Who do you WANT to be the next QB?

[CannonFire]

I think we really wanted one more year from Brady before moving on to Trask. If Gabbert needs to bridge, I'm fine with it. We've been through worse.

I mean, the Gabbert tape speaks for itself, sure. But hero-worshiping aside eight head coaches and eight coordinators his first eight years would be a death sentence for any QB, I don't care who you are.

That's pretty much all I'm saying. Bring Gabbert back and address the other issues we have. The NFL has proven in the last 15 years, that your window is only as big as your rookie contract QB or a QB who's willing to take less money. We can address the QB position next year.

[King Bootz]

I think everyone can pretty much agree that going into the season with Blaine Gabbert as starter means we have no intentions of winning much in 2022. Any other conclusion is pure delusion.

[Nano]

I think everyone can pretty much agree that going into the season with Blaine Gabbert as starter means we have no intentions of winning much in 2022. Any other conclusion is pure delusion.

Going into next season with Gabbert as your starter is a good way to destroy any goodwill you had with your fanbase. With him as our starter, we'll go like 4-13 next season and the big fan discussions will be how quickly Bruce Arians retires and if we should fire Licht while we're at it. Also Bryce Young or CJ Stroud with our top 5 pick.

[MJW]

I think everyone can pretty much agree that going into the season with Blaine Gabbert as starter means we have no intentions of winning much in 2022. Any other conclusion is pure delusion.

Going into next season with Gabbert as your starter is a good way to destroy any goodwill you had with your fanbase. With him as our starter, we'll go like 4-13 next season and the big fan discussions will be how quickly Bruce Arians retires and if we should fire Licht while we're at it. Also Bryce Young or CJ Stroud with our top 5 pick.

You made the opposite point than the one you intended at the end. We're not winning a ring next year. So coming out of it with a franchise QB seems like a great alternative outcome to me.

[Cheb]

I think we really wanted one more year from Brady before moving on to Trask. If Gabbert needs to bridge, I'm fine with it. We've been through worse.

I mean, the Gabbert tape speaks for itself, sure. But hero-worshiping aside eight head coaches and eight coordinators his first eight years would be a death sentence for any QB, I don't care who you are.

I don't see the need to bridge with Gabbert at all, to be honest, and I challenge anyone to argue it's a smart idea.

Has Gabbert been put in the best positions for NFL success in his career, no. But the dude is 25-41 as a starter for a reason, for a career winning percentage of 37.9%. To put it bluntly, Gabbert has never been The Guy, he has been an overt bust, and he is highly unlikely to become a savant out of the blue in his early 30s. I cannot for the life of me think of a quarterback who turned his career around after a decade of unmitigated failures. Can anyone?

We have two questions we need to answer in our quarterback room:

- Is Kyle Trask the Quarterback of the Future?
- If he is not, then how quickly can we find the guy who is?

Starting Blaine Gabbert does not answer that question; it delays the answer. Starting Blaine Gabbert is not swinging for the fences and it isn't trying to tank. It's treading water, and treading water is the exact opposite of what we need to do.

Sink or swim, I'd almost argue that we need to start Trask. If we suck, we know he isn't the guy and we can draft or sign a guy who may be. If we are competitive under center, then we start the Trask era on solid ground.

Let's say a mediocre Gabbert beats up on a bad NFC South next season, and we make the playoffs. Do we pay a middling player a market-rate extension for greater than $30 million a year? Do we jettison him and start Trask the following year? If the former, we deserve everything that's coming to us, and if the latter, why didn't we just be bold and do that in the first place?

[MJW]

I think we really wanted one more year from Brady before moving on to Trask. If Gabbert needs to bridge, I'm fine with it. We've been through worse.

I mean, the Gabbert tape speaks for itself, sure. But hero-worshiping aside eight head coaches and eight coordinators his first eight years would be a death sentence for any QB, I don't care who you are.

