Actually yes. Who were the other options vs. Trent?
Who are the other options now? Josh Johnson? Dan Orlovsky?
Different game then too. Trent was flat out bad his first three years. What he became after 1998 was what he was. Freeman is a roller coaster, far less predictable.
Dilfer was also QB of a perennial playoff team with multiple future 1st ballot HOF'ers on it. Freeman was drafted to a team full of project pick ups and camp fodder that was in the beginning of a rebuild. So tell me who was more harmful again?
1. Dilfer didn't lose the 1999 NFC title game. King and Dungy did.
So what? Dilfer was the starter that year. If we would have cut bait sooner than we wouldn't have went into the game with a hurt Dilfer and wouldn't have had to rely on King.
2. What year did they NOT win when they should have? In 1996 and 1997, the Packers were too good and in 1998 the Vikings were too good.
Are you seriously making the argument that a better QB in the 90's wouldn't have made any difference? Wow. Interesting that you seem to think it would now though. By using the same logic, what year should we have won with Freeman that we didn't? Heck, if anything, Freeman was the only reason we won 10 games in 2010, because we sure as hell didn't have anyone else good on this team. What year did Trent Dilfer ever carry this team?
3. You cleverly use different criteria on the two QBs. When Dilfer was drafted the Bucs were bad too and he came before Sapp and Brooks. Using the other criteria the Bucs have added a lot of talent to go along with Freeman.
I'm not using different criteria at all. I'm pointing out the obvious. To suggest that we are hurting ourselves by giving Freeman time to develop on a rebuilding team more than we hurt ourselves by trusting Trent Dilfer to hold the reigns on a perennial playoff caliber team is asinine.
Remember the ill-fated 1995 season where we miraculously started 5-2 and Wyche put the nail in his coffin by promising the playoffs, and then finished the season 2-7 the rest of the way? Well our former top-10 pick at QB threw 18 INT's vs 4 TD passes that season. A better QB wouldn't have made a difference?
Remember in 1997, when we went 10-6, and lost to the Packers 21-7 in the Divisional round? Well our former 6th overall selection at QB went 11-36 for 200 yards, zero TD's and 2 INT's that game. A better QB wouldn't have made a difference?
Wow...
As far as the "they added talent this season" argument, so what? This was literally the 1st season Freeman has been surrounded with anything more than late picks and camp fodder, he also added a new coach and offensive system to learn. And although inconsistent, he ended up being the 1st Buccaneers QB ever to throw for 4,000 yards in a season.
The difference? IMHO we were never fooled with Dilfer. After 4-18, we should have known he'd never be great; but some are delusional enough to think Freeman WILL be great. IMHO if he isn't after this season, then he never will be. But he may be good enough to keep the Bucs strung out another few seasons.
QB's don't reach their peak until around 28 years old. Freeman is 25. To suggest that he "never will be" anything at this point is dumb. But it may very well be the case that Freeman will be done as a Buccaneer if he doesn't have a good season in 2013. I just happen to think it's also stupid to think that this will be better for the Buccaneers as an organization if that was to happen though. You act as though it's a sure thing that the guy we replace Freeman with is going to be better than him. It isn't.
