Based upon that game, we also need an entire new backup offensive line.
Cross fingers and let’s see what next week shows.

Yes, they should be. If Joe goes down, we are screwed. Henne lead KC on a 95 yard TD dtive vs Jacksonville when Mahommes went down. I have zero faith in Browning or Siemian doing that.

But getting Joe & Tee signed should be priority #1. And I'd easily prefer getting Reader, Boyd, or Chido re-signed over a backup QB.

Yes, we should be, but only at the right price.

Just going to mention that Ryan Finley is available. I don't actually think he is the answer though.

Agreed with others that Rourke from the Jaguars might be worth claiming if cut.

I understand they need to save money somewhere, but damn.

Hopefully they’re looking into possible cuts / other teams’ practice squads. Matty Ice is not an answer. Wentz isn’t either. Both are broken QBs.

(08-13-2023, 01:25 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm going to go ahead and say that I would not be comfortable with either Trevor Siemian or Jack Browning having to steer the ship for more than a series or two in regular season action.  Browning looks to have some steady in him to be developed, as he seemed to elevate TE Tanner Hudson when plays began to break down.  Browning looks to be worth keeping around and continuing his development.

Trevor Siemian on the other hand looked really lost and flustered, especially when you consider that he's got 8 years of experience, including 30 starts.  Not only did he look "lost" at times, I questioned what appeared to be a lack of effort.  Many of us seemed comfortable with him as backup QB when he was signed, but now I'm not so sure that he's the guy.

Now Sieman was playing with the 3s and 4s out there vs 2s and 3s   So im not sure.

If we do look for another QB it will likely be after Cuts have occured... Borrow looks like he will be back for the Opener.


Who is out there?

Unless you what Flacco/Foles?

Flacco was called Joe Cool as well so they might get along

Siemian surprised me, (in a bad way). I didn't think he was gonna be all John Elway but, he didn't look very sharp at all. Hopefully he looks much better next game. Frankly I figured it wouldn't even be a question between him and Browing? Now I'm not so sure?

Browning, like has been said, just looks uncomfortable, unsure, even scared to me. I know the Oline was playing poorly, to be fair.

Lets see how they look next week? But I wouldn't be opposed to some shopping at this point.

(08-13-2023, 03:43 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't think we're going to make any moves, so we may as well file this under "In Zac we trust" and/or "It's only preseason, did know the 0-16 Lions went 4-0 in the preseason?"

The 16-0 Patriots went 0-4 in preseason the year before that.

(08-13-2023, 04:22 PM)maclanta Wrote: If the backup QB is playing in the regular season with other backups, it will be because we are blowing a team out.

The backups would probably look better with our starting rotation.

Were they good on Friday? No… but I don’t think they ran their regular season offense.

It’s the preseason. Zach doesn’t play to win these games, which I thinks blows people’s minds.  But I guess congratulations are due to the Ravens that have now won 24 preseason games in a row.

Everyone here knows how preseason works. That said, looking scared and throwing atrocious INT's isn't usually remedied by playing with better players, and playing with the vanilla preseason offense (against vanilla preseason defense with no blitzing) should be making these guys more comfortable, if anything.

(08-13-2023, 07:30 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Good backups cost money. They got Semien for around $1 million. Brandon Allen was always cheap too.

True, but we may be able to find someone at a bargain at this time of year, especially after cuts.

(08-14-2023, 11:58 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: Flacco was called Joe Cool as well so they might get along

Flacco may be worth a look. The problem is that he signed with the Jets last year for $3.5 million. We need someone cheaper than that. That said, if he has no demand, maybe he'll lower his price.

(08-14-2023, 12:00 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Siemian surprised me, (in a bad way). I didn't think he was gonna be all John Elway but, he didn't look very sharp at all. Hopefully he looks much better next game. Frankly I figured it wouldn't even be a question between him and Browing? Now I'm not so sure?

Browning, like has been said, just looks uncomfortable, unsure, even scared to me. I know the Oline was playing poorly, to be fair.

Lets see how they look next week? But I wouldn't be opposed to some shopping at this point.

