Next QB?

[Pokerbrat2000]

Drew Stanton? Drew Stanton? that's your example? He sucks, I don't care what his teams record was, he's not that good LOL He's more likely to throw INT's as your QB as he is to throw a TD and this team isn't good enough to overcome that most times.

and the Cardinals? Wasn't Brett Hundley their back up this year? Pretty sure he was.

Drew Stanton sucks, because he doesn't fit your narrative? Then you bring up Brett Hundley a perfect example of just how your narrative of using an unproven cheap backup QB doesn't work. At least it didn't work well for the Packers in 2017.

Give me some examples of inexperienced, low paid #2 QB's that worked out well when they were forced into the starting roll.

 

[Mondio]

Drew Stanton sucks, because he doesn't fit your narrative? Then you bring up Brett Hundley a perfect example of just how your narrative of using an unproven cheap backup QB doesn't work. At least it didn't work well for the Packers in 2017.

Give me some examples of inexperienced, low paid #2 QB's that worked out well when they were forced into the starting roll.

I didn't bring Stanton or Hundley into the conversation. and our cheap unproven back up is now a veteran back up on his 3rd team. Think he even won a game for them. Stanton does suck, you think he wouldn't have tossed 3 picks in a game against a team like the 49ers?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I didn't bring Stanton or Hundley into the conversation. and our cheap unproven back up is now a veteran back up on his 3rd team. Think he even won a game for them. Stanton does suck, you think he wouldn't have tossed 3 picks in a game against a team like the 49ers?

LOL....Hundley is now proven, proven to not be a very good QB. He played a couple of times for the Cardinals and was 5 of 11 for 49 yds. no TD's. Was does that tell you? He has been in the league 5 years, still sucks and we were relying on him to be our #2 in 2017, when he had 2 career completions before coming in after Rodgers broke his collar bone!

You seem to be stuck on the fact that these Vets had a career, maybe not a stellar one, but one in which they actually took starting snaps, played under pressure, saw starting defenses, etc. Just hard for me to fathom how you prefer a guy that goes undrafted and has zero snaps in a regular season NFL game to suddenly take over a team. Still waiting on your success stories of UDFA #2's that have done that.

 

[Mondio]

LOL....Hundley is now proven, proven to not be a very good QB. He played a couple of times for the Cardinals and was 5 of 11 for 49 yds. no TD's. Was does that tell you? He has been in the league 5 years, still sucks and we were relying on him to be our #2 in 2017, when he had 2 career completions before coming in after Rodgers broke his collar bone!

You seem to be stuck on the fact that these Vets had a career, maybe not a stellar one, but one in which they actually took starting snaps, played under pressure, saw starting defenses, etc. Just hard for me to fathom how you prefer a guy that goes undrafted and has zero snaps in a regular season NFL game to suddenly take over a team. Still waiting on your success stories of UDFA #2's that have done that.

I'm not going to give you any. It's not my contention it's a better option. i don't think it matters as you don't know what you're going to get until it happens. And again, I didn't bring hundley into this. I didn't sayhundley was good, I didn't say hundley was the answer. You're not following this very well. Someone said the Cards did it the right way along with the browns.

I don't care if they've seen NFL defenses before, most of them aren't good. They may have a good game or 2 now and again, BFD. If it's not a good game at the right time, it's usually a pretty bad one. it's why they aren't starting anymore.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't care if they've seen NFL defenses before, most of them aren't good. They may have a good game or 2 now and again, BFD. If it's not a good game at the right time, it's usually a pretty bad one. it's why they aren't starting anymore.

Right and these unknowns, which you don't want to name, have such a great track record, so of course you turn to them, because they save your team $500K or so. Makes sense. Those young cheap guys aren't available, unless you get really lucky and grab one in the draft.

Saying that you don't know what either group will do is a cop out IMO. That is the whole point of this discussion, with a veteran you typically know what you are going to get. I never said you are going to get a stud performance, but you are going to get a guy that has been under the bright lights before and knows how to run an NFL offense. Hundley and even Kizer, who had a year under his belt in Cleveland, looked like 2 deer in the headlights when they were asked to step in for Rodgers.

