What if Rodgers gets hurt again....

[HardRightEdge]

Any back up that can win .500+ with regularity is going to be a well compensated starter. Unless you drafted and developed or got a steal after a devastating injury and they actually come back and are able to perform that scenario is highly unlikely.

That's about right. You have to discover that you have a 0.500 backup QB already under contract by accident, literally and figuratively. Flynn is a prime example of a 0.500 backup. Then he got a nice contract from Seattle. Better than 0.500 (Garappolo) and there's a lot more money on the table. Though a team might not view a 0.500 backup as their franchise QB, there are always teams lacking better options or need a veteran stand-in until their first rounder is ready to play.

There are always exceptions, Keenum being one in this case. Before going to Minnesota, he was 11-7 as a backup starter over the previous 4 years. Minnesota signed him to backup Bradford for $2 mil plus incentives. Then Bradford got knocked out in Week 2, and the rest is a little slice of NFC North history.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Basically, the picture below represents how the Packers have built their team, with the bottom can representing Rodgers. Yank that out and the pyramid crumbles.

As much as I would love to have a veteran quality backup QB, I don't think the rest of the team is quite good enough yet, that if something happens to Rodgers, a backup is going to lead this team very far over a long period of time. So bank the money/pick for the future.

Now if the Packers field a really solid defense in the near future and the offense is clicking, that would go a long way to support making sure your backup QB is a guy who will continue to help the rest of your team to win.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[HardRightEdge]

True. If we actually had a D that could hold their own ..15-19Pts/Gm this would be much more attainable.

I will never be upset if we spend 7M Or 9M for that matter or so on a backup and he never sees the field as long as #12 is in the huddle. I also won’t be upset if I have great homeowners and my house doesn’t burn down.

By my count there have only been 6 teams in the last 10 years that logged 15.0 points or less surrendered, none in the last 5 years. The 2010 Packers at 15.0 were one of those teams. 19.0 points surrendered would be a top 5 defense, give or take.

Forget what that might mean with a backup QB. What would that have meant with Rodgers lo these many years.

I can remember only one year in recent memory where the Packers might have had $7 - $9 mil in spare cap to make such a signing. Right now, for example, the Packers have $9.2 mil in cap space with about $4 - $5 mil being unspendable barring a cut with cap savings.

Further, if a QB is actually worth $7 - $9 mil he's going to prefer a job where he has a chance to start with an opportunity to get to the next better contract. Being the first season starter in front of that fresh whiz-bang first round franchise QB of the future is a not uncommon landing spot for these kinds of guys.

 

[OldSchool101]

By my count there have only been 6 teams in the last 10 years that logged 15.0 points or less surrendered, none in the last 5 years.

While that’s probably true, I didn’t say less than 15pts. Although looking at it I likely should’ve said <=20pts per game allowed. That would allow us to go .500 or above with a good backup IMO.

The point you made on a QB not wanting to come is actually a valid argument. But at $7M? Etc.. you might just be surprised who would show up.

The point about not having cap? It’s all about what you prioritize. I prefer having a better backup and I can look around the league and assure you I’m not alone in that camp. But it’s preference and philosophy.
btw our cap # increases by more than that $7-$9M annually, so I don’t regard that part as a reason not to have a really good backup if one was available. Of course I’d try to get one a little cheaper on a 2-3 yr deal etc.. such as 3yr/17M etc..

the whole point I’m trying to make is not arguing over 3M or 5M or 9M but I don’t want to split hairs and rather get someone we feel good about. A good starting LB is paid 15M a year, so I can see why folks don’t think a good backup QB would want to participate for 2-3M or whatever. I’d fully support drafting one every other year also as a third option to keep one in the pipeline.

I don’t believe we emphasize the value of having a adequate backup anymore. It’s not like we still have Favre and he’s on his 10th consecutive year without an injury. We’re largely a pass first team in a pass leaning trajectory NFL, but we get occasionally get caught with our pants down having ill prepared or backups that aren’t ready to shine.

Other teams are figuring this philosophy out and staying ahead of the injury curve. Injury protocols are sensitive and are becoming more and more part of the equation. We would all agree that QB is the most important position, yet we talk about depth for nearly every other position But QB. Nothing is going to matter if we put all our eggs in one basket and that basket drops.

 

[PackAttack12]

What's sad is that the OP was being serious.

 

[swhitset]

What's sad is that the OP was being serious.

I’ve been wondering about that ....

 

[HardRightEdge]

I prefer having a better backup and I can look around the league and assure you I’m not alone in that camp. But it’s preference and philosophy.

