Brady (or Manning or Matt Schaub) goes down, we won’t miss a beat,” but it would be even better to say “we got two seconds, two thirds, and a fourth for Cassell.”
Having the great backup is good in theory, but holding on to one when he is sought by other teams doesn’t really make sense. After all, in the last 20 years, only one team has won a Super Bowl with a backup QB (the Giants, with Hostettler in 1991). Which is to say that, if your starter goes down for the season, your season is more or less shot regardless of your backup. If he is only out for a week or two, then, yes, a good backup can be handy, but again do you need the best backup QB in the league for a one week stint? Shouldn’t anyone who knew your offense be serviceable for a week or two if pressed into duty? I’m not saying to ship Sage out and just pick up the Joe Harringtons and Byron Leftwiches of the world, but there should be someone out there that Kubiak could mold into a solid backup QB.
Second, we have enough holes that, right now, draft picks are worth more than QB depth. If Sage netted us a second and fifth, we could fill those holes far more quickly than if we just draft with the spots we have and bring in castoffs and other teams’ smegma.
Finally, there is that old chestnut that, if you have two quarterbacks, you have no quarterback. If Sage really is good enough that he could start for teams like Atlanta, Miami, etc., how long before the “controversy” starts up? This might seem like an odd reason to shop your backup, but it makes sense on some level. If Sage really can start elsewhere, let him go start elsewhere. Don’t keep him here where every interception or fumble by Schaub has him looking over his shoulder. I mean, you saw how quickly Panthers fans were clamoring for David Carr, despite being only a few years removed from a Super Bowl appearance under Delhomme. Many Falcons fans (for good reason) were screaming for Schaub as Vick struggled to develop. The Rich Gannon-Elvis Grbac thing didn’t go away until Kansas City shipped Gannon–no matter who was starting, half the fan base wanted the other guy. Why would we even risk putting ourselves through that if we could, instead, avoid it AND gain from getting rid of him?
I am NOT saying that we should give him away for nothing, or that we should break our necks to trade him, but we certainly should see what he is worth to other teams. More importantly, if a good deal comes along, we need to be willing to pounce on it without wondering “what if Matt gets hurt?” I guarantee you that the Pats and Colts haven’t built their respective squads around a backup-QB contingency plan, and things have worked out pretty well for them.
EPILOGUE
It has not really been mentioned–at least not by me–that Sage has been tried (and failed) as a starter before, when he was in Miami. This is true and it could potentially temper his value in the trade market. If so, then by all means hold on to him.
(click arrow to reply)
December 14th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Riddle me this batman…
I’m one of the ones on board the trade sage bandwagon.
But let’s play like businessmen and look at bottom line for a minute.
Forget what Schauby’s making. I just like what Sage is doing right now – winning with a cobbled up team.
Basically you just have to look at what Sage is doing on the field vs. the intangible of what Schaub may become.
So here’s the shocka:
What could we get for Schaub in a trade??
I love Schuab. I think he’s going to be great. To be honest, I probably wouldn’t do it. But it is fun to munch on.
Houston fans remember a similar move when we sent a ‘washed up and done’ Warren Moon packing so we could start the ‘ready to start’ Commander Cody Carlson. Warren continued to produce in Minnesota and well, Cody didn’t hang around.
Another note, we have to change our mindsets now as we play mock GM. We’ve been in rebuild mode, like since day one, so draft picks are the premium. With a few upgrades, this team can go deep into the playoffs firing on all 8.
As for me, I’d love to see the O line overhauled. Indy and NE have great O lines. I think it all starts there.
(click arrow to reply)
December 14th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
That’s an interesting question and it is actually an angle I thought about including in this whole discussion. I left it out because (a) from a marketing/public trust standpoint, to ship Schaub out now, even if you somehow got the same 2 second round picks back, is a disaster, and (b) as someone pointed out in the other thread, Schaub and Sage are interchangeable right now, but one is basically a first time starter while the other has been in the league since 2001 and has failed as a starter before. So, that would lead you to believe that Schaub’s low point on the learning curve is more or less equal to Sage’s high point.
—
As to the O-line, I agree completely. I’m of two minds about it, though. On the one hand, if you think Spencer is coming back, you could just focus on drafting interior line talent because that is going to come much cheaper than the Long/Oher/Baker triumverate will. On the other hand, you could take one of those three and, should Spencer come back, suddenly find yourself in the nice position of having too many left tackles. Dunno. I guess it really comes down to whether Spencer is realistically ever going to play again and what the team plans to do at RB.