I don't see the need to bridge with Gabbert at all, to be honest, and I challenge anyone to argue it's a smart idea.

Has Gabbert been put in the best positions for NFL success in his career, no. But the dude is 25-41 as a starter for a reason, for a career winning percentage of 37.9%. To put it bluntly, Gabbert has never been The Guy, he has been an overt bust, and he is highly unlikely to become a savant out of the blue in his early 30s. I cannot for the life of me think of a quarterback who turned his career around after a decade of unmitigated failures. Can anyone?

We have two questions we need to answer in our quarterback room:

- Is Kyle Trask the Quarterback of the Future?
- If he is not, then how quickly can we find the guy who is?

Starting Blaine Gabbert does not answer that question; it delays the answer. Starting Blaine Gabbert is not swinging for the fences and it isn't trying to tank. It's treading water, and treading water is the exact opposite of what we need to do.

Sink or swim, I'd almost argue that we need to start Trask. If we suck, we know he isn't the guy and we can draft or sign a guy who may be. If we are competitive under center, then we start the Trask era on solid ground.

Let's say a mediocre Gabbert beats up on a bad NFC South next season, and we make the playoffs. Do we pay a middling player a market-rate extension for greater than $30 million a year? Do we jettison him and start Trask the following year? If the former, we deserve everything that's coming to us, and if the latter, why didn't we just be bold and do that in the first place?

I agree with everything you're saying. My response is this: any season that begins with Blaine Gabbert starting WILL end with Kyle Trask starting. I believe that 100%. That's why I'd be okay with it. Gabbert will be handed the job out of camp because Arians gonna Arians. But he'll play himself out of it.

[nybf]

There's a local guy here that's always been pretty good with Bucs' news as he's from Tampa. Sometimes he has huge misses, but has been early on some other things. He claims to have been told that in the absence of getting one of the big QBs like Watson, Wilson, etc. it would be Gabbert as the starter and then Trask would compete (Griffin?) for the back-up role.

Some things he's right. Some things he's wrong. Got it.

[uscbucsfan]

There's a local guy here that's always been pretty good with Bucs' news as he's from Tampa. Sometimes he has huge misses, but has been early on some other things. He claims to have been told that in the absence of getting one of the big QBs like Watson, Wilson, etc. it would be Gabbert as the starter and then Trask would compete (Griffin?) for the back-up role.

Some things he's right. Some things he's wrong. Got it.

Yup.

Here are things I found on the previous board:

Right:

-We would tag Godwin and not sign him to a long term deal
-We would go get Brady or Rivers (was a pipe dream at that point)

Not sure:
-BA wanted to be done with Jameis, but Licht (or someone in the FO) wanted another year

Wrong:
-Vea tore his ACL

[CannonFire]

It didn't take Alex Smith 11 years to prove he could play the QB position functionally well.

I have a hard time believing the guy above me believes a damn word he said

Gabbert's first 3 years were better than Smith's. Smith was given time by the team who drafted him, Gabbert didn't get that same opportunity. That's not really debatable.

I believe everything I put there. Every FA QB, including Gabbert equals a losing season. All of them. The biggest difference is that all of those other guys haven't been in our system as longs Gabbert and all of them will cost more money. Another difference is that none of them have any chance of a surprising upside. Gabbert does. Do I expect him to? Of course not. I'd just rather take the shot in the dark with him at the lower cost than the other guys.

None of the possible options for trade are going to make this team a competitor. We have limited money and no viable draft capital that could win a trade war among teams like Philly, Miami, Giants, and 9ers. That means there will be no Rodgers, no Watson (not that I want him anyway), and no Wilson... that's even assuming they do get traded. So, none of them are coming here. Our only options are the FA's (which aren't winning QB's), Gabbert (who's most likely not a winning QB), Trask (a shot in the dark), and draft prospects (to which none are considered high end QB's), and if any of them are good... the odds are that they won't drop to #27.

