I'm Not 100% Sure Mike Florio Thought This List Through

Mike Florio lists the five quarterbacks who need to be benched. That is what this column is about, or at least what I think it is about. I am actually not sure because the only thing these five quarterbacks have in common is there really isn't a more viable option available as the backup quarterback behind them on their team. So benching these quarterbacks would do very little good to help the team win games this year. There is one quarterback who I think should be possibly benched out of this group, but I still don't like Florio's reasoning for benching him.

Florio runs ProFootballTalk, which is one of my favorite NFL sites, so I sort of feel like I am critiquing another blogger. Of course when you write columns for NBCSports I guess the status of a person as a "blogger" goes out the window.

Regardless, let's see why Mike Florio thinks these quarterbacks should be benched.

As training camp approaches and with every team in the valley of 0-0 and having a one-in-four chance (in theory) of winning the division and hosting a playoff game, optimism causes many fans to believe that their quarterback can -- and will -- not only survive but even thrive.

Mike Florio is here to crush this optimism by demanding your starting quarterback be benched and replaced with a potentially more underwhelming backup quarterback. Mediocrity can be yours!

Remember, this article is about which quarterbacks need to be benched, not which quarterbacks shouldn't even be starting quarterbacks in the NFL. If a person writes a quarterback needs to get benched, then there sure as hell better be a backup on the roster who can take over and be successful. After all, if this isn't the case then why bench your quarterback?

In some cities, the handwriting is already on the wall, plain to see for anyone who cares to notice.

Is it possible to bench a quarterback before he has even officially played a game as the starter? I would argue this is not possible. So this is a list of quarterbacks who shouldn't start for their team in the first game of the season. Oh, semantics. Anyway, I am getting sidetracked...

Jake Delhomme, Browns

Coach Eric Mangini recently said the starting job in Cleveland is Delhomme's to lose.

Don't tempt Jake Delhomme to lose the starting job. He will lose that starting job quicker than you can say, "he still owes me $150 for the 2009 playoff game debacle against the Cardinals."

I actually agree with this choice, but Delhomme should probably never have been signed in the first place. Of course he already has been signed, so there is nothing the Browns can do about that now. Since he has been signed he may be, may be, the best quarterback on the roster. Seneca Wallace probably isn't the answer, Colt McCoy isn't ready, and Brett Ratliff doesn't appear to be ready either. That leaves Jake Delhomme.

Delhomme lost his fastball at some point during the 13 days between Week 17 of the 2008 regular season and the divisional round of the playoffs. Though the Browns regard it as an aberration, it's unlikely that a guy would simply fall off the horse at an advanced stage of his career then find the stirrups again.

Delhomme actually played shitty from the January 2009 playoff game to the day that he "hurt" his thumb and finally pulled from the field by John Fox this past year. After he got hurt, the Panthers team started playing better, but I am sure that is a coincidence. So the aberration of a bad performance on the field the Browns saw lasted a total of 12 games...or as it is better known, nearly the entire amount of games Brady Quinn was given a chance to be the starting quarterback for the Browns.

David Garrard, Jaguars

The coach doesn't really believe in him. The owner doesn't really believe in him. So why in the heck is Garrard the Jaguars' starting quarterback?

Because the two quarterbacks behind Garrard are Luke McCown and Trevor Harris. Still think it is a good idea to bench Garrard? I don't.

In turn, the Jaguars should have found a better option in the offseason. They clearly don't love the guy. It makes no sense to keep him around.

So the Jaguars shouldn't bench Garrard, but should have found a better quarterback in the offseason. If only they had a time machine and could go back in time and sign a better quarterback than David Garrard and then go back further in time and not sign Garrard to a contract extension. "They should have signed another quarterback" was the same thing Florio said for the Browns about how they should not have signed Jake Delhomme. Perhaps this article could have been called, "5 Teams Who Should Have Signed Better Quarterbacks This Offseason," rather than the article being about quarterbacks getting benched.

Kyle Orton, Broncos

Like Orton wasn't on this list...we all know what's on the other side of Orton being bench....Tebow!

The decision to trade for Brady Quinn and to draft Tim Tebow hardly represents a vote of confidence for Orton, whose contract-year performance was rewarded with only a first-round restricted free-agent tender.