Teams with starters still on their cheap rookie contracts can afford to spend more for a backup. If it is that young QBs first season as a starter, it would be prudent to have that quality backup in case the youngster sh*ts the bed, assuming there are any pretentions to winning. Without such pretentions you might throw a Josh Allen or DeShone Kizer out there to take his lumps now for valuable experience to be applied later. Teams with franchise QBs in 2nd. contracts and beyond @ $25 mil, $30 mil and more per year do not have that luxury.

While that’s probably true, I didn’t say less than 15pts. Although looking at it I likely should’ve said <=20pts per game allowed. That would allow us to go .500 or above with a good backup IMO.

"Less than" 15 points vs. exactly 15 points is splitting hairs. Only one team in the last 10 season had exactly 15.0 points against, that being the 2010 Packers. We tend to forget how good that defense was, among the 10 best in the last decade. As for 20 points or less, that's a top 10 defense. I would expect a "good" backup with a good collection of talent to do better than 0.500 against average teams. If there isn't that good collection of talent that team isn't going anywhere regardless.

The point you made on a QB not wanting to come is actually a valid argument. But at $7M? Etc.. you might just be surprised who would show up.

I'm sure if you put out a proverbial help wanted sign in front of Lambeau field saying, "Experienced NFL QB wanted for backup position, starting pay $7 mil," you'd have agents lining up around the proverial block. That doesn't mean their clients are worth that money. You'll be hard pressed to find a team with a veteran franchise QB making big bucks paired with a $7 mil backup.

The problem is that no team can cover all contingencies. Teams spending big bucks at QB have already sacrificed a couple of good starters at other positions compared to a team with a rookie contract starter, e.g., Rodgers' $26.5 mil 2019 cap cost vs. Mahomes at $4.5 mil, Goff at $8.9 mil, Wentz at $8.4, Watson at $3.8 mil, Prescott at $2.1 mil, Trubiski at $7.9 mil, Mayfield at $7.4 mil or Lamar Jackson $2.2 mil. I may have missed somebody worth mentioning.

So the question is whether you're willing to sacrifice a 3rd. good starter relative to that competition for a backup QB that may never play? The numbers say the answer to Dirty Harry's question, "Do you feel lucky, punk", must be, "Yeah, I do, because I have to". Then you hope that chamber is in fact empty.

Of course if the aim is just getting to 10-6 and then bounced out of the playoffs you might be able to do that down 3 good starters (or a future Hall of Fame defensive player with some change left over, as the case may be) to those teams with cheap QBs. That equation is prohibitive, however, if the aim is the ultimate prize.

 

[OldSchool101]

So you think a back up QB that will never come close to Aaron Rodgers level would be money better spent than getting Zdarius or Amos?

No. Team building is a 63+ man process, not necessarily black n white of trading 1 player directly for another. You know that I hope OT you’re just playing devils advocate.
You don’t need Aaron Rodgers as a backup or even close either. You need a D that slow your opponent and a backup QB that fits your system and can win 5 out of 10 games. That keeps you playoff relevant until your starter gets back. We don’t need to rush an injury because we can’t function without 1 player.

 

[OldSchool101]

Teams with starters still on their cheap rookie contracts can afford to spend more for a backup. If it is that young QBs first season as a starter, it would be prudent to have that quality backup in case he sh*ts the bed, assuming there are any pretentions to winning. Without such pretentions you might throw a Josh Allen or DeShone Kizer out there to take his lumps now for valuable experience later. Teams with franchise QBs in 2nd. contracts and beyond @ $25 mil, $30 mil and more per year do not have that luxury.

"Less than" 15 points vs. exactly 15 points is splitting hairs. Only one team in the last 10 season had exactly 15.0 points against, that being the 2010 Packers. We tend to forget how good that defense was, among the 10 best in the last decade. As for 20 points or less, that's a top 10 defense. I would expect a "good" backup with a good collection of talent to do better than 0.500 against average teams. If there isn't that good collection of talent that team isn't going anywhere regardless.

I'm sure if you put out a proverbial help wanted sign in front of Lambeau field saying, "Experienced NFL QB wanted for backup position, starting pay $7 mil," you'd have agents lining up around the proverial block. That doesn't mean their clients are worth that money. You'll be hard pressed to find a team with a veteran franchise QB making big bucks paired with a $7 mil backup.

