Next QB?

[HardRightEdge]

I saw this and stopped reading.

"Player Comparison: Jay Cutler"

I think Cutler had better arm strength than Rosen. Mental deficiencies may be comparable.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I saw this and stopped reading.

"Player Comparison: Jay Cutler"

I am pretty sure that the Dolphins thought they were getting a deal, but for the Cardinals to just give up on a #10 pick (one year later) and settle for a #62 and a later year 5th round tells me a lot. Then the Dolphins bench him after 3 games, something besides his poor play is going on for 2 teams in rebuild mode to give up on him. I think those intangibles and locker room chemistry issues, that the scouting report talked about, are going to bite him anywhere he goes, even Green Bay. Sometimes sheer talent doesn't equate to a good player on the field.

Would it be AWESOME if he worked out in Green Bay and was the next Packer FHOF QB, sure, but how much are you willing to risk on Draft stock, cap space and ruining what sounds like great chemistry in the Packer Locker room? If he is toxic, I know one particular QB that probably won't want to have anything to do with him.

Except Rosen and Rodgers are apparently buds in real life. ... https://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation...on-rodgers-happy-to-be-the-dude-to-josh-rosen

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Except Rosen and Rodgers are apparently buds in real life. ... https://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation...on-rodgers-happy-to-be-the-dude-to-josh-rosen

Good find. Maybe you got something there. Sounds like the "2 dudes" get along really well. Maybe Green Bay wouldn't be a bad landing spot for Rosen. He could continue to learn the Pro game from one of the best.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And there was Montana-to-Young. Even going from a pretty decent QB who made a couple of Pro Bowls to another like QB or better is also quite uncommon. There was Smith-to-Mahomes of recent vintage but I can't think of another case off hand going back quite some ways. Maybe Young-to-Garcia or Smith-to-Kaepernick, a lot of Smith and SF in there.

I would rank Bledsoe-to-Brady right up there pretty high.

 

[OldSchool101]

We’re nowhere near needing a #1 QB. But if a team invests as much time building a winning squad? Backup QB has to be a focus.
I don’t believe in this broad label I’ve seen tossed around in the media that “if Rodgers goes down you’re done”.
You don’t invest hundreds of millions of dollars and a dozens of people’s careers in any goal without an adequate contingency plan.

My focus would be getting a solid #2 QB that we can develop and rely on to win games in the even the primary QB goes down. That said, I’ve seen posters specifically take it too far by being almost obstinate over thinking it don’t matter. It absolutely does matter. That said, we also don’t need to get ridiculous and swing the other direction and overcompensate and overspend draft resources, but if a day 3 pick at QB is there with lots of talent but some refining needed? I’m all for it. If a more experienced FA QB is in the market under <5M a season? I’m also for it. Give me my contingency Uninterruptible Power Supply. Is he already on the team? I’m not so sure I’d be comfortable with saying that right now.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

We’re nowhere near needing a #1 QB. But if a team invests as much time building a winning squad? Backup QB has to be a focus.
I don’t believe in this broad label I’ve seen tossed around in the media that “if Rodgers goes down you’re done”.
You don’t invest hundreds of millions of dollars and a dozens of people’s careers in any goal without an adequate contingency plan.

My focus would be getting a solid #2 QB that we can develop and rely on to win games in the even the primary QB goes down. That said, I’ve seen posters specifically take it too far by being almost obstinate over thinking it don’t matter. It absolutely does matter. That said, we also don’t need to get ridiculous and swing the other direction and overcompensate and overspend draft resources, but if a day 3 pick at QB is there with lots of talent but some refining needed? I’m all for it. If a more experienced FA QB is in the market under <5M a season? I’m also for it. Give me my contingency Uninterruptible Power Supply. Is he already on the team? I’m not so sure I’d be comfortable with saying that right now.

You and I think a lot alike when it comes to the importance of a backup QB. When you have a team that is a legit SB contender, then you should have a legit backup QB, in the event that your starter goes down for any length of time. This is something that the Packers have shied away from for awhile and it showed in 2017 and a bit in 2018 when Kizer played briefly. Admittedly, last season, I didn't even mind Boyle being #2 because I didn't think the Packers were going to contend, glad to be wrong on that.

All that said, as nice as finding a solid #2 for next year would be, I think you almost have to go all in on Rodgers and use that $5-10M that you might use on a Vet backup on another player. I don't think we have the luxury yet to spend a lot of money on a Vet Backup, nor do I think the offense is good enough to keep winning without Rodgers. I have no clue what we have in Tim Boyle and I kind of hope we never have to find out, at lease when it counts.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

You and I think a lot alike when it comes to the importance of a backup QB. When you have a team that is a legit SB contender, then you should have a legit backup QB, in the event that your starter goes down for any length of time. This is something that the Packers have shied away from for awhile and it showed in 2017 and a bit in 2018 when Kizer played briefly. Admittedly, last season, I didn't even mind Boyle being #2 because I didn't think the Packers were going to contend, glad to be wrong on that.