I'm not really sure where you think we're going to get a QB who's going to help us win is going to come from, unless Brady comes back.

[kaimaru]

FTR I would like to reiterate that I'm not pushing for Blaine Gabbert to the starting QB nor would he be my preferred option.

That said, there seems to be a larger than expected portion of the fanbase who don't/didn't seem to realize the probability of it happening.

Again, we can have our wish list for names likes Wilson, Rodgers, Watson, etc but the fact is ALL of the good options are under contract with a different team.

There are media types speculating on this as setting Blaine Gabbert in case we trade for Watson in the case he is suspended for any length of time by the NFL. I think it also maybe to give Trask time so he doesn't feel rushed. Then again, crazy Arians may think "Gabbert can win us a Super Bowl!" We won't know until later.

[Snake]

Rushed? Trask sat out his entire rookie season. He’s 6 years removed from high school. If he can’t beat out Gabbert as a 24-year-old 2nd year player, he’s a straight up bust.

[kaimaru]

Rushed? Trask sat out his entire rookie season. He’s 6 years removed from high school. If he can’t beat out Gabbert as a 24-year-old 2nd year player, he’s a straight up bust.

They worked on his mechanics this year. That is why he was effectively QB4 on the depth chart. He wasn't doing opposing team reps either. What makes you think he can suddenly learn this option route tree for pass catchers if he hasn't done it in practice during the regular season?

[Cheb]

Rushed? Trask sat out his entire rookie season. He’s 6 years removed from high school. If he can’t beat out Gabbert as a 24-year-old 2nd year player, he’s a straight up bust.

They worked on his mechanics this year. That is why he was effectively QB4 on the depth chart. He wasn't doing opposing team reps either. What makes you think he can suddenly learn this option route tree for pass catchers if he hasn't done it in practice during the regular season?

He spent a year in the film room studying how to read defenses and throw those routes with Tom Brady?

Those aren't a matter of arm talent, btw; option routes are a matter of the quarterback and the receiver seeing the defense in the same way and making the same adjustment. It's 75% above the neck.

[MJW]

Debating whether Trask or Gabbert should start is a waste of time. In this particular scenario, Gabbert starts. Because BA has made it crystal clear who he is when it comes to QBs. He's Jon Gruden with longer term relationships. He wants a heady veteran. He wants 35 year old Carson Palmer backed up by 33 year old Drew Stanton. He wants 44 year old Tom Brady backed up by 32 year old Blaine Gabbert.

Unless Kyle Trask comes in and he's Russell Wilson in Seahawks camp in 2012, Gabbert would get the job. But like I said above, it would be temporary. Because Gabbert is terrible and at some point he'll leave Arians with no choice.

[real bucs fan]

Winston or Gabbert. Who you taking? I’d prefer Jameis myself. At least you know you’ll be entertained.

[MJW]

Winston or Gabbert. Who you taking? I’d prefer Jameis myself. At least you know you’ll be entertained.

If Jameis comes back, I'm out as a Bucs fan until he leaves. I will maintain my barely tolerated movie thread. But I won't be watching Bucs football until he's back off the roster. We don't deserve that kind of suffering.

[Grahamburn]

None of the possible options for trade are going to make this team a competitor. We have limited money and no viable draft capital that could win a trade war among teams like Philly, Miami, Giants, and 9ers. That means there will be no Rodgers, no Watson (not that I want him anyway), and no Wilson... that's even assuming they do get traded. So, none of them are coming here.

Watson and Wilson both have no trade clauses. They basically get to choose where they want to go. Draft capital is irrelevant in the sense the Bucs would be negotiating with teams having more/higher picks. That being said, I don’t expect either of them to come here. But, I didn’t expect Brady to come here either.

Those guys may think they have a better chance to win in Tampa Bay than anywhere else.

[MJW]

None of the possible options for trade are going to make this team a competitor. We have limited money and no viable draft capital that could win a trade war among teams like Philly, Miami, Giants, and 9ers. That means there will be no Rodgers, no Watson (not that I want him anyway), and no Wilson... that's even assuming they do get traded. So, none of them are coming here.