The problem is that no team can cover all contingencies. Teams spending big bucks at QB have already sacrificed a couple of good starters at other positions compared to a team with a rookie contract starter, e.g., Rodgers' $26.5 mil 2019 cap cost vs. Mahomes at $4.5 mil, Goff at $8.9 mil, Wentz at $8.4, Watson at $3.8 mil, Prescott at $2.1 mil, Trubiski at $7.9 mil, Mayfield at $7.4 mil or Lamar Jackson $2.2 mil. I may have missed somebody worth mentioning.

So the question is whether you're willing to sacrifice a 3rd. good starter relative to that competition for a backup QB that may never play? The numbers say the answer to Dirty Harry's question, "Do you feel lucky, punk", must be, "Yeah, I do, because I have to". Then you hope that chamber is in fact empty.

Of course if the aim is just getting to 10-6 and then bounced out of the playoffs you might be able to do that down 3 good starters (or a future Hall of Fame defensive player with some change left over, as the case may be) to those teams with cheap QBs. That equation is prohibitive, however, if the aim is the ultimate prize.

I can be told repeatedly that having an adequate backup QB doesn’t work for a plethora of reasons, but I haven’t heard one solution to the fact that every time #12 goes down we look lost. This has been going on since Seneca Wallace days when we ran with 2 QB. I’m hearing lots of contesting the investing at backup QB backup, but ZERO solutions. So we just put our tail between our legs and go status quo? Don’t try to improve or learn from the past?
That philosophy isn’t selling me either, I’m not getting warm and fuzzies with that lack of changing direction

What’s the solution?????? I’m not looking for
“can’t do it”. You guys are better than this.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

You probably might like this idea, but I suggested should this happen (heaven forbid) I would consider the option of trading him. Better we get something from him before it's too late. Definitely draft a new QB.

It`s okay guys, I`ll get the rope , the tar and the feathers. Just hold him down.

 

[XPack]

Im packin up and moving to support my winning local team, the gian....oh, snap!

 

[HardRightEdge]

No. Team building is a 63+ man process, not necessarily black n white of trading 1 player directly for another.

Actually, it is exactly that, spending cap in one placed deprives you of opportunities in other places. It is a zero sum game.

I can be told repeatedly that having an adequate backup QB doesn’t work for a plethora of reasons, but I haven’t heard one solution to the fact that every time #12 goes down we look lost. This has been going on since Seneca Wallace days when we ran with 2 QB. I’m hearing lots of contesting the investing at backup QB backup, but ZERO solutions. So we just put our tail between our legs and go status quo? Don’t try to improve or learn from the past?
That philosophy isn’t selling me either.

Did it cross your mind that there is no viable solution to a Rodgers injury, or one to Brady or Brees or Wilson or Ryan or Rivers or Luck or any other guy deemed "franchise" with the vet salary to go with it?

Well, there are two possible solutions:

1) Draft a QB who turns out to be Jimmy Goroppolo in his first 4 seasons on a cheap rookie deal. Of course you won't know if he's any d*mn good until you are forced to play him. For now, the 2019 draft is past. Lets see what happens on this score a year from now.

2) You string together a series of good-to-great drafts, accumulating a large group of stars and core players in a 4 year window where they are all on their cheap rookie deals. Then you have a bunch of players performing well above their pay, leaving cap for a luxury acqusition like a $7 mil backup QB. That's if you can find one worth that money willing to play backup while knowing that other player you forego might be the critical difference.

In any event, the Packers do not have those stacked drafts, at least not yet. So that's another consideration in putting this proposition off until next year.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It`s okay guys, I`ll get the rope , the tar and the feathers. Just hold him down.

There's no point in bringing out the tar and feathers over a proposal that would be impossible to execute.

We've been over this so many times. When you trade a player you remain on the cap hook for all of his prorated signing bonus money from the current season forward. If Rodgers were traded today, that would leave the Packers on the hook for $46 mil in prorated signing bonus cap. The offsetting savings would be only his $1.1 mil salary for this season charged against his new team now that he's earned his roster and workout bonues on the Packers dime.

So, you'd end up with a sudden charge of about $45 mil against the 2019 salary cap. That would put the Packers about $36 mil over the cap. There is no way to handle that without cutting a whole bunch of valuable players to yield that cap savings to get under the cap and then you end up with Kizer as your QB.

If I listed the names of the players to be cut in this scenario in order to get under the cap it would become evident that trading Rodgers now would be a 0-16 suicide mission.

The time for this discussion was prior to his signing the extension. He had two relatively modest years left on the old contract, around $21 mil per year. That would have been very attractive to a trading partner. There was no prorated signing bonus left on the contract so no cap hit to the Packers in the trade. I would have been open to trade offers at that time, harvest a bunch of good picks, draft a QB in the first round, reset the clock.