Spot on. I also thought Siemien would easily be the guy, and I was very surprised to see him starting the 2nd half. I haven't been following the team as closely in recent years, so I don't know if they said anything about why that is. Usually if the established veteran doesn't start the 1st half, that's a bad sign. In the past, anyways.

(08-14-2023, 12:43 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: The 16-0 Patriots went 0-4 in preseason the year before that.

Right.  So our backup QBs sucking and losing in the pre-season is fine because we don't want to go 0-16 by winning in the preseason.  I hope they both throw 6 INTs next week.

(08-14-2023, 12:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Right.  So our backup QBs sucking and losing in the pre-season is fine because we don't want to go 0-16 by winning in the preseason.  I hope they both throw 6 INTs next week.

Precisely. Your neck must get tired having to lug around such a massive brain all day.

(08-14-2023, 01:51 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Precisely. Your neck must get tired having to lug around such a massive brain all day.

Ehh, I'm being a bit facetious here.  Like I said, we talk about how the preseason doesn't matter, but we're talking about making changes to our QB room based upon the preseason.

That 2008 Lions team going 4-0 in the preseason is probably being mentioned on every team message board right now that didn't look perfect in game 1 so far.  Has anyone watched those 4 games?  Did the Lions look good?  Did their backups just win?  I don't recall anyone saying the 2008 Lions would be good before or after the preseason.

Anyways, the days of anyone with starting talent playing in the preseason seem behind us, so it's extra moot now, I'd wager. 

Reminder that Bengals were comfortable with freakin Brandon Allen for 3 years.
If the Bengals were that comfortable with him, you gotta think they'll be willing to roll with either Browning or Siemian.

If the Bengals were willing to bring in another guy though (unlikely at this point), the guys I would look at:
Wentz
Matt Ryan
Foles

Personally though, I really think Siemian will hold the gig. He just needs more than a couple weeks to get situated.

(08-14-2023, 01:55 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ehh, I'm being a bit facetious here.  Like I said, we talk about how the preseason doesn't matter, but we're talking about making changes to our QB room based upon the preseason.

That 2008 Lions team going 4-0 in the preseason is probably being mentioned on every team message board right now that didn't look perfect in game 1 so far.  Has anyone watched those 4 games?  Did the Lions look good?  Did their backups just win?  I don't recall anyone saying the 2008 Lions would be good before or after the preseason.

Anyways, the days of anyone with starting talent playing in the preseason seem behind us, so it's extra moot now, I'd wager. 

Oh I know how you operate by now, lol (I don't mean that in a bad way).

I was just having fun with it, although sarcasm and humor often doesn't translate via text the way we want it to.

I think (as usual) the truth lies between the 2 extremes. We can't (or shouldn't) make sweeping judgements based on preseason games. Everything should be taken with a lump of salt. That said, even the teams themselves make some judgement calls based on preseason performances.

So I think it's fair for fans to do the same.

Of course, it's possible one of these guys comes out next week and throws 4 TD's in a half and puts some serious pressure on Joe Burrow. I'm kidding. I think.

Again, the truth is usually in the middle.

(08-14-2023, 01:55 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ehh, I'm being a bit facetious here.  Like I said, we talk about how the preseason doesn't matter, but we're talking about making changes to our QB room based upon the preseason.

That 2008 Lions team going 4-0 in the preseason is probably being mentioned on every team message board right now that didn't look perfect in game 1 so far.  Has anyone watched those 4 games?  Did the Lions look good?  Did their backups just win?  I don't recall anyone saying the 2008 Lions would be good before or after the preseason.

Anyways, the days of anyone with starting talent playing in the preseason seem behind us, so it's extra moot now, I'd wager. 

Anyone who says Preseason doesn't matter is silly. Anyone who says preseason game scores matter is sillier. 

(08-14-2023, 02:18 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Oh I know how you operate by now, lol (I don't mean that in a bad way).

I was just having fun with it, although sarcasm and humor often doesn't translate via text the way we want it to.

