Next QB?

[Pokerbrat2000]

So what is it? We need a high draft pick? Kizer, good enough?

See I don't know if you are pretending not to understand me or you really just don't? Kizer's experience was mostly bad. He never showed much talent in the NFL, thus he isn't a guy I want as my backup. I don't care if he had been the #1 pick in the draft, thus far he has flopped in the NFL. Although at the time, he was an upgrade over Hundley.

Nick Foles is an anomoly and he's not all that great either.

Whereas Nick Foles, you want to paint him out to be just an anomoly, but not a very good one? He was a Pro Bowl QB in 2013. His 2014 season was off to a great start until he broke his collar bone. He won a Super Bowl and was its MVP in 2017. He actually DID have some success at times during his career. You would like to focus on all the negative of these vet QB's, without acknowledging that they actually had some successful times in the NFL, which is why they are still playing. Which is why I would have more confidence in sending them into a game to take over for an injured Rodgers. I'm not talking about making them the starting QB to begin the season.

Backups like Boyle, Hundley, Kizer and whoever else you would name for me (which you refuse to do) have had very little or no success. That doesn't equal success....it equals nothing.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It boggles my mind that McCarthy appeared to have so much faith in him. I don't know if he was trying to give the kid confidence, if he was just trying to say the right things, or if he really thought he was going to perform at a higher level. Or maybe he was just hoping against hope.

Anyway, yeah Hundley was terrible, but we did manage to win a few games with him lol. Lost more. But there's no guarantee a veteran comes in and performs up to expectations either.

I think Hundley was a valuable asset to the Packers, in that he showed the organization and the rest of the world, just what a difference Rodgers made at QB. You are always going to have a drop off when your #1 QB goes down, but the difference between the Packers under #12 VS under #7 was stark.

Add to the 2017 lesson, the 2018 lesson of Rodgers playing hurt and still trying to compete with far less talent at his disposal than he had in the past.

Sadly, besides paying Rogers big money, the Packers really didn't seem to learn from 2017 and 2018. They had an UDFA with zero real NFL snaps back Aaron up last season and continued to let the receiving tools he had to work with dwindle away and not get upgraded.

 

[Mondio]

See I don't know if you are pretending not to understand me or you really just don't? Kizer's experience was mostly bad. He never showed much talent in the NFL, thus he isn't a guy I want as my backup. I don't care if he had been the #1 pick in the draft, thus far he has flopped in the NFL. Although at the time, he was an upgrade over Hundley.



Whereas Nick Foles, you want to paint him out to be just an anomoly, but not a very good one? He was a Pro Bowl QB in 2013. His 2014 season was off to a great start until he broke his collar bone. He won a Super Bowl and was its MVP in 2017. He actually DID have some success at times during his career. You would like to focus on all the negative of these vet QB's, without acknowledging that they actually had some successful times in the NFL, which is why they are still playing. Which is why I would have more confidence in sending them into a game to take over for an injured Rodgers. I'm not talking about making them the starting QB to begin the season.

Backups like Boyle, Hundley, Kizer and whoever else you would name for me (which you refuse to do) have had very little or no success. That doesn't equal success....it equals nothing.

He was just benched in favor of a 6th round draft choice. I know he had fleeting moments of success. I guarantee you if we paid him the 6milion per the rams were, or the 30 the Eagles just did and he played like he did with the Rams or up until his benching in favor a 6th round rookie this year with the Jags when we needed him would you use him as an example?

Foles has always struck me as being pretty good with a big WR to throw to a space to and a strong line and running game, take one away, you have poor arm, weak ability to drive a ball, and very poor decision making. anyway, 2 years ago when he did anything, he wouldn't have helped this team because WE were not good enough. i doubt he would have done anymore for us record wise than Hundley.

 

[OldSchool101]

A fact remains. We all know that generally players at the NFL level generally don’t hit their stride until they have been in a system for several years. That holds true to QB also. While we can hold on to the rare exception, it is overwhelmingly a fact that experience aids in production.
Wanting to save $ is one thing. But portraying otherwise or attempting to convince everyone that well tenured veterans are worse than completely raw players with zero experience at the professional level is bordering on ludicrous.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

He was just benched in favor of a 6th round draft choice.

LOL, you do realize Foles broke his collarbone in his first game with the Jags right? By the time he returned the Jags season was basically over. He struggled coming back from his injury and it was decided to reinsert Minshew to finish off the 6-10 season.