All that said, as nice as finding a solid #2 for next year would be, I think you almost have to go all in on Rodgers and use that $5-10M that you might use on a Vet backup on another player. I don't think we have the luxury yet to spend a lot of money on a Vet Backup, nor do I think the offense is good enough to keep winning without Rodgers. I have no clue what we have in Tim Boyle and I kind of hope we never have to find out, at lease when it counts.

If you are going to spend an extra $5-10 million on another player in this scenario, it should be defense so that the offense doesn't have to rely on a backup QB. Keep the opponent from scoring any points and you give your team a great chance at winning

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If you are going to spend an extra $5-10 million on another player in this scenario, it should be defense so that the offense doesn't have to rely on a backup QB. Keep the opponent from scoring any points and you give your team a great chance at winning

Well you are probably going to still have to score some points on offense, so its a Catch-22. Bring in a backup without enough weapons to help, the offense goes 3 and out a lot, putting more stress on a defense, even a good defense.

 

[Jason Edens]

I think it was more than that. If they thought Rosen was a future solid starter, they would have been smarter to pass on Murray, traded back to a team that wanted him or just taken Bosa.

As far as Arizona goes, their new coach drueled over Murray while he was in college. He was a much better fit for the system Arizona put in place. As far as Miami goes, your guess is as good as mine. Personally I think the new coaching staff wanted to win despite what the head office was doing gutting the team. Otherwise they should have tanked the whole season with Rosen. I would prefer Fitzpatrick to Boyle any day of the week by the way. This is the same organization that let Tannehill go, and he took his team to the AFC championship. Miami seems to be all in on bad decisions for the last 2 seasons.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We’re nowhere near needing a #1 QB. But if a team invests as much time building a winning squad? Backup QB has to be a focus.

My focus would be getting a solid #2 QB that we can develop and rely on to win games in the even the primary QB goes down. That said, I’ve seen posters specifically take it too far by being almost obstinate over thinking it don’t matter. It absolutely does matter. That said, we also don’t need to get ridiculous and swing the other direction and overcompensate and overspend draft resources, but if a day 3 pick at QB is there with lots of talent but some refining needed? I’m all for it. If a more experienced FA QB is in the market under <5M a season? I’m also for it. Give me my contingency Uninterruptible Power Supply. Is he already on the team? I’m not so sure I’d be comfortable with saying that right now.

I agree that the Packers need to make sure they have a decent backup quarterback on the roster but they have other positions in need of an upgrade and not enough cap space to sign a veteran free agent. I would be fine with using a late round pick to improve over Boyle if the coaching staff feels it to be necessary.

I would prefer Fitzpatrick to Boyle any day of the week by the way.

Well, you have to consider that Fitzpatrick counts $8 million against the cap in 2020 while the Packers only take a hit of $666K for Boyle next season though.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I think Cutler had better arm strength than Rosen. Mental deficiencies may be comparable.

For a type 1 diabetic who sometimes took 5 insulin shots during a single game, he wasn`t too bad a QB....some healthy ones aren`t that good.

 

[tynimiller]

Good read. Again, we're talking about a 4th rounder. If it pans out it's a steal, nobody would be expecting him to start for two+ years unless Rodgers gets injured.

Getting back to Arizona trading Rosen, it was pretty well established that Kingsbury wanted Kyler to run his system (which they didn't end up successfully implementing).

https://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2019/...y-seven-year-recruitment-kyler-murray-pay-off

If we are trading a 4th get me a player that will play, see the field without a starter going down. Find me a #2 WR, a depth provider behind Clark...an ILB plug post-Martinez...shoot even a somewhat decent TE that will play.

 

[Mondio]

Well, you have to consider that Fitzpatrick counts $8 million against the cap in 2020 while the Packers only take a hit of $666K for Boyle next season though.

It's always the crux of the issue. How much of the cap are you going to put towards a position you hope never ever takes a snap? yes a back up QB can help get you thru some games, but at 8 million per, you're also missing out on some really good players that could help you every game of the year. 8 million would get you a couple vet WR's, an ILB a couple back up OLineman that come in handy far more often than a back up QB.

when youve invested 30 million in the position, you've kind of made your bed. You're not getting a decent veteran QB for a back up unless there are some other circumstances like coming off major injury or something

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's always the crux of the issue. How much of the cap are you going to put towards a position you hope never ever takes a snap? yes a back up QB can help get you thru some games, but at 8 million per, you're also missing out on some really good players that could help you every game of the year. 8 million would get you a couple vet WR's, an ILB a couple back up OLineman that come in handy far more often than a back up QB.

when youve invested 30 million in the position, you've kind of made your bed. You're not getting a decent veteran QB for a back up unless there are some other circumstances like coming off major injury or something

While I agree with you in theory, I think you have to adjust your thinking and just how much you are willing to invest in your Backup QB based on the quality of your team and of course available cap space. A team in rebuild mode, shouldn't invest a lot in QB #2. Whereas a contending team like the Saints, who hit big on some drafts as of late, had extra cash to invest in Bridgewater and it paid off.

