Here`s a new theory (1 Viewer)

[BustedKnuckles]

Could Russell signing decide Sunday's QB?

Posted by Jerry McDonald - NFL Writer on September 6th, 2007

Since the whole "competitive advanatage" reasoning offered by Lane Kiffin regarding his decision to hold off officially naming a starting quarterback seems weak, what could be the behind-closed-doors line of thinking?

JaMarcus Russell appears to be inching closer to signing a contract. Let's say it's closer than we think and he puts pen to paper before Sunday.

If that were to occur, not naming a starter makes sense because the Raiders could get a trade offer for either McCown or Culpepper. They could already have a standing offer, for all we know.

With Russell coming aboard after a two-week exemption, Andrew Walter could be the backup for the survivor.

In that case, Kiffin isn't naming a starter because he isn't entirely sure which one would still be on the team.

Both quarterbacks are signed for one year. Culpepper is due $3.2 million in salary and signing bonus. Odds are, he'd be signed by someone who was impressed by his preseason and was looking at him as a potential starter before the end of the season. The Raiders still could cut Culpepper before Saturday and be out just a $750,000 guarantee.

McCown is due a $2 million salary, which is more line with backup money than starter money.

Walter, of course, is the best deal of the three. He carries just a $435,000 salary and is signed through next season.

If the Raiders find a taker for Walter, or already have, then we're back to the point where the whole McCown-Culpepper blockade seems more silly than important.

 

[Traders2001]

Makes no sense.

 

[Max Power]

so he bases this theory on....

Might be the dumbest thing I have read all week

 

[Jim Otto]

so he bases this theory on....Might be the dumbest thing I have read all week

I think it's fine that you don't like his reasoning (or basis in fact) but to just blast away with no contrary argument or even an opinion on the subject matter is weak.---------------------------------------------OP,I doubt that the (potential) signing of Russell means that he is gonna start at all this year, if he does it would only be after several weeks and a completely lost season IMO.I think Kiffin knows exactly who he's gonna start, and just isn't telling us, Belichicking so to speak, it doesn't really have anything to do with Russell though.A rookie who missed the entire preseason is not gonna see the field right away, again just my opinion.Otto

 

[az_prof]

so he bases this theory on....Might be the dumbest thing I have read all week

I think it's fine that you don't like his reasoning (or basis in fact) but to just blast away with no contrary argument or even an opinion on the subject matter is weak.---------------------------------------------OP,I doubt that the (potential) signing of Russell means that he is gonna start at all this year, if he does it would only be after several weeks and a completely lost season IMO.I think Kiffin knows exactly who he's gonna start, and just isn't telling us, Belichicking so to speak, it doesn't really have anything to do with Russell though.A rookie who missed the entire preseason is not gonna see the field right away, again just my opinion.Otto

As I read the Russell Imminent Signing thread I was thinking the same thing. It does potentially explain why he is keeping the QB1 secret, if the guy he is planning to start is going to be traded or cut if they sign Russell. What doesn't make sense about that? They don't want the public to then question why they cut X, when they were planning to start him. There will be less controversy.

 

[CrossEyed]

But haven't the reports said that McCown is taking 90% of the snaps this week? If they were truly undecided about the starter for Sunday, wouldn't they be splitting reps in practice?

 

[Max Power]

so he bases this theory on....Might be the dumbest thing I have read all week

I think it's fine that you don't like his reasoning (or basis in fact) but to just blast away with no contrary argument or even an opinion on the subject matter is weak.---------------------------------------------OP,I doubt that the (potential) signing of Russell means that he is gonna start at all this year, if he does it would only be after several weeks and a completely lost season IMO.I think Kiffin knows exactly who he's gonna start, and just isn't telling us, Belichicking so to speak, it doesn't really have anything to do with Russell though.A rookie who missed the entire preseason is not gonna see the field right away, again just my opinion.Otto

This makes no sense on several levels1. signing russell on saturday doesnt make him a viable QB3 option on sunday anyways2. If they are planning to trade one...it would already have happened. Davis knows he needs to improve the team and he would move a qb for someone they need or a pick. 3. If there is a chance that one will be cut..the radiers already know which one it is.I might as well start "they arent naming a starting QB because they are trying to sign leftwich and start him theroy"

 

[az_prof]

so he bases this theory on....Might be the dumbest thing I have read all week

I think it's fine that you don't like his reasoning (or basis in fact) but to just blast away with no contrary argument or even an opinion on the subject matter is weak.---------------------------------------------OP,I doubt that the (potential) signing of Russell means that he is gonna start at all this year, if he does it would only be after several weeks and a completely lost season IMO.I think Kiffin knows exactly who he's gonna start, and just isn't telling us, Belichicking so to speak, it doesn't really have anything to do with Russell though.A rookie who missed the entire preseason is not gonna see the field right away, again just my opinion.Otto

This makes no sense on several levels1. signing russell on saturday doesnt make him a viable QB3 option on sunday anyways2. If they are planning to trade one...it would already have happened. Davis knows he needs to improve the team and he would move a qb for someone they need or a pick. 3. If there is a chance that one will be cut..the radiers already know which one it is.I might as well start "they arent naming a starting QB because they are trying to sign leftwich and start him theroy"

I don't think you know (3) and I don't see that (2) is true at all. (1) is irrelevent.Regarding (3): What if the person to be cut is Cpep, who is getting some pretty big $$$$. They don't want to cut him because they need him now; but if they sign Russell and pay him big $$$, they can't afford to keep both, especially if neither is starting this year.Regarding (2): Trades often happen just before the first game and there are teams looking to pick up a backup QB--and probably considering Leftwich too. Raiders don't want to trade one if Russell isn't signed. But if he is signed and they can get something for one of the others, why not?Regarding (1): Of course Russell will not start at this late date; but the team isn't going to carry four QBs, so one will be cut or traded. What if the one they are going to let loose is one of the top two?