Hundley vs Eagles

[Brian Purdy]

Hey. You got your wish.. he led a 2 minute drill


Vince Young looked good in preseason??
2013 GB GP 4 GS 0 COMP 26 ATT 49 PCT 53.9% ATT/G 12.3 YDS 218 AVG 4.5 TD 1 INT 0 LONG 26 QBR 71.6%

Granted, this was the first player I researched because he was more recent and at least part of that argument doesn't hold. Keep in mind that Vince also had the luxury of having 50 regular season starts under his belt and his stats are embarrassing compared to Brett's

The point I am making is preseason while very important in evaluating talent, when the games count and DCs game plan to stop you it's a different. I listed Young cause he was a former 1st round pick

 

[Brian Purdy]

Hey. You got your wish.. he led a 2 minute drill


Vince Young looked good in preseason??
2013 GB GP 4 GS 0 COMP 26 ATT 49 PCT 53.9% ATT/G 12.3 YDS 218 AVG 4.5 TD 1 INT 0 LONG 26 QBR 71.6%

Granted, this was the first player I researched because he was more recent and at least part of that argument doesn't hold. Keep in mind that Vince also had the luxury of having 50 regular season starts under his belt and his stats are embarrassing compared to Brett's

Young was a first round pick, Brohm a 2nd rounder. Scouts and draft experts raved about both players. Both players bombed in the NFL.
Hundley has to have a starters mentality in the preseason, not just on family night.
If he can sustain drives and produce points, then they have to think of keeping him for insurance policy. Not sure Callaghan or Hill can make that next step. If they lose Hundley, the Packers are starting over with another draft pick in the future hoping he can become what Hundley already is.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

If they lose Hundley, the Packers are starting over with another draft pick in the future hoping he can become what Hundley already is.

Sure, but we seem to be talking about this as if there weren't also a measure of gamesmanship involved in this. TT and Co have to look at how long they expect to have Rodgers around long term, and make the decision based upon that. If you expect to have 12 for another 6 years or so, what is better: a backup QB for another year before drafting another one, or an additional draft pick and drafting that new backup QB a bit sooner?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sure, but we seem to be talking about this as if there weren't also a measure of gamesmanship involved in this. TT and Co have to look at how long they expect to have Rodgers around long term, and make the decision based upon that. If you expect to have 12 for another 6 years or so, what is better: a backup QB for another year before drafting another one, or an additional draft pick and drafting that new backup QB a bit sooner?

Or here is a novel concept......sign a veteran FA QB to back up #12? I know that TT is in love with the idea of drafting/developing QB's and making something out of them, but for what purpose? They normally aren't ready for 2-3 years, so having them as your #2 is risky at best if AR goes down. If they do amount to something in the next 4 years, do you force AR to retire? I will be the first to admit, when the Packers drafted AR, I was scratching my head, but I think TT had a pretty good feel for just how much longer Favre was going to be a Packer and he had a great prospect fall to him in the draft. But once Hundley is done, I would much rather see the Packers spend a bit more of the cap on a proven Veteran QB to backup #12, then just keep developing guys that probably aren't ready to play and not worth a whole lot as trade bait. Maybe in 4 years, revisit finding AR's predecessor.

Edit after some thought:

Or....if Hundley would be content being the #2 behind AR, let him shop the FA market and if he isn't overpriced, bring him back. At this point, I doubt any team is going to promise him the #1 job and as a FA, he is going to go where the money is the highest as well as the opportunity to start. Which may factor him right out of GB.

 

[Arthur Squires]

I'd like to see Hundley throw 15 balls. Let us see how he runs the offense. Forget the defense abd how many starters. I just want to see an accurate thrower with limited mistakes. Thats what we need to see from Hundley. Also can't help but be excited to see Callahan and if he makes some big plays.

 

[Brian Purdy]

FA QB s ? I think the cubbards pretty bare. How about Cutler or Romo? The prize is Garrapalo but Billacheck isn't going let him go. I want some options of backups who would produce in this offense. Barkley? Cassell? Kapernick?