 

[Mondio]

IF you think i'm arguing Hundley or Kizer were good, you're barking up the wrong tree. BUT Hundley IS the skill set of QB's available in the cheaper vet QB market. Kizer IS the skillset of a QB you draft higher to use as a back up to build into that starting role.

Drew Stanton was brought up because of his record when the reality is he's thrown more INT's than he's started games in over a decade of being in the league. he's not good. Most of these guys cost a good deal more than 500K and they've all proven they aren't good.

So pay them 3 million to see if they can have the game of their life when you need it. If we didn't have a 30 million dollar QB that is an absolute difference maker on the field even in a down year and need that level of play until the team around him is good enough to do without, give me the 3-4 million you're wasting on a crap QB to get better players that will contribute on a down to down basis every dang time.

 

[Jason Edens]

IF you think i'm arguing Hundley or Kizer were good, you're barking up the wrong tree. BUT Hundley IS the skill set of QB's available in the cheaper vet QB market. Kizer IS the skillset of a QB you draft higher to use as a back up to build into that starting role.

Drew Stanton was brought up because of his record when the reality is he's thrown more INT's than he's started games in over a decade of being in the league. he's not good. Most of these guys cost a good deal more than 500K and they've all proven they aren't good.

So pay them 3 million to see if they can have the game of their life when you need it. If we didn't have a 30 million dollar QB that is an absolute difference maker on the field even in a down year and need that level of play until the team around him is good enough to do without, give me the 3-4 million you're wasting on a crap QB to get better players that will contribute on a down to down basis every dang time.

The Redskins drafted RG3 and Kirk Cousins in the same draft. One is a bona fide starter. It was their 4th round pick behind Luck, Weeden, Osweiler, Russel Wilson, and Nick Foles. Interesting draft for sure. Here the Packers fans get mad if you draft a QB in the draft at all. Lindley and Harnish followed him in that draft. Washington is such a dumpster fire that they pushed out the staff that landed both RG3 and Cousins in that draft. If RG3 had been willing to study film he would have been better than what his career is going to end up being. Cousins may still win a Super Bowl. We have put out trash in our QB development program as of late, and we can't afford to backup an injury prone, aging, QB, with either a qualified veteran backup or a qualified developmental QB. There is a reason why NE makes the playoffs/super bowl year after year. Their QB doesn't take up 20% of the salary cap. There is a reason why Baltimore tanked after signing Flacco to a huge contract. They couldn't afford talent. There is a reason why the Rams, Chiefs, and Philly made it to/won the super bowl recently, they had cheap rookie QB contracts. When is the NFL going to figure out that paying uber QB contracts is the quickest way to keep yourself from the Super Bowl? When will the Packers figure that out.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Why spend 2 million dollars on a back up that isn't going to take a team anywhere either? Just to spend it and you have a vet? None of those guys under 4 million are going to take this team anywhere. and for those that think Rodgers wasn't great this year and we still won are missing so much with the game off football and why some of these guys have fleeting moments of success vs successful career starters. Even though he wasn't great by Rodgers's standard, he did so many little things that was the difference in games that the other guys don't do.

Look at that list Dantes posted, who on that list is taking this team anywhere? They've all proven what they are, and it's not good. So they've taken some snaps in the NFL, whoo hooo and proven the only thing they're good for is replacing. So bring one in to compete, Boyle has as good of arm as any of them.

There's no one suggesting that any of the quarterbacks Dantes listed would have taken this team to the NFCCG in 2019 but it's possible that one of them would be able to keep the playoff hopes alive if Rodgers missed some time next season.

While their combined regular season isn't great by any means they have combined to win a total of 211 games during their careers. That's a whole lot more experience that Boyle has to offer and might be worth an additional $1.3 million counting against the cap.

With that being said a veteran would definitely have to earn the job over Boyle during the offseason.

Well it obviously does happen and the Browns and Cardinals disagree with your take as examples.

You have to consider that both teams have a starting quarterback on his rookie contract though.

When is the NFL going to figure out that paying uber QB contracts is the quickest way to keep yourself from the Super Bowl? When will the Packers figure that out.

There's no doubt that teams benefit from having an elite quarterback playing under his rookie contract. But at some point they demand to get paid and it's definitely not smart to move on from a franchise QB.

