Post by FSUVike on Feb 1, 2024 17:54:15 GMT -6
How short sighted some of you are. Including the guy I blocked years ago.
Did none of you see what the Pukers just did? They extended a kid they had only seen glimpses of in regular season games. How's that working out so far?
It's not Rocket Science unless you make it that. Approach McCarthy's camp and float the idea that he sits behind Kirk for 2 years, gets an extension exactly like Jordan Love got in terms of circumstances, and if he performs as expected the FO will revist upping the money in that extension no later than after Year 2 of him starting. With the possibility of redoing his contract after Year 1 if he meets certain thresholds/benchmarks.
In this scenario you don't even need to use a 1st. Save that for the Defense.
I don't have the biggest problem with McCarthy sitting for a few years. I do have the problem with it being behind Kirk. I don't see the cost benefit of that. I'd rather pay 8-12 million for Tannehill or Brissett. I honestly believe we can field a team just as good if not better with a cheaper vet QB and spending the saved money to bolster the roster with younger guys on second deals and maybe someone on a prove it deal.
Kirk is not necessary for a roster retooling or sitting a rookie QB behind. That money can be better spent elsewhere.
Mullens threw for nearly 800 yards and 4 TD's in two games and he's a career backup. This offense can move the ball and score with a QB not named Kirk.
I'd argue keeping Kirk may actually hinder the plan.
I have no problem with Brissett or another option. Just that the notion of 'wasting' a Rookie QB Contract by having a guy sit isn't what it used to.