I said this at the time. No telling how much of their farm some team might have given away if they would look past the plate and screws in his shoulder. It would have been worth taking offers. Maybe the Packers did, but I doubt it.

 

[Mondio]

No. Team building is a 63+ man process, not necessarily black n white of trading 1 player directly for another. You know that I hope OT you’re just playing devils advocate.
You don’t need Aaron Rodgers as a backup or even close either. You need a D that slow your opponent and a backup QB that fits your system and can win 5 out of 10 games. That keeps you playoff relevant until your starter gets back. We don’t need to rush an injury because we can’t function without 1 player.

There's only so much to spend, and this year, it would be this player for that essentially. There isn't a lot of room to play with anymore, we've used pretty much all the cap we can and still leave a contingency for what is likely to happen at some point in the season with injuries and with what we're looking at for signing next year. You can only spend so much, and we've pretty much done it, so one of those guys would have to have not been signed to give us 7-9 million to get a back up QB.

We definitely agree on needing a better D Right now, the investment has been made in Rodgers. Its the decision that was made, it's the direction we're headed. a back up is going to be whatever we can fit in cheaply and roll with it, which usually means trying out UDFA's, a 2nd round cast off like Kizer, or a low round selection. And right now, the more money that is used to build a better team around the QB will likely benefit this team every down with Rodgers or without. Spending 7-9 million on a back up QB hurts this team almost every single down we don't have a guy like Amos to put back at safety.

 

[ARPackFan]

*knock on wood*


Do we ask if Favre will come back?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[gopkrs]

Kizer has been so bad that the coaches must see something in him...or Boyle. Otherwise they would have done something. I just can't believe they would keep him only because they traded for him. Wishful thinking I know. But may be.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I just can't believe they would keep him only because they traded for him. Wishful thinking I know.

McCarthy called Kizer a first round talent when the trade was made. While McCarthy is gone, there may be others in the house, perhaps the GM who executed the trade, that agreed with that assessment and are not ready to let go of it.

LaFleur was the QB coach at Notre Dame in 2014 when Kizer was a first year red shirt who went on to start the next two years after LaFleur left. Maybe LaFleur sees something there.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Kizer has been so bad that the coaches must see something in him...or Boyle. Otherwise they would have done something. I just can't believe they would keep him only because they traded for him. Wishful thinking I know. But may be.

I can't recall now how many years the Packers had Hundley as the #2 QB, but I view Kizer as just continuing on with that philosophy. Either QB might be able to come into a game and hold onto a lead for a quarter or so, but beyond that, they aren't going to win many games or guide the Packers very far into the playoffs. Like many have said, you only have so much cap space and if a good chunk of it is already being eaten up on QB #1, its hard to justify spending anything more than what a rookie contract pays.

Now in the event that the Packers suddenly start looking like sure fire Super Bowl winners and given Rodgers latest injury history, it might be prudent to upgrade your #2 QB. if that upgrade hasn't shown itself on your current roster.

I also don't think that the Packers necessarily think that Kizer or Boyle don't have the ability to step up their games and probably hope that another year in the system will do that. Ron Wolf did a good job of drafting QB's, guys that eventually turned into pretty decent players, but didn't really need them due to Favre's incredible ability/luck when it came to staying on the field. Wolf also had a tendency to draft a QB in almost every draft and he whiffed on a few in the process. Thompson landed a big fish with Rodgers, but after that, came up pretty empty on the few QB's he drafted.

 

[weeds]

I'm not a superstitious person by any stretch of the imagination but do feel the need to point out that the very topic of this thread pokes the very hornet's nest of the football gods with a stick.

Talk about calling out your very own onus. I would recommend that the OP, on the first day of camp, be required to assume "the position" in Bob Harlan Plaza, then spin three times each clockwise and counter-clockwise, spit to the north and invoke fate's forgiveness for tossing such a notion, via the written word, into the internet cosmos.

Such carelessness cannot be tolerated, nor should it be condoned.

 

[Mondio]

Kizer can move and he can throw the ball fairly well. A new offense might just show the fans a new QB in the same body. Hundley could move and throw the ball too but both have had trouble with the offense and I think much of it was created by inexperience in the passing targets. That was the achilles heal and what made the MM offense so hard to defend. When everyone was on the same page, it was very difficult to defend. But it took experience and playing time and time to get everyone there, you couldn't plug and play.

Other offenses i don't think are so read heavy at every level of the play so it's easier for newer, less experienced, or even less football savy guys to be productive enough. Though when a defense figures out all your tells, everyone studies that tape and your days as a high flying offense are over.

anyway, Kizer may just prove to be a decent back up in this offense.

