Tweet
Not implying anything just curious if others see Kitna as an upgrade over Holcomb.
-
Re: Kitna or Holcomb
Nah...they are the same guy. Let's keep Holcomb b/c he already has been here a year. -
Re: Kitna or Holcomb
Can I say neither?Comment
-
Re: Kitna or Holcomb
lol, i pretty much feel the same.
Just curious.Comment
-
Re: Kitna or Holcomb
rosencrantz and guildenstern. They're completely interchangable so it's better to go with the one who knows the coach and players: Holcomb.Comment
-
Re: Kitna or Holcomb
I agree.Originally posted by tlong8212Comment
-
Re: Kitna or Holcomb
Comfort level is good to have in a backup qb when it comes to other players, but wouldn't it be a good idea to bring in a young qb who has talent and the potential to possibly be a starter in case JP doesn't pan out? Holcomb is not the long term answer. If you had a guy like McCown or Harrington(given he's released) who've had starting experience on the roster, you wouldn't have to wait more time to develop a drafted qb.Comment
-
Re: Kitna or Holcomb
Thier both career back ups. I know kitna had that one good year but they are what they are backups. Keep trucking along with JP
Comment
-
Re: Kitna or Holcomb
No. Both are career backups that are locker room cancers. Kitna now says he feels he is a starter. We have a guy that THINKS he is a starter on this roster.Originally posted by Devin
Just say no to old, noodle armed, career backups.Comment
-
Re: Kitna or Holcomb
In my Eyes Kitna is an upgrade only because he did show he could be a solid starter 2 years ago when he had a top 5 passing season...Comment
-
Re: Kitna or Holcomb
KITNA
1997 sea | 3 | 31 45 68.9 371 8.2 1 2 | 10 9 1 |
| 1998 sea | 6 | 98 172 57.0 1177 6.8 7 8 | 20 67 1 |
| 1999 sea | 15 | 270 495 54.5 3346 6.8 23 16 | 35 56 0 |
| 2000 sea | 15 | 259 418 62.0 2658 6.4 18 19 | 48 127 1 |
| 2001 cin | 16 | 313 581 53.9 3216 5.5 12 22 | 27 73 1 |
| 2002 cin | 14 | 294 473 62.2 3178 6.7 16 16 | 24 57 4 |
| 2003 cin | 16 | 324 520 62.3 3591 6.9 26 15 | 38 113 0 |
| 2004 cin | 4 | 61 104 58.7 623 6.0 5 4 | 10 42 0 |
| 2005 cin | 3 | 17 29 58.6 99 3.4 0 2 | 2 14 0 |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| TOTAL | 92 | 1667 2837 58.8 18259 6.4 108 104 | 214 558 8
Holcomb
1996 ind | 1 | 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 | 0 0 0 |
| 1997 ind | 5 | 45 73 61.6 454 6.2 1 8 | 5 5 0 |
| 1998 ind | 2 | 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 | 0 0 0 |
| 2001 cle | 4 | 7 12 58.3 114 9.5 1 0 | 1 0 0 |
| 2002 cle | 5 | 64 106 60.4 790 7.5 8 4 | 8 9 0 |
| 2003 cle | 10 | 193 302 63.9 1797 6.0 10 12 | 8 7 0 |
| 2004 cle | 4 | 59 87 67.8 737 8.5 7 5 | 3 -2 0 |
| 2005 buf | 10 | 155 230 67.4 1509 6.6 10 8 | 18 11 1 |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| TOTAL | 41 | 523 810 64.6 5401 6.7 37 37 | 43 30 1 |
Not even a contest really. Not saying they should try and bring Kitna in if he was even availableComment
-
Re: Kitna or Holcomb
Where has it been shown that either are lockeroom cancers? Where has it been shown that Kitna now believes he is the starter?Originally posted by ICE74129Comment
-
Re: Kitna or Holcomb
Kitna, easily. And I have to agree with Thurm, neither are locker room cancers, especially Kitna. He's been extremely vital in the development of Palmer's game and confidence. He's been the ideal teammate.
"Look it up Thurman!!!" ~Marv Levy~
"It's like someone walking into your house and punching your mother RIGHT in the the face." ~Darryl Talley ~Comment
-
Re: Kitna or Holcomb
That is everything I have read and heard too...Originally posted by AndreReed83Comment
-
Re: Kitna or Holcomb
Kitna is probably better, but what's the point in bringing in another backup QB that doesn't really solve the real QB issue we have? If Kitna is thinking he's a starter, that would only make things more difficult. At least Holcomb will accept a backup role if asked. On a side note, who would be better for Losman's development, Holcomb or Kitna?Comment
Comment