Watson and Wilson both have no trade clauses. They basically get to choose where they want to go. Draft capital is irrelevant in the sense the Bucs would be negotiating with teams having more/higher picks. That being said, I don’t expect either of them to come here. But, I didn’t expect Brady to come here either.

Those guys may think they have a better chance to win in Tampa Bay than anywhere else.

I think it's delightful we're pretending "chance to win a Lombardi immediately" is going to be the driving factor here. It will be ONE factor, sure, especially for Wilson (who doesn't have as many years left, obviously.) But the first and most important question will be about money. If we tell either guy we're going to pay them the number they have in their head, they'll be much less concerned about our relative strength (which is still not bad) versus the competition. I could also point out that Florida's lack of state income tax, Tampa's great weather and nightlife, and the presence of a great coach and staff are all attractive too.

Besides, how many teams a) will be in the market for these two and b) are clearly closer to winning a chip than we are? Not many, if any.

[Grahamburn]

That comment sounds tongue in cheek, but you don’t think these guys are going to consider the roster when making their decision on whether or not to waive a no trade clause?

[Dread]

Winston or Gabbert. Who you taking? I’d prefer Jameis myself. At least you know you’ll be entertained.

Flip a coin. Imo you'd get close to the same result with either guy.

Whoever plays QB in this offense is going to be productive. But can they be efficient and make winning plays when it matters (3rd down, Red Zone, 2min situations)? I have serious doubts with either Winston or Gabbert.

Plus I think both Winston and the Bucs are done with each other tbh.

[Dread]

I think we really wanted one more year from Brady before moving on to Trask. If Gabbert needs to bridge, I'm fine with it. We've been through worse.

I mean, the Gabbert tape speaks for itself, sure. But hero-worshiping aside eight head coaches and eight coordinators his first eight years would be a death sentence for any QB, I don't care who you are.

I don't see the need to bridge with Gabbert at all, to be honest, and I challenge anyone to argue it's a smart idea.

Has Gabbert been put in the best positions for NFL success in his career, no. But the dude is 25-41 as a starter for a reason, for a career winning percentage of 37.9%. To put it bluntly, Gabbert has never been The Guy, he has been an overt bust, and he is highly unlikely to become a savant out of the blue in his early 30s. I cannot for the life of me think of a quarterback who turned his career around after a decade of unmitigated failures. Can anyone?

We have two questions we need to answer in our quarterback room:

- Is Kyle Trask the Quarterback of the Future?
- If he is not, then how quickly can we find the guy who is?

Starting Blaine Gabbert does not answer that question; it delays the answer. Starting Blaine Gabbert is not swinging for the fences and it isn't trying to tank. It's treading water, and treading water is the exact opposite of what we need to do.

Sink or swim, I'd almost argue that we need to start Trask. If we suck, we know he isn't the guy and we can draft or sign a guy who may be. If we are competitive under center, then we start the Trask era on solid ground.

Let's say a mediocre Gabbert beats up on a bad NFC South next season, and we make the playoffs. Do we pay a middling player a market-rate extension for greater than $30 million a year? Do we jettison him and start Trask the following year? If the former, we deserve everything that's coming to us, and if the latter, why didn't we just be bold and do that in the first place?

That's a fair argument. I'd push back on the 'sink or swim' argument with Trask. That's how you ruin young QBs imo.

There is also financial component to the QB situation that would allow the Bucs flexibility to re-sign other free agents (Godwin, Whitehead, etc) if we were not able to trade for one of the big names (Watson, Wilson, Rodgers).

That would make the roster stronger over next few years while the cap increases significantly post-Covid + new TV contracts take effect. Putting the Bucs in a much more favorable position to go after a QB next offseason.

