Are the Packers better off not having a #3 QB on the roster?

[all about da packers]

Do you think the Packers should use a spot on the 53-man roster for a #3 QB?

It'd certainly be useful to have another QB to take snaps and be capable of filling in if A-Rod gets injured next season (not to imply A-Rod is injury prone), or if both Favre and A-Rod go down in a game (possible, but not probable).


Personally though, I'd rather use that position for an extra position player, like a WR/DT/CB.

WR - Perhaps use the spot on someone with potential like Bodiford.

DT - Keep an extra DT in case we experience injuries to that position like the past year (keep 6 DTs on the roster)

CB - keep a raw but very talented individual on the roster, perhaps a draft pick that has potential but needs ton of work. That player would serve as a replacement for Blackmon if/when he gets injured.


The week after the Cowboys game, where Brett was injured and A-Rod got injured during practice, has made me less opposed to the idea of having a spot taken up by a QB to be our #3 guy. But in the long run, I think it'd be better for the Packers to use that roster spot on a player at a position other than QB.

 

[Greg C.]

I agree. It was good to have that extra roster spot for most of the season. When they brought in Nall, they said they had intended to bring in a third QB toward the end of the season anyway, but I don't think it was a coincidence that they brought him in right after Favre had to leave that game and Rodgers pulled a hamstring.

Partly it depends on personnel, though. If they have a really good #3 on the roster in training camp, it may be worth keeping him. I don't think Nall is worth keeping, but you never know if they could get a promising younger QB who's worth a roster spot.

 

[DoddPower]

I say keep a couple of guys through OTA's and training camp, but unless they show some promise, only keep two on the roster. I mean, Favre hasn't missed a game in FOREVER, and if he goes out in a game, I'm sure Rodger's can hold up. Chances are, Favre will be back next week anyway, and if not, well, it's a great opportunity for Rodger's.

During the last 3rd of the season if it looks like we're definitely going to the playoffs (which I'm sure we will be) try to resign Nall, Paul Thompson, or some other young guy just as an emergency backup.

But overall, two should be fine. If our top two go down for more then 1 week, we're probably screwed anyway.

 

[DoddPower]

And also, that's why a significantly improved running game and a better defense will help also. Perhaps one key free agent to sure up our running game and a slightly improved defensive scheme will take a lot of pressure off the quarterback as well.

 

[Obi1]

Didn't the Packers once have Brett go down in a game to be replaced by Detmer who also got hurt in the game and was replaced by a third QB? I can't remember when or who that was but, they lost the game.

Point being, as dependent as we are on Brett Favre's passing, IF Brett goes down as he did vs. The Cowboys(last year), the chance of us winning diminishes greatly. ON top of that, IF A Rod goes down, I think it matters not who the 3rd QB is, we're done, at least for that game.

A key upgrade or two in the right positions will be more of an answer than a 3rd QB.

 

[Buckeyepackfan]

T.J. Rubley was the 3qb's name, against the queens of all people. His first play he called an audible, even though Holmgren was screaming from the sidelines not to do it.
Of course TJ threw a wounded duck was intercepted and the queens sccored and won the game.
TJ was never heard from again, Holmgren released him after the game.

 

[Zombieslayer]

Re: Are the Packers better off not having a #3 QB on the ros

Do you think the Packers should use a spot on the 53-man roster for a #3 QB?

It'd certainly be useful to have another QB to take snaps and be capable of filling in if A-Rod gets injured next season (not to imply A-Rod is injury prone), or if both Favre and A-Rod go down in a game (possible, but not probable).


Personally though, I'd rather use that position for an extra position player, like a WR/DT/CB.

WR - Perhaps use the spot on someone with potential like Bodiford.

DT - Keep an extra DT in case we experience injuries to that position like the past year (keep 6 DTs on the roster)

CB - keep a raw but very talented individual on the roster, perhaps a draft pick that has potential but needs ton of work. That player would serve as a replacement for Blackmon if/when he gets injured.