Again, did I say Nick Foles would make a great starting QB? The Jags were idiots for giving him a 4 year $88M deal. Nope, all I want is a backup that has the chops to come in and run the offense, without looking like a rookie. The Jags were going nowhere, they benched Foles in December in favor of a guy that they wanted to see what he had.

You also make a good point, a QB can have success in one system, but fail in another. Obviously, when Gute looks for his veteran QB to back up Rodgers, he will want to find one that has a good chance of being successful running MLF's style of offense.

 

[Mondio]

A fact remains. We all know that generally players at the NFL level generally don’t hit their stride until they have been in a system for several years. That holds true to QB also. While we can hold on to the rare exception, it is overwhelmingly a fact that experience aids in production.
Wanting to save $ is one thing. But portraying otherwise or attempting to convince everyone that well tenured veterans are worse than completely raw players with zero experience at the professional level is bordering on ludicrous.

that's not what I'm portraying. i'm sure you can find a veteran that might be better than Boyles. I'm not arguing that Boyles is the man either. I have no idea what he is, for the 5th time in this thread alone.

i'm saying GB is a team that has and still does rely on very good QB play. If you need an 8 to win, I don't care if you have a 1 or a 4 backing him up, you still aren't winning enough to matter. Our team needs to get better all around the QB, then the difference between a 1 and a 4 might matter. Right now, spend 500K or 2 million, I don't care, nothing changes in the grand scheme of things until this team around the QB improves. Took good steps this year, we need to take more next.

Start talking about investing 6-7-8 million to get a "real" back up QB and now you're taking away options at making this team better on a down to down basis.

What's so hard to understand? You really come away from that with trying "to convince everyone that well tenured veterans are worse than completely raw players with zero experience at the professional level"

I don't know how to say it more plainly.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm going to leave my end at this.....I think you assume a backup is taking over the position permanently? I agree with you, if Rodgers goes down in Game 1, The Lord Jesus Christ our Savior isn't going to be able to suit up and save the Packers.

However, if Rodgers goes down in the 3rd Q of the NFCCG, who do you wan't trotting in, Tim Boyle or <insert name of a veteran QB with a lot of experience>?

I'm done.

 

[Mondio]

LOL, you do realize Foles broke his collarbone in his first game with the Jags right? By the time he returned the Jags season was basically over. He struggled coming back from his injury and it was decided to reinsert Minshew to finish off the 6-10 season.

Again, did I say Nick Foles would make a great starting QB? The Jags were idiots for giving him a 4 year $88M deal. Nope, all I want is a backup that has the chops to come in and run the offense, without looking like a rookie. The Jags were going nowhere, they benched Foles in December in favor of a guy that they wanted to see what he had.

You also make a good point, a QB can have success in one system, but fail in another. Obviously, when Gute looks for his veteran QB to back up Rodgers, he will want to find one that has a good chance of being successful running MLF's style of offense.

They were in the middle of the playoff hunt when he returned They were out of it after the next 3 starts by Foles went horribly and they lost by 20+ points each game.

They were right around .500 in a division where 9-7 still made the playoffs. They weren't out of it at all at that point with the 5-5 Titans very close in standings. Then the Titans one their next 3 and Foles was disastrous over the next 3 and they were done. The rest is history.

 

[Mondio]

I'm going to leave my end at this.....I think you assume a backup is taking over the position permanently? I agree with you, if Rodgers goes down in Game 1, The Lord Jesus Christ our Savior isn't going to be able to suit up and save the Packers.

However, if Rodgers goes down in the 3rd Q of the NFCCG, who do you wan't trotting in, Tim Boyle or <insert name of a veteran QB with a lot of experience>?

I'm done.

at this point? I'd rather have boyle than most of those guys on that cheap list. i know they suck and are as prone to tossing an INT as anything. They're cheap and available for a reason.

Sure I'd like to have Foles. And i'm certainly not paying him 6 or 7 or 30 or 30 million that he got. he had one season where he was semi affordable at 4. One brief bit of success and he was unaffordable. and if he comes in and fumbles on his first 2 drives and then goes 3 and out on the next 3 was he worth it? Just to have a vet? Because he's done that too.

 

[rmontro]

If we're looking for a veteran QB to backup Rodgers, I understand Tom Brady is available?

I think Hundley was a valuable asset to the Packers, in that he showed the organization and the rest of the world, just what a difference Rodgers made at QB. You are always going to have a drop off when your #1 QB goes down, but the difference between the Packers under #12 VS under #7 was stark.

