PhiloVance
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2021
- Messages
- 2,461
- Reaction score
- 1,556
- Points
- 113
Probably. Still funny.lol they obviously did that on purpose for show, just to gin up the whole Sopranos bit
Vikings to start Mullens this week. This makes little sense to me. We really need to see what Hall can do before assessing our choices at QB in the off-season. The concept of going into 2024 with Mullens as our starting QB is terrifying.
If there are no plans for Mullens next year other than as a backup, wouldn't it make more sense to see what we have in Hall? It's a long shot, but what if the guy is actually good?I really doubt Mullens is being considered the starter next season. Mullens has played some football, he'll be fine for a few games. Sure, I would prefer to see Hall get all the snaps the rest of the way but I understand the reasoning behind naming Mullens the starter.
Not if the staff thinks Mullens is the best chance to get a playoff berth. It's not like they playing out the string here.If there are no plans for Mullens next year other than as a backup, wouldn't it make more sense to see what we have in Hall? It's a long shot, but what if the guy is actually good?
Most optimal would be to clinch a spot, then let Hall play Week 18, though playing for the 6th seed could also have value.
If Hall wasn't even 2nd string last week, they must have more faith in Mullens, for whatever reason.
they will either bring cousins back, or draft a qb in round 1. It won't be Mullens.Vikings to start Mullens this week. This makes little sense to me. We really need to see what Hall can do before assessing our choices at QB in the off-season. The concept of going into 2024 with Mullens as our starting QB is terrifying.
All that is very plausible. They did say during the game broadcast though that Mullens was given some first team reps last week leading into the Raiders game. Perhaps was the difference in him moving them into FG range on Sunday, who knows.I like that idea, if he can get some run down the stretch, mop-up duty, whatever.
I disagree with the second point though, as there has been discussion about this on a few pods I listen to about other teams and QB's. Mullens was the backup because, as a result of his experience, he would be a lot more prepared to come in "cold", no reps during the week, etc.
With someone like Hall, you want him to get starter reps all week before you put him in. Big difference between preparing all week as the starter and sitting on the bench as the backup.
That being said, they had that opportunity this week and didn't take advantage of it; prep Hall as the starter, all the reps all week, etc. Being a short week COULD have had something to do with it, but it appears they think Mullens is at least a LITTLE bit ahead of Hall. I suspect the gap is not that large though.
All that is very plausible. They did say during the game broadcast though that Mullens was given some first team reps last week leading into the Raiders game. Perhaps was the difference in him moving them into FG range on Sunday, who knows.
I can't believe the refs threw the flag for offsides and took a great play by Cinci off the board.
You complaining?I can't believe the refs threw the flag for offsides and took a great play by Cinci off the board.
But a QB who sounds like Kermit the Frog told me that doesn't matter.Well he was offsides and the flag gets thrown before the play unfolds.