The Bucs are going to have some dead cap from Brady and likely Gronk (maybe others) in 2022 after what we did with contracts post-Super Bowl. So getting healthy financially would benefit long term and be a silver lining to now landing a marquee QB this offseason.

[King Bootz]

Winston or Gabbert? Punch in the face or kick in the nuts? I'd go Winston. At least we know he can be productive. You can never work around a QB that can't produce. Not in today's NFL. That's Blaine Gabbert.

[acmillis]

Winston or Gabbert? Punch in the face or kick in the nuts? I'd go Winston. At least we know he can be productive. You can never work around a QB that can't produce. Not in today's NFL. That's Blaine Gabbert.

I'll disagree solely for the purpose of being on Team Anybody but Winston.

2021 Broncos were 7-10. Certainly not good, but not terrible, either.
2021 Patriots were a 10-7 playoff team.
2021 Dolphins were 9-8.
2021 Eagles were a 9-8 playoff team.
2021 Steelers were a 9-7-1 playoff team.
2021 Titans were the #1 seed in the AFC.

[MJW]

So our options are lose or Lose!

[real bucs fan]

Winston or Gabbert. Who you taking? I’d prefer Jameis myself. At least you know you’ll be entertained.

If Jameis comes back, I'm out as a Bucs fan until he leaves. I will maintain my barely tolerated movie thread. But I won't be watching Bucs football until he's back off the roster. We don't deserve that kind of suffering.

Is it because of the rape accusation in college? If so, how do you feel about Watson? Or are you simply off the player?

Personally I’m more comfortable with Winston’s character than Watsons. Plus he’d be cheap, knows the system, and showed great flashes of improvement with the Saints. Plus I don’t think he has the self awareness to be irked by the “following Brady’s footsteps” narrative.

[real bucs fan]

Winston or Gabbert. Who you taking? I’d prefer Jameis myself. At least you know you’ll be entertained.

Flip a coin. Imo you'd get close to the same result with either guy.

Whoever plays QB in this offense is going to be productive. But can they be efficient and make winning plays when it matters (3rd down, Red Zone, 2min situations)? I have serious doubts with either Winston or Gabbert.

Plus I think both Winston and the Bucs are done with each other tbh.

Gabbert is the conservative choice. He’s going to be low risk but still have the blunders ala Garropolo. Winston will have the blunders but at least he’ll have the great plays too. I’ll take Winston.

[real bucs fan]

Heck why not have a three way competition between Gabbert, Winston, and Trask? Let the best man win.

[MJW]

If Jameis comes back, I'm out as a Bucs fan until he leaves. I will maintain my barely tolerated movie thread. But I won't be watching Bucs football until he's back off the roster. We don't deserve that kind of suffering.

Is it because of the rape accusation in college? If so, how do you feel about Watson? Or are you simply off the player?

Personally I’m more comfortable with Winston’s character than Watsons. Plus he’d be cheap, knows the system, and showed great flashes of improvement with the Saints. Plus I don’t think he has the self awareness to be irked by the “following Brady’s footsteps” narrative.

His garbage character (and it is) doesn't help, but no.

I've been a Bucs fan since the 80s. and watching him play the position is the least fun I've ever had as a fan. And I mean, I've seen some things. Awful, Awful things. Things like Craig Erickson and Eric Zeier and Bruce Gradkowski and Casey Weldon and Tim Rattay and both McCown brothers. But most of those guys were just awful. Winston is maddening. He will always disappoint you. And he's always look like a dotard as he does it. He's a gutless, brainless wonder. He can go suck his fingers and sucker in a fanbase somewhere else.

[real bucs fan]

Is it because of the rape accusation in college? If so, how do you feel about Watson? Or are you simply off the player?

Personally I’m more comfortable with Winston’s character than Watsons. Plus he’d be cheap, knows the system, and showed great flashes of improvement with the Saints. Plus I don’t think he has the self awareness to be irked by the “following Brady’s footsteps” narrative.

His garbage character (and it is) doesn't help, but no.