(click arrow to reply)
December 14th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
So what you’re saying is… We need a back-up with a great pornstache? Get Plummer’s agent on the phone.
If I knew how to hyperlink at all on these boards, the word “pornstache” would be blue, clickable, and it would take you to this picture:
http://www.news-star.com/images/072797/ap2.gif
(click arrow to reply)
December 14th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I think as far as the oline thing goes, you take the best lineman you can get. Even if you think Spencer is coming back, you have to take a top tackle if you can because you have no idea how his leg will respond to the demands of a 16 game season and I’d rather let Mario punch me in the nuts repeatedly than have to rely on Salaam again next year. As far as interior linemen go, over the last two years, they’ve made Schaub look like Brett Favre and Cal Ripken’s love child(Pitts excluded). We need both.
……
On the subject of QBs, I think the comments on the relative position on the learning curve for Schaub vs. Rosenfels is dead on. Schaub can be expected to get better whereas Rosenfels is pretty much what he is. And I think the comments about Schaub being fragile are WAY exaggerated.
(click arrow to reply)
December 14th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
To be fair, didn’t the 2001 Patriots win the Super Bowl with a backup QB? A 6th round pick (199th) overall backup at that!
(click arrow to reply)
December 14th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
We shouldn’t forget, though, what Schaub has also shown this year – a tendency to get hurt and miss time.
(click arrow to reply)
December 14th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Point taken, Dave. I didn’t count Brady because he became the full-time starter, but he was indeed a “backup” the year he won the first Super Bowl. Still, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that most backups are more Jeff Hostettler than Tom Brady.
(click arrow to reply)
December 14th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
@ TheBlowLeprechaun
You have to keep in mind that part of the reason that Sorgi and Cassell have cleaner jerseys than David Carr (now that they’d rather start a gimpy AARP member over him) is because Peyton and Brady (a) get rid of the ball quickly and (b) have stellar Olines.
…..
Now we’ve seen that (a) can have a HUGE impact and that it basically proves that the problems with our oline were vastly overstated in recent years. That said, I wouldn’t call them stellar just yet. I think that it’s hard to say whether Schaub is fragile or has just taken some brutal hits (I still cringe when I think of the pancaking from Haynseworth and the cheap shot in SD).
….
I think the problem with Schaub is that he may hang in there a bit longer than he should while trying to make a play. You saw yesterday that on those moments when the pocket broke down in half a second, Sage basically chucked the ball at the feet of the nearest receiver. Perhaps Schaub can learn to do that (although let’s face it, Sage got a little lucky that some of those didn’t get picked). But as a team we still need to try and minimize the number of times that happens in a game. Do that, and I think Schaub stays healthy and doesn’t miss time.
(click arrow to reply)
December 14th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Nice write-up, matt.
Vega, you say Sorgi/Cassell(greyskull) don’t see the field because the pats/colts have exceptional lines. I think that’s the main reason we’re trying to be advocates FOR trading roseyfields… to get more picks, to fix the line (among other things).
No one is speaking in absolutes, but we’d be remiss if we didn’t at least see what might be out there for him. (still looking at you, Baltimore!)
(click arrow to reply)
December 14th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I am non-fond of the trade the guy idea unless someone was willing to give the sun, moon and stars. I know some people want to make this into a QB controversy thing, but especially given the tenuous situation at the line, and that we are playing a style of ball that leaves your QB open to get hit, I like having a backup that you can be comfortable with.
(click arrow to reply)
December 14th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Even if you ignore the controversy part, though, the fact remains that you might be sitting on a guy worth multiple draft picks but who might not even play for you if everything goes right.
–
I guess I liken this situation to someone living in southern Missouri having $10MM in earthquake insurance. Yes, there’s a fault there that could conceivably cause a quake, but is that possibility worth blowing all that cash? Or would you just be better off with a small rider on your homeowner policy? By which I mean that you could still find a guy that fits the definition of “good backup” without wasting the potential payday you could get from cashing in Sage. I’m rambling.
(click arrow to reply)
December 15th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Am I the only person who thinks that having Jared Zabransky as the backup QB is a good thing?
(click arrow to reply)
December 15th, 2007 at 10:56 am
@dave. Yes, you are.