Heisenberg wrote:Don't know what's so hard to grasp having a QB who's won some games is a safer bet than one who hasn't played any. We aren't talking Superbowl..got a ways to go before were close to contenders.. So Idk why that was mentioned..
Scenerio..were 8-5, Jameis goes down for 3 games.. 2 wins were in the playoffs... If you had to bet who would have a better chance of not ****ing up and win 2 games.. Foles/ vet with experience.. Or someone who's never seen a meaningful snap..hmm
That's exactly my point. Look at Big Ben, who Winston is often compared to. He's been to three Super Bowls. In two of those three Super Bowl seasons, he missed 4 games each. They had backups they could win with, were able to take most of those games without Ben and kept their postseason intact with home games and a bye. Compare that to the Packers, who had just let Matt Flynn walk. They were 5-2 and rolling, then Aaron Rodgers breaks his collarbone. They promptly lost 5 in a row, finishing the year at 8-7-1 and barely squeaking into the playoffs by virtue of the NFC north being terrible. They had to play in Frisco, who was still good back then, and got drummed out. If that team had a quality backup, they would have a shot in the games without Rodgers. If they could go .500 without Rodgers, they would have had a 11-13 win season, home playoff games and possibly a bye too.
In short, I don't consider the backup to be a season saver if Winston goes down for the year. I look at the backup as a guy who can save a season if you've built a contender but lose your starter for 2-6 games. You can salvage postseason positioning and hopefully still be in a good spot when your guy comes back and you play the games that really matter.