Why The Texans Should Trade Sage Rosenfels

Ever since Don Banks reported that the Minnesota Vikings offered a third-round pick for Sage Rosenfels, Texans fans have been buzzing about whether their beloved franchise should bid adieu to The Schaub's backup.  And the buzz only intensified once Quinn Gray decided to make Reliant Park his home for the next year.  Predictably, Kubes immediately sought to put out the firestorm of speculation that Gray's arrival was a precursor for Sage's departure:

"I know what people are saying, but signing Quinn has absolutely nothing to do with it," Kubiak said about acquiring Gray to expedite a trade for Rosenfels. "I've been a two-quarterback type of guy, but what happened to us last season scared the heck out of me, and I don't want to go through that again."

...

"I don't know what we would have done if something had happened to Sage," Kubiak said. "I don't want to go through that again. I think my philosophy has changed. I've become more of a three-quarterback guy."

Some media types have firmly opined that the Texans must not/cannot/should not trade Sage under any circumstances, addition of Gray be damned.  While I understand the lure of hanging on to a backup QB who has shown he can succeed, particularly considering the fact that Matt Schaub's first season as a No. 1 QB saw him miss parts of four (4) games and the entirety of five (5) others, I completely and totally disagree with the notion that the Texans should keep Rosenfels when there's a competitive market for his services.  And at the end of the day, my feelings are based upon a single undeniable truth:

It doesn't make any sense to keep a backup when he could fetch you a starter in trade.

Spare me the "one play away" and/or the "you need depth in the NFL, especially at QB" arguments.  I'll even concede both of those points.  Fact is, the presence of Quinn Gray vitiates both of those reservations.  Know what else a team needs, even more than it needs depth?  As many good players as possible out on the field at one time!  Keeping an asset (which I wholly believe Sage Rosenfels is) on the sideline when you've got clear holes at other starting positions (e.g., LT, LDE, DT, CB, S) makes no sense.  

I know there's no guarantee that whoever you'd draft in the second, third, etc. round as a result of trading Sage would pan out as a quality starter.  But in theory, Smithiak could at least target the best available player at a position of need in an effort to remedy an existing deficiency.  Having Sage hold a clipboard does nothing to address a current hole; it's a mere luxury in the event that The Schaub goes down.  Doesn't it make infinitely more sense to trade Sage in order to acquire a young player who would contribute immediately (which, if you look at Smithiak's draft history over the past two (2) seasons, is a virtual certainty), instead of keeping Sage on the basis of the possibility that he sees the field?

In my opinion, it's not even reasonably debatable.  You have to trade Sage Rosenfels.

X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

Join Battle Red Blog

You must be a member of Battle Red Blog to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Battle Red Blog. You should read them.

Join Battle Red Blog

You must be a member of Battle Red Blog to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Battle Red Blog. You should read them.

Spinner

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9341_tracker