clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Is this regime a "walking contradiction"?

New, comments

Let me preface this by saying I rarely ever agree with the things that Armando Salguero writes in the Miami Herald.  However, this time, he's on to something.

Talking about the signing of Chad Pennington by Bill Parcells and company, Salguero writes:

This move, by the way, is frought with contradiction.

The team spent the entire offseason ignoring starting-caliber talent in free agency simply because some of the players were over 30 years old. The idea was to sign players that would still be around in three or four years when the team came out of the talent darkness it is currently in. Pennington, 32, is not likely to still be around then and his contract confirms that.

So what gives? You can't have it both ways. Either the Dolphins were wrong at the beginning of free agency by not adding high-caliber vets then or are showing their desperation now by adding Pennington.

Salguero makes a good point here.  Think about some of the guys the Dolphins passed on because of their age this offseason.  Alan Faneca comes to mind right away.  But I guess it's OK for this regime to bring in players who are on the downside of their career if they are "Parcells' guys."  And I don't get it.

Is Chad Pennington better than Josh McCown?  He has been in the past.  But last season wasn't a good one for Pennington and he wasn't exactly impressing early on in camp in New York.  So who knows if Pennington is better than McCown right now.

The question I have, though, is that this year was supposed to be about building for the future.  So how will it help this team in the future if Chad Pennington starts in week one?  And at the price tag he was signed at, he's likely going to start - that or he's being brought in to be one of the highest paid back-up QBs. 

I don't know.  I just don't really get it, that's all.  So please, by all means, try to explain this to me below...