Good point. If Rodgers hadn't gotten hurt, McCarthy might still be the coach. Maybe even Capers!

Sadly, besides paying Rogers big money, the Packers really didn't seem to learn from 2017 and 2018. They had an UDFA with zero real NFL snaps back Aaron up last season and continued to let the receiving tools he had to work with dwindle away and not get upgraded.

I don't know if worry about a backup quarterback is the lesson to take from 2017 and 2018. I'd say it was more that the rest of the team stunk.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Well, Brady's current deal includes two years that automatically void on the last day of the 2019 league year adding another $13.5 million in dead money to it.

That's if he is not extended by the Pat. If he isn't that brings the number for the last 5 season to a nice round $100 mil with no further team liability. That's been a pretty good deal for the Pats.

 

[Passepartout]

Well yeah as Rodgers window of opportunity for a next SB is closing along with age.

 

[Croquet]

I think we kicked the tires on Kizer for this very reason, to be a hopeful replacement. I'm in favor of just riding Rodgers with high upside maybe smaller school talent later picks or undrafted free agents. My theory is that the elite qbs are harder to miss (there's the exception of Russell Wilson and Lamar, but now I think GMs are wise to smaller more athletic qbs being able to succeed) and as a result the way to get one with the highest likelihood of success is to tank and have an early pick. That would mean an early season injury to Rodgers or tanking the year after he retires. Either way, I'm not a fan of using an early pick (1-3 rounder) on a QB.

Agreed. Not yet. Too soon.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's if he is not extended by the Pat. If he isn't that brings the number for the last 5 season to a nice round $100 mil with no further team liability. That's been a pretty good deal for the Pats.

The Patriots will take a $13.5 million cap hit for adding two seasons that automatically void in his last contract no matter if they re-sign him or not this offseason.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Aaron Wilson has reported on his Twitter feed that the Packers are one of six teams with a particular interest in QB James Morgan out of Florida International after transferring from Bolling Green. Morgan is an Ashwaubenon native. Wilson was a two decade beat writer for the Baltimore Sun so I guess that gets him the designation "NFL Insider".

Evidently he impressed some teams at the Combine lifting his draft stock.

A subsequent tweet from Wilson said that the Saints, Dolphins and Raiders plan to meet privately or work him out. Nothing about Packer next steps.

This is a close as you're going to get to the title of this thread, "Next QB", in this draft and that's not very close at all.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Oh my goodness, Rodgers is still one of the better QBs in the NFL and, barring something unforeseen, will continue to be so for at least another couple of seasons. Why are people so interested in a QB when the team is basically set at QB for the next three years; he's not Favre who was threatening to retire every offseason. Move on from drafting a QB in any round other than 6-7

 

[tynimiller]

Aaron Wilson has reported on his Twitter feed that the Packers are one of six teams with a particular interest in QB James Morgan out of Florida International after transferring from Bolling Green. Morgan is an Ashwaubenon native. Wilson was a two decade beat writer for the Baltimore Sun so I guess that gets him the designation "NFL Insider".

Evidently he impressed some teams at the Combine lifting his draft stock.

A subsequent tweet from Wilson said that the Saints, Dolphins and Raiders plan to meet privately or work him out. Nothing about Packer next steps.

This is a close as you're going to get to the title of this thread, "Next QB", in this draft and that's not very close at all.

I have predicted if we draft a QB it is him or Kelly Bryant I sense.

 

[Dblbogey]

A fact remains. We all know that generally players at the NFL level generally don’t hit their stride until they have been in a system for several years. That holds true to QB also. While we can hold on to the rare exception, it is overwhelmingly a fact that experience aids in production.
Wanting to save $ is one thing. But portraying otherwise or attempting to convince everyone that well tenured veterans are worse than completely raw players with zero experience at the professional level is bordering on ludicrous.

I'm not advocating that we trade AR and really with the way his contract is structured, it would be cap suicide to do so in the next few years. However, if you did trade him to a team for a some #1 picks, what the Packers do in those season won't matter, it is what the team you traded with does that determines where the picks are. Obviously, using the Packers pick, packaged with the pick(s) you got in the Rodgers trade, might get you to the top of draft.

It isn't happening anytime soon, so really not worth a lot of effort to think about.

I'd love Arod for 2 more years, draft a high pick in one of the next 2 drafts at QB, get a couple of 2nds and a 3rd or so in a trade for Rodgers whose contract would be relatively average at that point. Let's do it, I've got ideas and plans, man.