A Tale of Two Cities: Brady Quinn or Derek Anderson

When you have two quarterbacks, you have none.  I'm going to spit a little bit of info out there.  When Kurt Warner was with the New York Giants, he was helping develop Eli Manning.  And when Eli made bonehead plays and was down big in the game, Tom Coughlin would want to put in Kurt Warner to help "win the game." 

Kurt kept telling him "If you want Eli to become a winner, you need to let him struggle so he can learn how to get himself out of these situations."

And we've lost to three teams that are currently undefeated.

Now, I don't believe Anderson was put in to help us win.  Go for a FG when we're down by how much?  I'm sorry, I don't believe that.  BUT, if that is the case, it's a very bad decision.  Brady Quinn is our QB. 

And when Brian Daboll opens up the playbook for people like Robiskie, Massaquoi, and that guy named Edwards...well it might actually get some results.  We're not going to run the ball effectively this year.  Unless Harrison and Davis start getting the opportunities, we'll be passing it all year.

And that's a good thing.  We know we're going to be -.500 this year, so let's get the growing pains with Brady Quinn out of the way.  But if we continue down this road of not knowing whom our QB will be every few weeks, then we will be a split city.

Brady or Derek, Derek or Brady.  The only problem is that we had a 2007 Pro Bowl QB with some trade stock, especially with Bulger hurt again.  But now we have another outing of three interception Anderson.  Brian Daboll was a QB coach, so I think he can help either one, but they need to get this together. 

Keeping Quinn the starter will help him and the offense, and by the time we meet Pittsburgh we may have a chance.

Keep in Quinn, develop some better plays, and most importantly let him get through the growing pains.  I think watching Quinn kinda suck then watching Anderson really suck doesn't benefit any part of the team.