The week after the Cowboys game, where Brett was injured and A-Rod got injured during practice, has made me less opposed to the idea of having a spot taken up by a QB to be our #3 guy. But in the long run, I think it'd be better for the Packers to use that roster spot on a player at a position other than QB.

AADP - MM will make that decision based on whether or not he thinks Nall is good enough for the long run. If not, I agree with you that we should have 2 QBs. I'd like to have an extra DE.

Question for you though. Do you think Bodiford is better than Holliday? I personally like Holliday better.

 

[spardo62]

Last year out of camp they kept more DL than is typical, if they would have also kept a 3rd QB that would have left a large hole at another position.

I guess I would think that you can get a # 3 QB off the street at most any point during the season that will bring the same qualities to the table as Craig Nall, so I would wait until there is a need.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

If Brett is our QB, then yes I agree that we can go most of the season without a 3rd string QB. But with ARod our QB, I think we need a 3rd stringer.

It's about more than the game that you need the 3rd QB, it's about the 1st or 2nd guy going down for a significant amount of time. The 3rd guy becomes the backup and that player should know the offense well enough to step on the field and hold down the fort. Being on the roster and knowing the playbook is a big deal, especially with MM's complicated offense.

 

[NDPackerFan]

Didn't the Packers once have Brett go down in a game to be replaced by Detmer who also got hurt in the game and was replaced by a third QB? I can't remember when or who that was but, they lost the game.

Point being, as dependent as we are on Brett Favre's passing, IF Brett goes down as he did vs. The Cowboys(last year), the chance of us winning diminishes greatly. ON top of that, IF A Rod goes down, I think it matters not who the 3rd QB is, we're done, at least for that game.

A key upgrade or two in the right positions will be more of an answer than a 3rd QB.

T.J. Rubley in the metrodome against the Vikings...please don't bring up the painful memory again. I was there and it was one of biggest disappointments ever. Fuad Reveiz with the game-winner...ugggh.

 

[Zombieslayer]

Re: Are the Packers better off not having a #3 QB on the ros

Didn't the Packers once have Brett go down in a game to be replaced by Detmer who also got hurt in the game and was replaced by a third QB? I can't remember when or who that was but, they lost the game.

Point being, as dependent as we are on Brett Favre's passing, IF Brett goes down as he did vs. The Cowboys(last year), the chance of us winning diminishes greatly. ON top of that, IF A Rod goes down, I think it matters not who the 3rd QB is, we're done, at least for that game.

A key upgrade or two in the right positions will be more of an answer than a 3rd QB.

T.J. Rubley in the metrodome against the Vikings...please don't bring up the painful memory again. I was there and it was one of biggest disappointments ever. Fuad Reveiz with the game-winner...ugggh.

Yes. Let's please change the subject. I've gone to years of therapy to forget TJ R**l*y.

How about them Bikini Girls?

 

[IronMan]

Re: Are the Packers better off not having a #3 QB on the ros

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

 

[Danreb]

I'd rather have 6 RB's than 3 QB's.

SO yes.

 

[Veretax]

I think you need a #3 QB at this stage of Brett's Career, you just don't know what could happen. Yeah he's the immortal one so to speak, but all it takes is one injury and we will be down to 1 QB.

 

[Obi1]

Then I recommend one of the bikini girls... The one in the middle. She looks tough.

 

[Zombieslayer]

Re: Are the Packers better off not having a #3 QB on the ros

I'd rather have 6 RB's than 3 QB's.

SO yes.

6? I'd like to keep Grant, Jackson, Wynn, and Herron for sure. Are you including our FBs?

Question for you - do we keep Morency or Herron? I personally prefer Herron because he's a role RB and he's good at it.

 

[Veretax]

Personally I'd like to see them Keep Grant, and either Jackson or Wynn, let go the rest. But looking at the Roster Herron is signed through 2008 (wouldn't be major to cut if we needed space) Hall Jackson and Wynn are all signed through 2010, with Jackson having the biggest Cap hit I believe.

