I think it's a crap idea bc I think Garrard is crap. Just bc we had somewhat of a perfect storm with Pennington, doesn't mean that anything like that situation is even remotely common. To say it's a good or even decent idea and cite Pennington as why Garrard could be successful here isn't very reasonable, imo.
Then don't critizise the common elements. If you think Garrard is crap, fine. But if you base it on something that is evidently no basis whatsoever, then you have to live with people pointing out that your argument is weak.
Moore doesn't have the career Garrard had, obviously. But at this point I'd much rather have Moore. Less money, less headaches, younger, not dealing with injuries, possibly more upside. I don't see how people can just assume Garrard is a better backup right now.
Still nothing on this anywhere else. Mort and Scheft also had nothing on it other than he wants a job with a team that will last the rest of his career and has a shot at a championship.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...garrard-makes-sense-for-several-qbneedy-teams What Jack Del Rio says is scary. He just never looked like an NFL QB.