Thinking the decision to trade for Brady Quinn and draft Tim Tebow doesn't represent a vote of confidence for Kyle Orton also presupposes that Josh McDaniels has a master plan at all. I don't know if that is an assumption I am willing to make at this point. The Broncos got Brady Quinn for next-to-nothing and then McDaniels got lost in Tebow's eyes and the thickness of his biceps and felt the need to draft him. I don't know if there is a plan at the quarterback position in Denver to be honest. I need more information at this time.

So why do the Broncos insist on keeping him at the top of the depth chart? If, somehow, he plays well in 2010, it'll be harder to move on in 2011.

It won't be harder to move on in 2011 because the Broncos have Tim Tebow on the roster. Everyone loves Tebow! He's a future Hall of Fame quarterback! Haven't we already determined this?

The fact a quarterback may play well during the season and make it tough on the team to trade him or not be able to re-sign him isn't a good reason to get rid of that quarterback. That's just crazy talk. The fear of success by a quarterback is a poor reason to bench that quarterback. Kyle Orton playing so well that the Broncos have to re-sign him is a problem they would most likely like to have...especially since there may not be NFL games in 2011 due to a lockout.

The better move would be to get Tebow ready and get him on the field.

Great idea! Here's how to get Tim Tebow ready and get him on the field: Find a way to move time ahead one year and make it July 2011 and then hope that Tebow has improved enough in a year to be a starter in the NFL at that point. This shouldn't be hard, other than the whole scientific argument that time-travel isn't possible.

If the Broncos thought enough of Tebow to trade back into Round 1 to draft him, they simply should get him on the field.

They will get him on the field, but because a team chose a quarterback isn't the first round doesn't necessarily mean that quarterback has to be the starter for the upcoming year.

I am pretty sure there is a stiff debate on whether a quarterback is better served sitting on the bench or starting in his rookie year, so it isn't a given that a first round quarterback should automatically start in his rookie year. Mike Florio may have had heard something previously about this debate in the past, but I guess we know which side of the discussion he lands on.

Matt Moore, Panthers

After cutting Delhomme, the Panthers handed the ball to Moore.

They actually handed the ball to Matt Moore while Delhomme was still injured and there is a pretty good chance Moore would have started this year even with Delhomme on the roster...or at least he deserved to start.

Then the Panthers drafted a QB in Round 2 prepared to step in and play right away.

Mike Florio's vast experience at evaluating quarterbacks he has gained while writing an NFL blog and being an attorney tells him something every team that passed on Clausen did not know how NFL ready he was. That's what it seems since he is VERY confident Clausen can play right now.

What makes Florio think Clausen is prepared to play right away? He was considered "the most NFL-ready" quarterback in the draft? That means nothing.

So why not just give Jimmy Clausen the ball right now?

Maybe because he hasn't yet beat out the #2 guy on the depth chart, Hunter Cantwell, out for the job yet. Not to mention Matt Moore has a 6-2 career record as a starter, so he deserves a shot to be the #1 quarterback on the depth chart and try to win the job as the #1 quarterback on the depth chart.

If coach John Fox wants to stick around after 2010, he must show that Clausen can be the long-term answer at quarterback.

For a guy who runs a site that deals with NFL rumors and fact, Mike Florio sure has a poor grip on the John Fox coaching situation in Charlotte. Fox isn't a threat to be fired, he would be given a new contract if Jerry Richardson wasn't holding the line for the owners and cutting payroll in preparation for a strike. At this point, Fox is more inclined to go to another team on his own accord because he feels disrespected rather than from any threat the Panthers may not re-sign him. This is just lazy analysis of the situation.

I don't see how it makes sense to give the starting quarterback job to a rookie rather than a guy who has proven at the tail-end of last year he can win games. Why waste an offense that has a great running game, a good offensive line and one great receiver with a rookie at the helm if another guy has shown he deserves a shot to run the offense?

Matt Leinart, Cardinals

A top-10 pick in '06, Leinart hasn't been able to win and hold the job.

It doesn't help of course that Leinart has had Kurt Warner in front of him on the depth chart. Not to excuse Leinart's underachieving play, but it is not like the Cardinals should replace Leinart with Warner over the last two years while Warner is playing very well.

Injured in '07 after routinely being yanked for Kurt Warner when the going got tough, Leinart surprisingly landed on the bench shortly before the '08 season. He then watched Warner cement his Hall of Fame credentials.

Leinart may be a bust at the quarterback position, but he also probably deserves a chance to try and win the quarterback job in training camp, not just get benched before training camp.