I've been a Bucs fan since the 80s. and watching him play the position is the least fun I've ever had as a fan. And I mean, I've seen some things. Awful, Awful things. Things like Craig Erickson and Eric Zeier and Bruce Gradkowski and Casey Weldon and Tim Rattay and both McCown brothers. But most of those guys were just awful. Winston is maddening. He will always disappoint you. And he's always look like a dotard as he does it. He's a gutless, brainless wonder. He can go suck his fingers and sucker in a fanbase somewhere else.

Hmm. Ive been as critical of Winston as anyone, but not fun and gutless are two terms I would not use. The guy is the ultimate “league pass” guy. Sure he’s infuriating but he’s must watch on Sundays.

Also I don’t think he’s a bad guy. I think he’s just a social moron.

[King Bootz]

Flip a coin. Imo you'd get close to the same result with either guy.

Whoever plays QB in this offense is going to be productive. But can they be efficient and make winning plays when it matters (3rd down, Red Zone, 2min situations)? I have serious doubts with either Winston or Gabbert.

Plus I think both Winston and the Bucs are done with each other tbh.

Gabbert is the conservative choice. He’s going to be low risk but still have the blunders ala Garropolo. Winston will have the blunders but at least he’ll have the great plays too. I’ll take Winston.

That's the thing: Gabbert isn't "low risk" at all.

He plays a very risky, mistake prone brand of football. Jameis Winston has a horrific INT% of 3.3%. Guess where Blaine Gabbert lies? 3.1%. He turns the ball over a ton as well.

The difference between the 2, which you and I agree on, is while Winston has shown the ability to put up 3-4 TD/350+ yard games, that's never been who Gabbert is. Not in college. Not on any team. He's a mistake prone QB who can't move the ball consistently. Winston sports a 5% TD percentage, while Gabbert's TD percentage sits at 3.3, damn near equal to his INT%. His sack % is a ridiculously high 8.4%.

For the life of me I can't take anyone seriously who would pick Gabbert over these 2. Or over anyone to be honest.

[real bucs fan]

Gabbert is the conservative choice. He’s going to be low risk but still have the blunders ala Garropolo. Winston will have the blunders but at least he’ll have the great plays too. I’ll take Winston.

That's the thing: Gabbert isn't "low risk" at all.

He plays a very risky, mistake prone brand of football. Jameis Winston has a horrific INT% of 3.3%. Guess where Blaine Gabbert lies? 3.1%. He turns the ball over a ton as well.

The difference between the 2, which you and I agree on, is while Winston has shown the ability to put up 3-4 TD/350+ yard games, that's never been who Gabbert is. Not in college. Not on any team. He's a mistake prone QB who can't move the ball consistently. Winston sports a 5% TD percentage, while Gabbert's TD percentage sits at 3.3, damn near equal to his INT%. His sack % is a ridiculously high 8.4%.

For the life of me I can't take anyone seriously who would pick Gabbert over these 2. Or over anyone to be honest.

Ya I meant “low risk” as in that’s his reputation but as you said he turns the ball over a bunch without producing the big plays ala Garropolo.

He plays a “low risk” conservative game but still has the horrific blunders.

[kaimaru]

His garbage character (and it is) doesn't help, but no.

I've been a Bucs fan since the 80s. and watching him play the position is the least fun I've ever had as a fan. And I mean, I've seen some things. Awful, Awful things. Things like Craig Erickson and Eric Zeier and Bruce Gradkowski and Casey Weldon and Tim Rattay and both McCown brothers. But most of those guys were just awful. Winston is maddening. He will always disappoint you. And he's always look like a dotard as he does it. He's a gutless, brainless wonder. He can go suck his fingers and sucker in a fanbase somewhere else.

Hmm. Ive been as critical of Winston as anyone, but not fun and gutless are two terms I would not use. The guy is the ultimate “league pass” guy. Sure he’s infuriating but he’s must watch on Sundays.