 

[Jason Edens]

There's no doubt that teams benefit from having an elite quarterback playing under his rookie contract. But at some point they demand to get paid and it's definitely not smart to move on from a franchise QB.

You mean like Green Bay did when they moved from Brett Favre to Aaron Rodgers. You mean like San Francisco when they moved from Joe Montana to Steve Young? This is how football works. You move on. Old man time gets everyone.

Thank God we didn't pay Joe Flacco what he got paid when he became the top paid QB in the NFL and tanked the Ravens. But the point remains. New England is an exception clearly because Brady has taken team friendly deals. Otherwise he wouldn't have as many rings as he does or appearances. I hope for the life of me that Dak becomes the highest paid quarterback in the NFL. That guarantees the Cowboys don't see another Super Bowl for antoher 10 years. This madness has to end at some point. No one player should absorb 15-25 percent of a 53 man roster. I don't care how QB friendly the league is. It has been proven in Green Bay over and over and over that the best QB or second best QB in the league for 25 years is going to net 5 SuperBowls in that time. We got 2 wins and 3 appearances. The rules have changed and we should be in the SB year after year since Rodgers can't legally get hit any more. Favre would have loved these rules. And what is a "team friendly" contract anyways? One that allows enough cap space for an offensive line, some wide outs, and a running game? Why entertain any QB that wants the money that keeps his team from having a complete offense? Meh, for me Rodgers is on his way out. He has way underperformed his contract and if he doesn't make it to another SuperBowl, we might as well have paid Joe Flacco that money.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

*laughs* I love how people use extreme exceptions to the norm, to try and prove a point.

No offense, but much of this doesn't make sense and you contradict yourself repeatedly. What are you actually trying to say?

You mean like Green Bay did when they moved from Brett Favre to Aaron Rodgers. You mean like San Francisco when they moved from Joe Montana to Steve Young? This is how football works. You move on. Old man time gets everyone.

Thank God we didn't pay Joe Flacco what he got paid when he became the top paid QB in the NFL and tanked the Ravens. But the point remains. New England is an exception clearly because Brady has taken team friendly deals. Otherwise he wouldn't have as many rings as he does or appearances. I hope for the life of me that Dak becomes the highest paid quarterback in the NFL. That guarantees the Cowboys don't see another Super Bowl for antoher 10 years. This madness has to end at some point. No one player should absorb 15-25 percent of a 53 man roster. I don't care how QB friendly the league is. It has been proven in Green Bay over and over and over that the best QB or second best QB in the league for 25 years is going to net 5 SuperBowls in that time. We got 2 wins and 3 appearances. The rules have changed and we should be in the SB year after year since Rodgers can't legally get hit any more. Favre would have loved these rules. And what is a "team friendly" contract anyways? One that allows enough cap space for an offensive line, some wide outs, and a running game? Why entertain any QB that wants the money that keeps his team from having a complete offense? Meh, for me Rodgers is on his way out. He has way underperformed his contract and if he doesn't make it to another SuperBowl, we might as well have paid Joe Flacco that money.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

You mean like Green Bay did when they moved from Brett Favre to Aaron Rodgers. You mean like San Francisco when they moved from Joe Montana to Steve Young? This is how football works. You move on. Old man time gets everyone.

Thank God we didn't pay Joe Flacco what he got paid when he became the top paid QB in the NFL and tanked the Ravens. But the point remains. New England is an exception clearly because Brady has taken team friendly deals. Otherwise he wouldn't have as many rings as he does or appearances. I hope for the life of me that Dak becomes the highest paid quarterback in the NFL. That guarantees the Cowboys don't see another Super Bowl for antoher 10 years. This madness has to end at some point. No one player should absorb 15-25 percent of a 53 man roster. I don't care how QB friendly the league is. It has been proven in Green Bay over and over and over that the best QB or second best QB in the league for 25 years is going to net 5 SuperBowls in that time. We got 2 wins and 3 appearances. The rules have changed and we should be in the SB year after year since Rodgers can't legally get hit any more. Favre would have loved these rules. And what is a "team friendly" contract anyways? One that allows enough cap space for an offensive line, some wide outs, and a running game? Why entertain any QB that wants the money that keeps his team from having a complete offense? Meh, for me Rodgers is on his way out. He has way underperformed his contract and if he doesn't make it to another SuperBowl, we might as well have paid Joe Flacco that money.