But with all the good running backs in the draft this year, I gotta think it might be to our benefit to shrink our running backs down and try to draft someone. There really isn't any good reason to keep 6 RBs on active roster even if one of them is on Special teams. Of course, the think that makes me itchy on this, is that it took a few games before the running attack really gelled. I'm not sure how much of that is due to Grant, and how much due to the Oline. :/

 

[Zombieslayer]

Re: Are the Packers better off not having a #3 QB on the ros

Personally I'd like to see them Keep Grant, and either Jackson or Wynn, let go the rest. But looking at the Roster Herron is signed through 2008 (wouldn't be major to cut if we needed space) Hall Jackson and Wynn are all signed through 2010, with Jackson having the biggest Cap hit I believe.

But with all the good running backs in the draft this year, I gotta think it might be to our benefit to shrink our running backs down and try to draft someone. There really isn't any good reason to keep 6 RBs on active roster even if one of them is on Special teams. Of course, the think that makes me itchy on this, is that it took a few games before the running attack really gelled. I'm not sure how much of that is due to Grant, and how much due to the Oline. :/

I forgot about STs. In the Playoffs, we sent Brandon Jackson and Morency in there during KO and PO coverage. Besides that one roughing the kicker penalty, Jackson was a beast in STs.

I'd really like to keep Jackson. I think he has a lot of potential. I was wrong about him, calling him a bust earlier in the season. Now I really like him.

I'd like to keep both Jackson and Wynn. If Wynn ends up on IR again next year, then cut Wynn after '08. But Wynn looked good (except for having horrible lungs) in the games he played.

Herron is a good third down blocker and a decent receiver. That's why I like him.

I'm not sold on Morency yet. I hope he can prove me wrong.

 

[TheKanataThrilla]

I hope there are only two QBs next season. I would love for the Pack to hold off on drafting a QB until next draft and try and pick up Chase Daniel. This kid really impressed me. I don't follow much college, but did catch a few Mizzou games because I knew he was playing.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Personally I'd like to see them Keep Grant, and either Jackson or Wynn, let go the rest. But looking at the Roster Herron is signed through 2008 (wouldn't be major to cut if we needed space) Hall Jackson and Wynn are all signed through 2010, with Jackson having the biggest Cap hit I believe.

But with all the good running backs in the draft this year, I gotta think it might be to our benefit to shrink our running backs down and try to draft someone. There really isn't any good reason to keep 6 RBs on active roster even if one of them is on Special teams. Of course, the think that makes me itchy on this, is that it took a few games before the running attack really gelled. I'm not sure how much of that is due to Grant, and how much due to the Oline. :/

I don't know how this ended up a RB discussion, but I think we need to dump Wynn. He's got great potential and size, but he goes down with a hang nail. Definitely a waste of a spot for him since we can't rely on him to be ready to go in when called upon.

Jackson showed some of his talent toward the end of the season. I think a lot was just getting up to NFL speed and the system while coming back from injury.

Morency and Herron should be given a chance to fight for a roster spot, but we shouldn't need more than 3 RBs and 2 FBs total.

 

[Zombieslayer]

Re: Are the Packers better off not having a #3 QB on the ros

I don't know how this ended up a RB discussion, but I think we need to dump Wynn. He's got great potential and size, but he goes down with a hang nail. Definitely a waste of a spot for him since we can't rely on him to be ready to go in when called upon.

Jackson showed some of his talent toward the end of the season. I think a lot was just getting up to NFL speed and the system while coming back from injury.

Morency and Herron should be given a chance to fight for a roster spot, but we shouldn't need more than 3 RBs and 2 FBs total.

It's actually not too far off topic. We were discussing what we'd do with that extra roster spot if we only had 2 QBs.

Wynn I like, with a big asterisk. IF he can stay healthy, I want him. If not, we'll have to look elsewhere.

 

[Pack93z]

Of course you are a better and deeper team if you don't have to carry a dead spot on the roster. Something we should have been doing for years with Favre's durability.

But a few years ago, spot 52 and 53 weren't very talented people on the roster anyway.. so I don't know that it would have really mattered.