Also I don’t think he’s a bad guy. I think he’s just a social moron.

I can honestly say that the last season Winston was here, I didn't have fun during games. I knew that he would throw a pick at the worst time or get strip sacked at the worst time, and the damn squinting on the sidelines just urked me. If the choice is Gabbert or Winston, please give me Mitch Trubisky.

"Going to Buffalo really opened my eyes," Trubisky said. "After being in Chicago for four years, there was only one way I knew how to do things. [Being] in Buffalo and [having] a different way of doing things, you learn what's possible. It helped me get back to instinctual football and using my talents rather than overthinking."

"You can't be afraid to make mistakes," Trubisky said. "When guys are playing free, you can be at your best. I wanted to learn how [the Bills] helped Josh, and I saw that firsthand."

[Snake]

There was never doubt that he’s a great physical talent…we know that much.

[kaimaru]

There was never doubt that he’s a great physical talent…we know that much.

I am saying that he might be in a better headspace than he was with the Bears. There was a lot of pressure on him due to what they gave up to draft him.

[Doctor]

I think we really wanted one more year from Brady before moving on to Trask. If Gabbert needs to bridge, I'm fine with it. We've been through worse.

I mean, the Gabbert tape speaks for itself, sure. But hero-worshiping aside eight head coaches and eight coordinators his first eight years would be a death sentence for any QB, I don't care who you are.

I don't see the need to bridge with Gabbert at all, to be honest, and I challenge anyone to argue it's a smart idea.

Has Gabbert been put in the best positions for NFL success in his career, no. But the dude is 25-41 as a starter for a reason, for a career winning percentage of 37.9%. To put it bluntly, Gabbert has never been The Guy, he has been an overt bust, and he is highly unlikely to become a savant out of the blue in his early 30s. I cannot for the life of me think of a quarterback who turned his career around after a decade of unmitigated failures. Can anyone?

We have two questions we need to answer in our quarterback room:

- Is Kyle Trask the Quarterback of the Future?
- If he is not, then how quickly can we find the guy who is?

Starting Blaine Gabbert does not answer that question; it delays the answer. Starting Blaine Gabbert is not swinging for the fences and it isn't trying to tank. It's treading water, and treading water is the exact opposite of what we need to do.

Sink or swim, I'd almost argue that we need to start Trask. If we suck, we know he isn't the guy and we can draft or sign a guy who may be. If we are competitive under center, then we start the Trask era on solid ground.

Let's say a mediocre Gabbert beats up on a bad NFC South next season, and we make the playoffs. Do we pay a middling player a market-rate extension for greater than $30 million a year? Do we jettison him and start Trask the following year? If the former, we deserve everything that's coming to us, and if the latter, why didn't we just be bold and do that in the first place?

It doesn't "delay the answer", it makes it so that when we finally play the answer there's a higher chance of it hitting.

If a middling Gabbert beats up the NFC, great! We take our chances in a playoff run and hope for the best. Then we Jimmy G his ass.

Imagine if they took this "sink or swim" approach with Trey Lance, or Mahomes, or Rodgers... I can't even count how many QBs have been screwed over by this moronic "sink or swim now!" mentality.

Why not let him sink or swim in practice and training camp? If he can't beat out Gabbert he's not ready, we roll with Gabbert, he tries again next Training Camp when we bring in that "other answer". Maybe he beats that other answer out (see Flynn/Wilson or Bulger/Warner) maybe he doesn't. That's for 2023 training camp to decide.

But this idea of "hand over the job in a silver platter with no competition and if he fails, which is likely, then fuck him" is just petulant. I'll gladly eat another "grooming year" if it means we have a much better shot of actually coming out with a franchise QB on the other end. Your impatience is not Trasks or Arains problem and it's just as likely (if not more) to have us move on to the next Josh Freeman or Jameis Winston who sets us back another 5 years because you couldn't wait 1 more grooming year.