firebee wrote:You're not benching a QB because it's a road game. You're benching a QB because he had a bad performance on a road game the game before a long road game to a place where that rookie QB is going to probably have distractions at home while he's in the area. The travel time and crowd at an away stadium isn't going to favor the rookie. You have a QB you paid big bucks for that's performed well as a situational starter in regular season games like this and he's looking to earn the start somewhere in the NFL before the end of his career, so a good performance in Carolina builds value in that QB, so you can trade him for a couple 1st round picks in a year or two. Even if Flynn performs well, we can start Wilson against New England in Seattle because Flynn would understand that Wilson is the future of this franchise and we're going to play him in games that are favorable to him being successful.
It's called putting your QB in the best situation to succeed in. That's how you build confidence in young QBs. That's the difference between an Eli Manning or Philip Rivers and a Matt Leinart or Trent Edwards. You don't put rookie QBs in situations that are heavily favored against them having a bad performance or losing a game, even if they have a good performance.
That's such an awful awful idea I really do not know where to begin.
You may be able to juggle QB's at the college ranks (even then, not a good idea) but not in the NFL.
Either we ride with Wilson.. accept the fact he's going to likely struggle (added frustration given how much talent is on this roster and how close we could be to contending with better play at QB). Or you replace him with Flynn and don't look back.
It's not Madden 13. You don't play musical chairs with the most important position on the field. What happens, if under your scenario, Flynn goes for 300 and 3? The first mistake Wilson has against NE.. guess what's going to happen?
If Flynn goes 300 yards for 3 TDs... Great!!! We're 3-2 heading home against a NE team that has a long way to travel and we're talking about Flynn starting against the Patriots based on his performance. If we choose to start Flynn against New England and he wins the game against New England with a good performance, maybe we extend his starts through SF and Detroit. You guys act like winning games with Flynn for a stretch is a bad thing.
Wilson got us to 2-2, but his performances have been lackluster and that's a reality. Letting Wilson take a breather and letting him get more comfortable with the offense while Flynn plays a stretch of games, as long as he's performing well and winning games isn't necessarily a bad thing for the development of Wilson or the Seahawks. If Flynn performs badly in Carolina, we start Wilson against New England at home and the team actually has more confidence in Wilson at QB because of Flynn's poor performance in Carolina. If Flynn performs well and wins, we look at extending his starts.
John Elway, Eli Manning, Drew Brees... All three of them split starts with another QB their rookie year. I'm afraid people, PC included, are making choices based on their desire for Wilson to perform well vs. the probability of Wilson performing well.