I think (as usual) the truth lies between the 2 extremes. We can't (or shouldn't) make sweeping judgements based on preseason games. Everything should be taken with a lump of salt. That said, even the teams themselves make some judgement calls based on preseason performances.

So I think it's fair for fans to do the same.

Of course, it's possible one of these guys comes out next week and throws 4 TD's in a half and puts some serious pressure on Joe Burrow. I'm kidding. I think.

Again, the truth is usually in the middle.

I hear ya, part of talking NFL is admitting that the 2008 Lions have made it as hard to be critical of the preason as Brady being drafted at 199 has made it hard to discount a QB taken...anywhere in the draft.  Kurt Warner helps dispel the myth that a QB even needs to be drafted. 

(08-14-2023, 02:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anyone who says Preseason doesn't matter is silly. Anyone who says preseason game scores matter is sillier. 

Well, the scores don't count but if some rookie WR scores 4 TDs even in a pre-season game I'd say that matters in a sense.  BUt yea, the W/L column isn't terribly important, but it's still nice to see players doing stuff that usually affects the scoreboard. 

(08-14-2023, 02:31 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I hear ya, part of talking NFL is admitting that the 2008 Lions have made it as hard to be critical of the preason as Brady being drafted at 199 has made it hard to discount a QB taken...anywhere in the draft.  Kurt Warner helps dispel the myth that a QB even needs to be drafted. 

What do all of those things have in common, though? They were all very fluky occurrences. Hence why we remember them.

2 QB's (3 if you want to count Romo) being taken late (or not being drafted at all) doesn't throw a wrench into the notion that you should draft a QB in the first round.

Just as the 2007 Patriots or 2008 Lions don't prove that preseason doesn't matter. Particularly when it comes to evaluating individual players.

Edit: I just noticed that you said essentially the same thing to bfine.

(08-14-2023, 02:37 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: What do all of those things have in common, though? They were all very fluky occurrences. Hence why we remember them.

2 QB's (3 if you want to count Romo) being taken late (or not being drafted at all) doesn't throw a wrench into the notion that you should draft a QB in the first round.

Just as the 2007 Patriots or 2008 Lions don't prove that preseason doesn't matter. Particularly when it comes to evaluating individual players.

I was going to joke that at least Warren Moon was long enough ago that people aren't looking to the CFL for HOF QBs...though I wouldn't mind Nathan Rourke being here.

(08-14-2023, 02:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I was going to joke that at least Warren Moon was long enough ago that people aren't looking to the CFL for HOF QBs...though I wouldn't mind Nathan Rourke being here.

Flutie wasn't bad, either. Maybe the CFL is truly the answer to our backup problem.

(08-14-2023, 11:55 AM)The D.O.Z. Wrote: Hopefully they’re looking into possible cuts / other teams’ practice squads. Matty Ice is not an answer. Wentz isn’t either. Both are broken QBs.

When looking at backups, Matt Ryan really is above average.
Continually completes 65% or better.
Last year was his only year he was close to even number of TDs and INTs, but still better than most backups in that aspect.
Higher QB Rating than Mayfield and Siemian last year.

Dalton would probably have been a preferred choice if he were available, but I can't see a scenario where CAR would see him expendable given Young's first year. 

(08-14-2023, 02:55 PM)ochocincos Wrote: When looking at backups, Matt Ryan really is above average.
Continually completes 65% or better.
Last year was his only year he was close to even number of TDs and INTs, but still better than most backups in that aspect.
Higher QB Rating than Mayfield and Siemian last year.

Dalton would probably have been a preferred choice if he were available, but I can't see a scenario where CAR would see him expendable given Young's first year. 

I wouldn't mind Ryan as an option either, based on his stats and just being another veteran guy with winning experience. 

My only question comes at his potential cost. With money being tight I would hesitate to pay likely what he'd be asking. But at the same time, let's say the backup QB has to step in for a key 2-3 game stretch with the season on the line, there's no way in heck that I'd have even an iota of confidence in any of our current backup QBs to lead a FG drive much less lead this team in a crucial multi-game window. 

So that money may be worth it, or at least worth a long, hard look.