 

[Mondio]

FA veteran QB's worth a **** aren't cheap. Those that are severely limited are. Sure you can sign one, and sure they come with some advantages. But a young guy has some too, like an unknown ceiling. If you feel good about a guy, why not. FA veteran QB's that are not spendy have a known ceiling, and it isn't high. sure you know they can do certain things, and so do the opposing DC's. if you have a young guy you can develop, it's not an automatic failure. SIgning veteran guys doesn't always work either. IE Wallace, IE, VY. Sometimes drafting and developing works, Brunell, Hasslebeck, Matt Flynn, Aaron Brooks. There's pro's and con's to either. There isn't a FA QB right now I'd want to give a dime to over Hundley right now and I'm not sold on him yet at all.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I get both sides of the young VS old of a #2 QB, but lets face it, if #12 goes down, it won't matter much who is under center, there will be a substantial dropoff in production. At that point, if your defense is as bad is it was last year, season over. I'm fine with Hundley right now, he should be ready to go. However, whenever he leaves Green Bay, my preference is someone with regular game experience backing up AR and a working knowledge of the Packers playbook. Seneca Wallace and Vince Young were washed up and hadn't spent enough time in GB to take advantage of being veterans. Wallace was signed in early Sept. and pressed into duty way before he knew the offense. Not to mention he got hurt almost instantly. Young from what I recall didn't even make it a month and was cut before the season even started. I was referring more to signing a veteran guy in March, letting him learn the system and the players. If he is needed, he is much more prepared to take advantage of his veteran skills than a guy like Hundley may have been last year.

I don't expect this to happen, TT loves his young developmental QB's. But if Scott Tolzien or Brent Hundley would have been called into action early in their careers, I think TT might have at least had his hand on the phone, trying to figure out which Veteran QB was available.

 

[Poppa San]

Tolzein was. Hence the signing of Matt Flynn as soon as he became available.

 

[Mondio]

FA QB's in march aren't much better. We could have spent a few million on Fitzpatrick? Ponder? a cool 10-13 million to draw cutler out of retirement? which would be a great signing, assuming we could place in the Bears starting lineup again. RGIII? Orlovsky? It's not like these FA QB's aren't FA's for a reason. Sure they have experience, most of which isn't very good, it's why they don't have a starting job in the first place.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

No doubt having an experienced veteran QB as your #2 is going to be more expensive than a guy on a rookie contract. But after watching Hundley come in against Tenn, Wash, and Seattle last year for mop up duty, I'm not so sure that it wouldn't be money well spent if the game or your playoff life depended on it.

Obviously, it is case dependent and hopefully the Packers have a legit #2 in Hundley this year and either Callahan or Hill can be groomed for the future. Just keep in mind, keeping a young 3rd QB for that future, most likely costs another roster spot.

 

[thequick12]

Hundley is gonna have a big game against the eagles including against their number one defense. I think they should trade him for a 2nd or a high 3rd after the season if they can. If they cant might as well keep him for the insurance he provides as a backup. I think hes definitely better than matt flynn was and flynn was able to hold the season together well enough to allow rodgers to return and make a playoff run. Once he leaves after the 2018 season and signs a big contract the packers will recieve a 3rd round compensatory

 

[Mondio]

i know, all roster spots are important. I know carrying 3 takes another one. None of it matters until you need it. Keep an extra FB or add another WR? what does it matter if we have a gutting at DB? Keep extra Dlineman, but find we need Oline instead. I don't think a 3rd QB is going to keep a team going, at least not expected to for long, but considering the nature of the position, the learning curve and a team's philosophy, I have no problem keeping one around if they think he's worth it. We've kept 3 in the past for different reasons. sometimes because they were just trying to find someone that could fit, need options. Last year our back up was hurt and didn't play at all, so we essentially did not have a back up if we didn't keep 3 for a while. He was eventually cut when other roster spots were needed.

Hundley has a lot to prove to me, I think there's potential, but i'm not nearly as convinced as a lot of people are about him yet in terms of moving on to quality starter material or a player other teams are coveting for trade. That said, almost all the FA qb's have shown me they aren't worth much. I'll go with Hundley right now.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

i know, all roster spots are important. I know carrying 3 takes another one. None of it matters until you need it. Keep an extra FB or add another WR? what does it matter if we have a gutting at DB? Keep extra Dlineman, but find we need Oline instead. I don't think a 3rd QB is going to keep a team going, at least not expected to for long, but considering the nature of the position, the learning curve and a team's philosophy, I have no problem keeping one around if they think he's worth it. We've kept 3 in the past for different reasons. sometimes because they were just trying to find someone that could fit, need options. Last year our back up was hurt and didn't play at all, so we essentially did not have a back up if we didn't keep 3 for a while. He was eventually cut when other roster spots were needed.

