markshark84 wrote:I can understand your point, BUT if Alex Smith plays well, they will keep him or draft one of the many QBs in the upcoming draft. As far as the Titans, it is clear that ownership wants Young to start. We already tried to shop/push JC to the Vikings, BUT they declined immediately (I believe the same is true for SF -- behind closed doors). I am not sure about the Cards, but I would assume that they would start Lienhart over trading/signing JC (which makes WAY more sense) AND Warner has a couple years left in him, IMHO. Warner doesn't have the mileage that most upper-30s QBs have.
As far as CLE, OAK, SEAT, and STL, none have the OL or WRs that Frank spoke of. OAK appears to have some decent WRs, but they don't have the line. Personally, I believe that OAK is the only option, but who knows.
Alex Smith has never played well. They may keep him, but there's no chance they don't look for another option, and Shaun Hill pretty clearly isn't it.
Same thing with Leinart. Well, not quite. He *has* played well, but Whisenhunt's pretty clearly got no faith in him, so it's anybody's guess. Mileage isn't the issue with QBs that it is with RBs; it's just a question of getting old. Warner's play is going to fall off a cliff sooner rather than later; the Cards would be fools to go into next year without somebody they're comfortable starting several weeks in a row.
I'll grant that Tennessee's a big question mark, given that Young's playing so well, but don't put too much faith in unsource offseason reports. Virtually everybody who works in an NFL office is at least a professional liar, and any rumors need to be filtered through that mask. The problem with trading Campbell in the offseason, from a spectator perspective, was more the use of what they could get than simply what they could get. Cerrato said repeatedly that the '10 #1 wasn't in play, and without that, the Skins didn't have the ammo for either Sanchez or Cutler (and let's be thankful they didn't), and a team's got to be in pretty serious rebuilding mode to give up a low-cost starter for anything less than a blockbuster deal without having a succession plan in place. Todd Collins is not a succession plan.
It's nice that Denver is saying all the right things about how much they preferred Orton, but, then, they would. It's not like Orton's numbers this year are wildly better than Campbell's numbers before the bye last year (for that matter, they're not even wildly better than Campbell's numbers *this year*, and anybody who wouldn't trade the other 10 starters on the Broncos' offense for ours either doesn't watch football or isn't thinking dispassionately.