Plus, who else is going to quarterback the Cardinals that is better than Leinart? Jake Delhomme-lite? (Derek Anderson) John Skelton or Max Hall, both guys who are rookies and not even close to being ready to start in the NFL? There aren't better options available at this point. Good quarterbacks just aren't laying around waiting to be signed.

So it's unclear why the team still has faith in Leinart. The best argument for keeping him on the field flows from the fact that the only other viable option is Derek Anderson.

So Leinart shouldn't be benched then? I love the idea that Mike Florio is writing a column about quarterbacks who should be benched before training camp, but three of the quarterbacks he writes about don't have a viable backup quarterback on the roster to play in place of the benched quarterback.

So why should Leinart get benched if there is a guy who is worse that would step in for him? In a perfect world, the Cardinals would have a replacement in the wings, but that isn't the case.

The Cardinals should have aggressively pursued other options in the offseason, whether Donovan McNabb or Marc Bulger.

So this is another situation where this article isn't really about quarterbacks who should have been benched and instead is about quarterbacks who should have been replaced in the offseason with a better quarterback. Is Marc Bulger really even a better option? He is 32 years old, injury-prone, and had his last good season in 2006. He's a great backup, but I don't know how I feel about him as a starter at this point.

Whatever the hell the Cardinals should have, could have or would have done doesn't matter at this point. They didn't sign a better quarterback, and because they don't have a better option to play the quarterback position doesn't mean their starting quarterback should be benched. You only bench a quarterback is there is a better option available and from his time in Cleveland over the last two years, Derek Anderson doesn't seem to qualify as a better option.

-Someone in the media, Ross Tucker, finally calls out Brett Favre for his diva-behavior and his blatant attempt to miss training camp. The title is "Brett Doesn't Deserve To Be Treated Like a Leader."

It is not super-harsh, but I will take whatever I can get. Here are some of my favorite parts for those who don't want to read it...

Unlike guys who may hold out in an attempt to get more money, he seems fine with the $13 million the Vikings are offering him in 2010. And even though Favre is supposedly still deciding whether he wants to play a 20th season in the NFL, the prevailing school of thought is that he'll be back. So what's the deal with possibly skipping training camp?

Because he can and Brad Childress lets him get away with it.

The Favre apologists are quick to point out that he has earned this type of special treatment based upon his status and longevity in the league. If that's the case, didn't Jerry Rice earn it as well? Or Emmitt Smith? Not to mention offensive linemen who played into their 40s, like Bruce Matthews and Jackie Slater. I'm pretty sure they all earned the right not to attend the worst three or four weeks of the year without facing the possibility of being fined, but I don't remember them skipping out on their teammates.

He can do this because he is Brett Favre. Haven't you seen the articles written about him? He is gritty, plays like a child and is the epitome of what every parent should want their child to grow up to be if they want their child to grow up to be a Vicodin-guzzling (that was old-school Favre), drama-queen, interception throwing quarterback who gets a pass because he is just so damn fun to watch play.

Is he worried about the intense practices? Sorry, but as a former offensive lineman I am not going to let a quarterback who wears a red jersey in practice attempt to get away with that excuse. That red jersey he wears means he is not allowed to even be touched, so Favre's gotta come up with something better than that.

See, he doesn't have to come up with something better than that. He's Brett-fucking-Favre and he can do whatever the hell he wants and will manipulate the media and fans into believing he is always right.

Does anyone honestly think head coach Brad Childress would ask Favre to throw one more football than he wants to? Didn't think so. Favre could easily be on a pitch count if he wanted. Heck, it could be the exact same number of throws he makes every day at Oak Grove High in Mississippi.

He just doesn't want to be subjected to the harsh conditions that training camp imposes on him. He doesn't have to be a good teammate because his coach doesn't force him to be. Brett Favre wins football games and he gets to play by a different set of rules.

My point is not that Favre's desire to skip training camp will have an adverse effect on the Vikings season, because clearly, based on their success last year, that isn't the concern. My point is that Favre is not deserving of being a team leader if he misses training camp this year. There doesn't appear to be any good reason for him to not be there, other than he can get away with it. But that means it's all about him again, as, sadly, it usually is.

This is the first column of many I want to see written like this. Some major columnist somewhere has to take Brett Favre to task for pretending he doesn't know he is coming back to the NFL just so he can skip training camp. Adrian Peterson got fined for missing a mini-camp earlier this summer and just because Favre is "undecided" doesn't mean he should get a free pass. He isn't retired and is under contract so he should be in training camp or be fined for his absence.