Anytime you can keep a young player with talent at a highly visible spot as RB or WR, you are not only deeper on offense and defense, but special teams as well.

 

[DoddPower]

Re: Are the Packers better off not having a #3 QB on the ros

Personally I'd like to see them Keep Grant, and either Jackson or Wynn, let go the rest. But looking at the Roster Herron is signed through 2008 (wouldn't be major to cut if we needed space) Hall Jackson and Wynn are all signed through 2010, with Jackson having the biggest Cap hit I believe.

But with all the good running backs in the draft this year, I gotta think it might be to our benefit to shrink our running backs down and try to draft someone. There really isn't any good reason to keep 6 RBs on active roster even if one of them is on Special teams. Of course, the think that makes me itchy on this, is that it took a few games before the running attack really gelled. I'm not sure how much of that is due to Grant, and how much due to the Oline. :/

I don't know how this ended up a RB discussion, but I think we need to dump Wynn. He's got great potential and size, but he goes down with a hang nail. Definitely a waste of a spot for him since we can't rely on him to be ready to go in when called upon.

Jackson showed some of his talent toward the end of the season. I think a lot was just getting up to NFL speed and the system while coming back from injury.

Morency and Herron should be given a chance to fight for a roster spot, but we shouldn't need more than 3 RBs and 2 FBs total.

I think we need more then 3 RB's. It's one of more brutal positions and it's almost guaranteed there will be some injuries. In my opinion, I think we should keep:

1.) Grant
2.) Jackson
3.) Wynn
4.) Herron / draft pick / FA
&
1.) Hall
2.) Kuhn

My main reasoning for this is both Wynn and Herron were put on IR last season, and it's always a large possibility a RB will be put on IR or at least miss some significant time. I don't think we can give up on Wynn yet. He could be the bruiser back we desperately need for those 3rd and short conversions and with the emergence of Grant, he won't be asked to play every down, so maybe he'll handle it better. I also think Herron could have an improved role with our improved offense, kind of a Faulk type back. If I remember correctly, his injury wasn't that serious anyway. If they don't think he has much more potential, then get a later round BPA draft pick and begin developing them. Or perhaps even a no-name free agent that Ted uses his X-Ray talent vision on.

=)

 

[Veretax]

I understand what your saying. I think the Packers have the Luxury of bringing what they have back to camp. I think more then 4 RBs is a luxury though, unless you have a couple guys (which the packers do) who are good special teamers. You never know when a fluke injury will happen, however, if they are only sitting there taking up a spot and never see the field then yes its a wasted spot. Personally I'd like to see the Pack get away from the run via platoon, and get a solid back that can do a lot for them.

 

[Zombieslayer]

Re: Are the Packers better off not having a #3 QB on the ros

I think we need more then 3 RB's. It's one of more brutal positions and it's almost guaranteed there will be some injuries. In my opinion, I think we should keep:

1.) Grant
2.) Jackson
3.) Wynn
4.) Herron / draft pick / FA
&
1.) Hall
2.) Kuhn

My main reasoning for this is both Wynn and Herron were put on IR last season, and it's always a large possibility a RB will be put on IR or at least miss some significant time. I don't think we can give up on Wynn yet. He could be the bruiser back we desperately need for those 3rd and short conversions and with the emergence of Grant, he won't be asked to play every down, so maybe he'll handle it better. I also think Herron could have an improved role with our improved offense, kind of a Faulk type back. If I remember correctly, his injury wasn't that serious anyway. If they don't think he has much more potential, then get a later round BPA draft pick and begin developing them. Or perhaps even a no-name free agent that Ted uses his X-Ray talent vision on.

=)

Thanks Dodd.

I had a brain fart and completely forgot the reason I liked Wynn so much. We could use a bruiser back. I like what the Giants do with one faster guy and one big, punishing back. Of course, I'd like to see Grant get most of the carries, but 3rd and 2 or 3rd and 1, putting Wynn back there is almost a guaranteed 1st down. Now, if he can only stay healthy.