Wow, tough question. Both QB's are mistake-prone, but i think Pennington will put up better numbers this week with his talented receiving corps & home field advantage. Kitna not bad, but his O-line is worrisome.
2006-10-12 09:59:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Kitna may have a good game, but can not win and throws too many ints. Pennington had a HORRIBLE game and is due for a 300+ game against a bad D in Miami. Plus the J-E-T-S have no running game whatsoever. CP is due for a big one.
2006-10-12 09:53:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by chuckd26 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Kitna
2006-10-12 11:03:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by hockeystar95 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Pennigton he's way better and having a good season and playing a team with bad D. Kitna sucks and Buffalo has an ok team. Besides who does Kitna have to throw to anyways?
2006-10-12 10:22:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jake H 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Kitna.... Miamis D will stop pennington
2006-10-12 09:55:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by ziggyinme 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Neither , please go out and trade yourself for a decent QB. It's so easy to get a Decent QB. I wouldnt have either one as even my backup. I have Vick as a backup , with any decent offer , I will let go of Vick.Having a decent back up to me is just a defensive move. But if have to chose between the 2 , I would chose Kitna(It hurts to even say that).
2006-10-12 10:31:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by B E 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would argue since Miami has a worse defense, I'd play Pennington. He has great targets in Cotchery and Coles. Plus the RB is young and mostly untested.
2006-10-12 10:22:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
kitna.. just cus detroit's secondary is 3rd worst in the league behind niners and raiders
miami is above average secondary, just horrible o-line and lbs play kitna
2006-10-12 10:01:06
·
answer #8
·
answered by Chuck N 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Kitna.... The mike Martz offense is very pass heavy.
2006-10-12 09:52:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
go with kitna
2006-10-12 10:13:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Rusty Shackleford 5
·
0⤊
0⤋