Quote:
Originally Posted by Pez
I understand that could have harmed his development. But how does that make a case for getting Rivers? We could "protect Eason's development" by putting brissett in front of him.
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
|
Because they already tried the brissett experiment. Rivers was a good and convenient option. Knew the system and plenty of experience which were important given the lack of preseason. They knew it was a short term solution, only tied to one year, possibly stretch to second year, no real impact to our cap. That would give eason 1-2 years to learn which he could probably do better under a QB like rivers than brissett. Low risk with potential for a higher reward than brissett could have provided. Seems like a well thought out decision to me.