 

[gbgary]

A veteran quarterback might be able to keep the Packers in playoff contention if Rodgers ends up missing only some games though.

the Packers are barely playoff contenders WITH rodgers. without him, even for a short time, would kill the season. there's no cap for a vet anyway. best to save what's left for emergencies at other positions.

 

[HardRightEdge]

the Packers are barely playoff contenders WITH rodgers. without him, even for a short time, would kill the season. there's no cap for a vet anyway. best to save what's left for emergencies at other positions.

Right. The anti arguments have explained why Gutekunst would not have spent meaningful cap on a vet backup with some pedigree.

For those with the pro argument, I haven't seen a name mentioned yet as to who that guy should have been back in March when FA started--who it could have been and how much he eventually got paid.

As for the current moment, I have not seen anybody produce a list of such FA veterans who are still available. Without those names this is just an intellectual exercise best left for the next offseason.

Favre was mentioned in the OP kicking this off. Perhaps he could come out of retirement given the miracles of Copper Fit. Maybe he could bring Jerry Rice with him to play slot. Somebody threw out Kaepernick's name. That's interesting even if it is tainted and rusty name while it has also been reported he wanted $20 mil to play in the AAF. Tebow's baseball career is not going too well; why not resurrect that dead end?

So here's the challenge. There is about $9 mil in top 51 cap space minus $1 mil eventually for players 52 and 53 minus a little more than $1 mil eventually for the practice squad minus $2 - $3 mil held in reserve for PUP/IR replacments.

So, let's say you have right now a budget of $4.5 mil for a 1 year deal. Who is it going to be, keeping in mind that's cap that can be carried over to next season or used to sign a player or players at cut downs?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So here's the challenge. There is about $9 mil in top 51 cap space minus $1 mil eventually for players 52 and 53 minus a little more than $1 mil eventually for the practice squad minus $2 - $3 mil held in reserve for PUP/IR replacments.

So, let's say you have right now a budget of $4.5 mil for a 1 year deal. Who is it going to be, keeping in mind that's cap that can be carried over to next season or used to sign a player or players at cut downs?

I'm just going to comment on this portion of your post. The Packers aren't "close enough" to being a championship caliber team without Rodgers IMO. So throwing anything more than Vet Min or a Rookie Money (Kizer/Boyle) at the #2 QB is probably a waste of money this season. Obviously, you have the situation of Rodgers only going down for 1-3 games and that is when a veteran might be an advantage. But spending the kind of money it would take to get anyone better than who we already have, probably is wasting cap space for the future or money that would be better spent on another position.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

There's no point in bringing out the tar and feathers over a proposal that would be impossible to execute.

We've been over this so many times. When you trade a player you remain on the cap hook for all of his prorated signing bonus money from the current season forward. If Rodgers were traded today, that would leave the Packers on the hook for $46 mil in prorated signing bonus cap. The offsetting savings would be only his $1.1 mil salary for this season charged against his new team now that he's earned his roster and workout bonues on the Packers dime.

So, you'd end up with a sudden charge of about $45 mil against the 2019 salary cap. That would put the Packers about $36 mil over the cap. There is no way to handle that without cutting a whole bunch of valuable players to yield that cap savings to get under the cap and then you end up with Kizer as your QB.

If I listed the names of the players to be cut in this scenario in order to get under the cap it would become evident that trading Rodgers now would be a 0-16 suicide mission.

The time for this discussion was prior to his signing the extension. He had two relatively modest years left on the old contract, around $21 mil per year. That would have been very attractive to a trading partner. There was no prorated signing bonus left on the contract so no cap hit to the Packers in the trade. I would have been open to trade offers at that time, harvest a bunch of good picks, draft a QB in the first round, reset the clock.

I said this at the time. No telling how much of their farm some team might have given away if they would look past the plate and screws in his shoulder. It would have been worth taking offers. Maybe the Packers did, but I doubt it.

Damnation, I was looking forward to the tarring and feathering. Some people spoil all the fun.....D`oh !

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm just going to comment on this portion of your post. The Packers aren't "close enough" to being a championship caliber team without Rodgers IMO. So throwing anything more than Vet Min or a Rookie Money (Kizer/Boyle) at the #2 QB is probably a waste of money this season. Obviously, you have the situation of Rodgers only going down for 1-3 games and that is when a veteran might be an advantage. But spending the kind of money it would take to get anyone better than who we already have, probably is wasting cap space for the future or money that would be better spent on another position.

You're preaching to the choir.