Hundley has a lot to prove to me, I think there's potential, but i'm not nearly as convinced as a lot of people are about him yet in terms of moving on to quality starter material or a player other teams are coveting for trade. That said, almost all the FA qb's have shown me they aren't worth much. I'll go with Hundley right now.

Well the beauty of not having to use that roster spot for your #3 QB is it allows for keeping someone else that may actually play and contribute at his position or on special teams during the season. Chances are if the Packers get down to having to use their 3rd QB, might as well shut off the lights. I don't remember our 3rd QB being on the game day active list, unless maybe it was when Rodgers was nursing an injury?

Can Jeff Janis play QB? Just saying.....

 

[Mondio]

I think game day actives are more determinant than if a 3rd qb makes the 53 or not. IF a guy is that solid, ala Janis at times, on special teams, they make the roster and game day active. My guess is a 7th or so WR is often times not activated anyway and if they get all the way down to them and they get hurt, they have 3 guys on the PS with similar attributes they can call up whereas a QB is a little different beast. I think IF they keep a 3rd QB it's only because there was nobody else worth giving the roster spot to. I felt that way last year with Callahan. Hundley was hurt, and that kid earned a spot. He gets a chance to do it again. Complete change of topic, but I saw one play from that Clark? i think. Tall WR in the family night. Had no idea who he was, but saw him catch it. not that I remember anythign special about it, it just stood out to me like, Hey, i need to see more.

I think this may finally be the season where a bunch of WR's actually separate themselves and get in on more than potential. I remember last year thinking we have all these guys i'm intrigued with, but nobody just stood up and said you have to take me. Not Abby, not Janis, not Davis, none of them. I was disappointed. I hope that's not the case this year.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Michael Clark (#89) is in a lot of conversation at camp and in the media. His 6' 6" height is very noticeable and his ability to go up and grab just about anything thrown to him is turning some heads, including his teammates. His downside is only 1 year of football at Marshall, Randy Moons, I mean Moss's alma mater. Prior to that, a Basketball Player and track star. TT loves his his Basketball players, but if Clark can't grasp the playbook and run routes, the PS is probably the best he can hope for.

I will be watching #89, love the idea of a 6' 6" guy with some speed and great hands.

 

[OldSchool101]

Or here is a novel concept......sign a veteran FA QB to back up #12? I know that TT is in love with the idea of drafting/developing QB's and making something out of them, but for what purpose? They normally aren't ready for 2-3 years, so having them as your #2 is risky at best if AR goes down. If they do amount to something in the next 4 years, do you force AR to retire? I will be the first to admit, when the Packers drafted AR, I was scratching my head, but I think TT had a pretty good feel for just how much longer Favre was going to be a Packer and he had a great prospect fall to him in the draft. But once Hundley is done, I would much rather see the Packers spend a bit more of the cap on a proven Veteran QB to backup #12, then just keep developing guys that probably aren't ready to play and not worth a whole lot as trade bait. Maybe in 4 years, revisit finding AR's predecessor.

Edit after some thought:

Or....if Hundley would be content being the #2 behind AR, let him shop the FA market and if he isn't overpriced, bring him back. At this point, I doubt any team is going to promise him the #1 job and as a FA, he is going to go where the money is the highest as well as the opportunity to start. Which may factor him right out of GB.

The market dictation is exactly what will happen and I believe Hundley is smart and will go where he has a chance to eventually start. IMO, Last years injury created just enough doubt to drop his value this offseason below the threshold of what we would need to make a trade. In his rookie season, he has done a fabulous job setting the ground work for his stock value to rise this year if he can somehow put together anything close to that earlier performance and prove that it wasn't an anomaly. Either way I like the kid and I think his 5th round pick was a solid move by ol' Ted

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Either way I like the kid and I think his 5th round pick was a solid move by ol' Ted

Well.....when you put it LIKE that, I can hardly disagree. LOL

Except for Corey Linsley and Micah Hyde, TT's 5th round picks prior to Hundley have included:

1. Junius Coston
2. Michael Hawkins
3. Ingel Martin
4. Tony Moll
5. David Clowney
6. Breno Giacomini
   
7. Jamon Meredith
8. Quin Johnson
9. Andrew Quarles
10. Marshall Newhouse
11. DJ Williams
12. Terrell Manning
13. Josh Boyd
14. Jared Abbrederis

What is that old Meatloaf song......"cause 3 out of 17 aint bad......"

