After our failed experiment at QB, alot of people are recalling their preseason calls for the signing of a veteran backup QB as a sort of "I told you so". I still don't buy it.
I'm glad that we got a chance to see Frye and Anderson in action. Not that they have convinced me (or anyone) that they are genuine starting QB material, but we have a better idea than we did going into the season.
As I understand it, the argument for the veteran backup QB went something like this:
i) He can take over if the youngun isn't ready
ii) He can mentor the younguns
My responses to each:
i) Who is this veteran? Who are the available QBs who are of starting caliber, whose veteran saavy is enough to justify putting him in over a supposed "QB of the future"? The fact is, you've gotta choose a direction at QB. Do you want to try out a young guy? Or do you want to rely on known mediocrity? Personally, I prefer our current situation, where we now know that Frye has limits and questionable potential. The alternative is that we could have put Kerry Collins out there to get us to 3-9, only to throw in the towel in on him, and then watched Frye go 1-3 with "promising signs" and "great poise under pressure" so that we would now still be under the mistaken belief that Frye may be the next Brett Favre.
ii) This is the more common argument, thrown in when people realize that the veteran backup probably won't be expected to play. To which I say "God, if you're going to hire someone who can be Charlie's friend and hold his clipboard and give him advice, why does that guy have to wear a uniform and count against the salary cap? Why not find a recently retired QB who you can put on the payroll to do the same thing? You can even give him some sort of title. Like QB coach or something."