Forty whiners vs lackeymanders

Battle for what? Sam has shown why he was a 5th rounder, a lot of holes in his game.

If you draft someone high you're committing to that player and have to get him ready, meaning he needs 90% of the offseason snaps. Practice time is so limited as it is, there's no opportunity to have guys splitting time.

Sorry but Sam isn't going to get a realistic chance of starting unless it's due to injury or the new guy is a total miss from the jump.

Agree to disagree.

Sam has shown promise, and he has shown that he needs work. You'll likely get the same results (if you're lucky) with whoever you draft in Round 1, assuming that's the way they go.

Battle for QB1. Practice time is limited, but that doesn't mean the Coaching staff can't evaluate both QBs and make a determination who is better suited to run the offense in game 1 of the 2024 season.

I think JB is going to be looking for a chance to start somewhere... it won't be here if we take someone at the top of the draft. A top 5 pick isn't going to sit.

What you guys are saying about letting the best man win or letting a rookie sit and learn sounds great in theory, it's just not reality these days.

Yeah, I don't see him back either. Wishful thinking. If he's gone we're going to need to draft 2 QB's or sign a different veteran and a rookie.

And yeah, it's not reality. Doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done, but just doesn't seem to happen nowadays.

Agree to disagree.

Sam has shown promise, and he has shown that he needs work. You'll likely get the same results (if you're lucky) with whoever you draft in Round 1, assuming that's the way they go.

Battle for QB1. Practice time is limited, but that doesn't mean the Coaching staff can't evaluate both QBs and make a determination who is better suited to run the offense in game 1 of the 2024 season.

New GM and a new staff will have no loyalties to Sam.

They're going to be all in on getting their guy up to speed asap.

New GM and a new staff will have no loyalties to Sam.

They're going to be all in on getting their guy up to speed asap.

No, probably not. But he is under contract. And he is in the top 15 in the NFL most QB stats. Hasn't translated into a lot of wins, but that has been a team effort all year. He also leads the NFL in interceptions, but he's thrown them at about the same clip as Josh Allen.

New GM and a new staff will have loyalties to putting the best players on the field. Just because you drafted a QB in the top 10 doesn't mean he is going to give you the best chance of winning game 1. See Trey Lance.

the sam apologist on here just blow my mind

We have given Sam a season, he couldn't even stay starting on this current team

If we pass up a chance to draft a top end QB1 and that guy becomes a franchise QB and we are still holding the bag on Sam, that is how you set a franchise back a few years

the only way i am rolling with sam next year is if we had a pick that was say 10 or higher and we have to trade a bunch to try to get a potential top QB; then i say risk/ reward lets give sam one more season with some more tools

but we are sitting at 2 or 3 with basically the pick of the litter; good luck at the lube Sam

Assuming he starts this weekend a new GM/HC will have 18 games of tape to evaluate Sam, I think they'll be coming in with a pretty good idea of who he is.

If Sam is the best option come week 1, that will be a pretty big red flag on the talent evaluation process of whoever we take in the first round and not a good start to the new regime.

The conversation is mind-numbing. There are plenty of examples of 'top 10 drafted QBs' who didn't have a good 1st year, for various reasons...sometimes he's just not very good year 1.

The red flag for me would be the new regime - hell or high water - insisting on starting their highly drafted QB if he doesn't give the team the best chance to win in week 1. Doesn't mean he won't turn into Joe Montana down the road, but to suggest that player MUST start week 1 because of where he was drafted is dumb, and not a good way for the new regime to get buy-in from the rest of the roster.

The conversation is mind-numbing. There are plenty of examples of 'top 10 drafted QBs' who didn't have a good 1st year, for various reasons...sometimes he's just not very good year 1.

The red flag for me would be the new regime - hell or high water - insisting on starting their highly drafted QB if he doesn't give the team the best chance to win in week 1. Doesn't mean he won't turn into Joe Montana down the road, but to suggest that player MUST start week 1 because of where he was drafted is dumb, and not a good way for the new regime to get buy-in from the rest of the roster.

Welcome to the NFL, just how it works. A high first rounder is going to get chances that a 5th rounder won't. Fair or not it's how things work.

If we a draft a QB in first rd they are getting majority of first team snaps. You don't invest that capital and not try to make it grow. Sam will have to get his own QB coach in the offseason to get additional reps, sometimes you need to invest in yourself.

If we a draft a QB in first rd they are getting majority of first team snaps. You don't invest that capital and not try to make it grow. Sam will have to get his own QB coach in the offseason to get additional reps, sometimes you need to invest in yourself.

I agree with that.

As has been said, the new regime will have something like 18 games to have evaluated Sam. It shouldn't take long for them to determine whether the new guy (if they draft a QB) will provide the team a better chance of winning.

For investment purposes, you definitely hope he does.