 

[Mondio]

As far as 5th rounders, Boyd was decent but injury basically put him out. Easily a rotation guy for a lot of teams. Newhouse is still in the league. Quarless was decent until his knee was turned to burger. Merideth and Breno spent more than a few years in the league. Not sure if they still are. I think Moll is too.

Add those to the guys theatre are clearly quality starters, it's a bit more than 3 out of 17. Unless of course you expect starters out of every round? Be nice, but hardly my expectation

 

[Poppa San]

As far as 5th rounders, Boyd was decent but injury basically put him out. Easily a rotation guy for a lot of teams. Newhouse is still in the league. Quarless was decent until his knee was turned to burger. Merideth and Breno spent more than a few years in the league. Not sure if they still are. I think Moll is too.

Add those to the guys theatre are clearly quality starters, it's a bit more than 3 out of 17. Unless of course you expect starters out of every round? Be nice, but hardly my expectation

I was going to start researching to post roughly the same stuff. You saved me some time.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As far as 5th rounders, Boyd was decent but injury basically put him out. Easily a rotation guy for a lot of teams. Newhouse is still in the league. Quarless was decent until his knee was turned to burger. Merideth and Breno spent more than a few years in the league. Not sure if they still are. I think Moll is too.

Add those to the guys theatre are clearly quality starters, it's a bit more than 3 out of 17. Unless of course you expect starters out of every round? Be nice, but hardly my expectation

Was referring more to what they provided to the Green Bay Packers. I don't consider a guy that is drafted by the Packers and does very little for them, a successful draft pick. Which, besides backing up #12, Hundley hasn't done much of anything either to date. Was Casey Hayward a good pick in your opinion?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Add those to the guys theatre

What kind of movies do they show there?

I know, I know.....no picking on spelling......but THAT was too big of a softball tossed up, to not take a swing at it!

 

[Mondio]

What kind of movies do they show there?

I know, I know.....no picking on spelling......but THAT was too big of a softball tossed up, to not take a swing at it!

I would be disappointed if people didn't take advantage of my fat fingers putting weird things out there to have a little fun with.

I do think Hayward was a good pick. Very good rookie year. Had high hopes and then he couldn't stay on the field because of his hamstrings. He had another decent year and if our young guys didn't look as good as they did , he probably would have been brought back. Maybe not.

He didn't provide a ton of production for us, but that happens in football. He was talented, we saw it for a bit, then it wasn't available.

ETA: I don't know how good Hundley is or will be or what he will ever bring us, but from his "potential" and where he was picked. I think it was good.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Much like analyzing a draft class 3 or 4 years later, I guess I classify "good picks" as ones that contributed to the Packers while being a Packer, at a level of play commensurate to the round they were picked in or better. If they didn't play/contribute or were injured, I would say they turned out to be a bad investment of a draft pick for the Packers. I feel the same way about a guy who goes on and has a much better career with another team, which probably means he was possibly under coached or just a poor fit in the Green Bay system. Which is how I view Hayward, not much of a return on a second round pick. Probably the best thing the Packers got out of Hayward was the compensatory pick (184th), which they used to select RB Aaron Jones with this year. Guess we will see how that works out.

 

[OldSchool101]

Well.....when you put it LIKE that, I can hardly disagree. LOL

Except for Corey Linsley and Micah Hyde, TT's 5th round picks prior to Hundley have included:

1. Junius Coston
2. Michael Hawkins
3. Ingel Martin
4. Tony Moll
5. David Clowney
6. Breno Giacomini
   
7. Jamon Meredith
8. Quin Johnson
9. Andrew Quarles
10. Marshall Newhouse
11. DJ Williams
12. Terrell Manning
13. Josh Boyd
14. Jared Abbrederis

What is that old Meatloaf song......"cause 3 out of 17 aint bad......"

Alex.... I'll take "Things said by Jay Cutler in Miami week 17" for $400
[QUOTE="Pokerbrat2000, post: 730743, m