Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldcolt
Question for you Chromburn. I get that you have focused on Wentz's negatives, and he has them. I feel he is the best we could have done, and has a ton of positives to work with. Do you feel we should have gone a different direction? I so who?
|
I don’t see it that way. I think everyone is focused
only on the positives and refuse to acknowledge that there is any risk tied to Wentz. Everyone was skeptical about Rivers when he came, so not sure why all of a sudden Wentz is the golden boy. I’m not saying he couldn’t turn out, he could. But to think his play was solely everyone else’s fault is simply wishful thinking.
Would I have done differently, maybe. I think Stafford is older but a better QB. That would have been a higher cost.
Darnold has potential and is the same age as some rookies, but bigger risk than Wentz.
Rodgers and Watson have yet to play out.
I read Mac Jones looks good in pats camp so far.
I understand why they went with Wentz, familiarity. We will see if it works. I personally would have gone after Stafford harder. Or try one of the rookies by trading up. If neither worked I would have then gone with Wentz. Last option I would have stuck with Eason and see where the Rodgers drama goes.