I said 5 years ago that it was time to begin looking for our next QB because I didn't feel that Rodgers is worth the money. If you make more than $10 million per year guaranteed at any position, you better win at least 1 Super Bowl with that team in a 5-year period.

 

[Mondio]

There's no one suggesting that any of the quarterbacks Dantes listed would have taken this team to the NFCCG in 2019 but it's possible that one of them would be able to keep the playoff hopes alive if Rodgers missed some time next season.

While their combined regular season isn't great by any means they have combined to win a total of 211 games during their careers. That's a whole lot more experience that Boyle has to offer and might be worth an additional $1.3 million counting against the cap.

With that being said a veteran would definitely have to earn the job over Boyle during the offseason.



You have to consider that both teams have a starting quarterback on his rookie contract though.



There's no doubt that teams benefit from having an elite quarterback playing under his rookie contract. But at some point they demand to get paid and it's definitely not smart to move on from a franchise QB.

I'm not arguing Boyle is it either, I have no idea. I would think someone would be brought in to compete, I wouldn't think one of the lower wage appropriate QB's would bring much to the team over what boyle has. Some of them certainly might, but I don't think it's going to make much difference unless you have a very strong team around them. I'm not arguing about saving 500K to go with boyle over some other cheap guy.

And let's be honest, any guy we're getting for less than 3 million is either a major injury risk, has some other baggage, was a turnover machine, something. They'd give me no more confidence than seeing what some unknown the staff has deemed good enough to be the back up would bring either and I doubt the performance would be all that different. Just depends what you get. To move into any sort of "confidence" range in a back up you're looking easily at 5+ million or still drafting high for potential, 2 things I think would be a waste at this point. Spend the draft and the cap on building a stronger team and then in the case you need your back up to come out, they're in a position to be successful because of strong defense and strong run and pass game. Or spend that draft or cap on a guy who's going to likely just sit on the bench.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If you make more than $10 million per year guaranteed at any position, you better win at least 1 Super Bowl with that team in a 5-year period.

Might want to look around the league at salaries. This "quota" you suggest would make many players failures by these standards.

I said 5 years ago that it was time to begin looking for our next QB because I didn't feel that Rodgers is worth the money.

Rodgers the QB that just helped get us to the NFCCG?

I think your standards with both of these statements are much to high, as well as very unrealistic. Who would you have replaced Rodgers with?

 

[G0P4ckG0]

Might want to look around the league at salaries. This "quota" you suggest would make many players failures by these standards.

Rodgers the QB that just helped get us to the NFCCG?

I think your standards with both of these statements are much to high, as well as very unrealistic. Who would you have replaced Rodgers with?

If the players aren't performing, they can find a job elsewhere like everyone else who isn't a professional athlete. What's the point of getting to the NFCCG if you don't bring the Lombardi trophy home next game?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If the players aren't performing, they can find a job elsewhere like everyone else who isn't a professional athlete. What's the point of getting to the NFCCG if you don't bring the Lombardi trophy home next game?

Like I said, I don't hold the 31 teams and their players that fail to bring home the Lombardi each year, to such high standards. I am also glad that the Packers don't cut ties every year with players that have been there 5 years and haven't won a Super Bowl.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

Like I said, I don't hold the 31 teams and their players that fail to bring home the Lombardi each year, to such high standards. I am also glad that the Packers don't cut ties every year with players that have been there 5 years and haven't won a Super Bowl.

And that mindset is exactly why the Packers are 2-26. Subpar standards leads to subpar results, just like with any business. If fans dont hold the team accountable for such actions then we wre destined for mediocrity

 

[4zone]

Why not two sticky threads, one for Rodgers' performance and one for his successor?

Here we are 12 years after the fact and a "Brett Favre Discussion" thread still healines this forum.

As for the succession question, "not anytime soon" if we take the question to mean a 1st. or 2nd. round pick, not this draft and not the next unless Rodgers makes some weepy gestures toward retirement.

Do you think Boyle can develope into at least a solid game manager who can succeed if we weaponize the offense so he doesn't constantly have to be the game changer?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And that mindset is exactly why the Packers are 2-26. Subpar standards leads to subpar results, just like with any business. If fans dont hold the team accountable for such actions then we wre destined for mediocrity

"Just like any business"? Have you actually run a business or a Sports team? By your measuring stick, of the 60 or so Car Manufactures in the World, only 1 is a successful business. Good luck pitching that to your stockholders and employees.

There is a difference between setting your goals to being the #1 team, business, etc. and actually achieving just that one lofty goal each and every year. Just because you and your employees fall short of said goal, calling that subpar and mediocrity and then questioning the mindset of those who are happy as to how successful of a year that entity had, you won't last long.

Go look at the Packers financial statement and then tell me that they are a subpar team. You are holding your one ideal goal as a gold standard to success, doesn't work that way.

 

[swhitset]

I said 5 years ago that it was time to begin looking for our next QB because I didn't feel that Rodgers is worth the money. If you make more than $10 million per year guaranteed at any position, you better win at least 1 Super Bowl with that team in a 5-year period.

Yeah... ok then. Let’s just table this one for a couple years when I’m sure we will all see Kansas City release Mahomes when his rookie contract is up... I’m sure they will agree that paying him more than 10 million/ year is too much. lmao.

 

[HardRightEdge]

On the subject of Winston and

Do you think Boyle can develope into at least a solid game manager who can succeed if we weaponize the offense so he doesn't constantly have to be the game changer?

Maybe. Probably not. I'd rather not find out.

 

[eric]

Y'all don't realize how good you have it. 36 year old HOF QB in today's NFL is plenty.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You mean like Green Bay did when they moved from Brett Favre to Aaron Rodgers. You mean like San Francisco when they moved from Joe Montana to Steve Young? This is how football works. You move on. Old man time gets everyone.

Those two examples are the extremely rare exception to the norm. Most teams have troubles finding an above average quarterback to start with and even more replacing him with an equivalent talent.

New England is an exception clearly because Brady has taken team friendly deals. Otherwise he wouldn't have as many rings as he does or appearances.

It's a myth that Brady has taken team friendly teams for the Patriots to stay competitive.

Spend the draft and the cap on building a stronger team and then in the case you need your back up to come out, they're in a position to be successful because of strong defense and strong run and pass game.

I definitely agree that the Packers should spend their cap space and draft capital on surrounding Rodgers with a better team. An additional $500K on a backup quarterback over Boyle won't prevent them from doing that though.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It's a myth that Brady has taken team friendly teams for the Patriots to stay competitive.

There was a time when that was exagerated, but not more recently. Brady's cap numbers the last 5 years have been:

$14.0 mil
$13.8 mil
$14.0 mil
$22.0 mil
$22.5 mil

It is not as though there was a lot of deferred money rolled forward with some big signing bonus dead cap overhang at the end of the line. It was a more or less pay as you go approach, a low risk approach which had high value to the team at Brady's expense.

 

[ARPackFan]

Y'all don't realize how good you have it. 36 year old HOF QB in today's NFL is plenty.

1021 QBs have been drafted since 1937 and only 26 are in the HOF. Even if that number is doubled to include QBs worthy of discussion for inclusion in the HOF that tells me the simple probability of finding "that guy" who is a game changer is around 5%. Since 1991, the year Favre was drafted, there have been 354 QBs drafted. Take a look at the list in the link below and tell how many of those are franchise QBs since 1991. There are a lot of "WTF?" picks. We are living in extraodinary times as Packer fans and once Rodgers is gone it may be another 20 years before the next one comes along.

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/positions/qb

 

[OldSchool101]

You have to consider that both teams have a starting quarterback on his rookie contract though.

Very good. That’s a good point and I actually did consider that beforehand. However, that implies the differences of paying a novice QB verses an experienced backup is somehow cost prohibitive.
IMO, it’s not and furthermore, paying a #2 QB is a cost of doing business. Even on GB’s limited budget.

I wouldn’t drop my new car insurance to liability coverage level, just because I have a limited budget (I’ll cut out the less important expenditures I waste $ on first)That’s the first thing I’m paying, because like QB, it’s getting me from point A to point B and it’s integral in the success of my ultimate goal.