So I don't think there is really any hard fast rule. The Packers have been getting by very cheap on QB #2. We saw what happened in 2017 with Hundley. This past season, it worked out great, Rodgers stayed healthy, but had he not, I don't think Boyle gets us to a 13-3 record. So if the Packers keep improving, stays in SB contention and as Rodgers ages, I would prefer seeing a better backup than Tim Boyle, a guy that has thrown 4 passes in his NFL career.

 

[tynimiller]

I would prefer seeing a better backup than Tim Boyle, a guy that has thrown 4 passes in his NFL career.

I don't think anyone would disagree with the preference....merely if it is smart to do so.

 

[Mondio]

of course I'd like someone better than Boyle. I'd love to have Brees as Rodgers' back up, he's a FA, but the fact of the matter is, what we'd like and what makes sense has a lot of gray area. Would you spend 8 million on Fitzpatrick? is he going to light it up, or toss picks at the same rate? He's done both in his career. how long do you sign him for? 1-2 years? is 16 million going to make your team better or keep it on the bench and if he plays is he getting us to 13-3? or maybe just spend 4 for Case Keenum? I'm not sure he'd bring anything more tot the table than Boyle does.

the Saints had some good drafts, they also had to protect against Brees leaving. A bit different situation than we're in currently and now they're a team without a QB for the time being. They didn't get to any more super bowls than we did.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

If we are trading a 4th get me a player that will play, see the field without a starter going down. Find me a #2 WR, a depth provider behind Clark...an ILB plug post-Martinez...shoot even a somewhat decent TE that will play.

Counting on a (late) 4th rounder rookie to contribute is asking a lot. This is a deep wr draft and we have multiple late round picks. Not just that, but we spent early capital on a pass catching te last year. If there's nobody that would be considered an upgrade over the players we have at our 4th round pick I have absolutely no problem with them trading for a depth qb.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

of course I'd like someone better than Boyle. I'd love to have Brees as Rodgers' back up, he's a FA, but the fact of the matter is, what we'd like and what makes sense has a lot of gray area. Would you spend 8 million on Fitzpatrick? is he going to light it up, or toss picks at the same rate? He's done both in his career. how long do you sign him for? 1-2 years? is 16 million going to make your team better or keep it on the bench and if he plays is he getting us to 13-3? or maybe just spend 4 for Case Keenum? I'm not sure he'd bring anything more tot the table than Boyle does.

the Saints had some good drafts, they also had to protect against Brees leaving. A bit different situation than we're in currently and now they're a team without a QB for the time being. They didn't get to any more super bowls than we did.

You are right, the only answer.....Taysom Hill!!



Bridgewater was signed last March to a one year deal, Brees wasn't leaving, he was under contract equally as long. That was purely a signing to backup Brees and potentially be his future replacement. Considering Teddy won every game he started (5), it was a successful move. If I go off of your past posts, they don't win all those games with Taysom Hill starting. Now they have to decide on all 3 QB's.

I think you said the last part about "they didn't make it to any more Super Bowls than we did" tongue in cheek? Maybe not. But if "making it" is the only criteria to judge success, than people better start saying "they didn't win any SB's." Personally, I think using that as the only measure of success is setting you and 31 other teams up for failure each season.

 

[Pugger]

It would be a nice luxury to have a vet backup, but who could we realistically sign? Most teams will hang onto these kinds of QBs, especially if their young stud starter is on his rookie deal.

 

[Pugger]

You are right, the only answer.....Taysom Hill!!



Bridgewater was signed last March to a one year deal, Brees wasn't leaving, he was under contract equally as long. That was purely a signing to backup Brees and potentially be his future replacement. Considering Teddy won every game he started (5), it was a successful move. If I go off of your past posts, they don't win all those games with Taysom Hill starting. Now they have to decide on all 3 QB's.

I think you said the last part about "they didn't make it to any more Super Bowls than we did" tongue in cheek? Maybe not. But if "making it" is the only criteria to judge success, than people better start saying "they didn't win any SB's." Personally, I think using that as the only measure of success is setting you and 31 other teams up for failure each season.

Too bad we tried to sneak Hill onto the PS in 2017 but the Saints snapped him up. Looking back we should have kept him and let Hundley go at the end of training camp that year.

 

[tynimiller]

Counting on a (late) 4th rounder rookie to contribute is asking a lot. This is a deep wr draft and we have multiple late round picks. Not just that, but we spent early capital on a pass catching te last year. If there's nobody that would be considered an upgrade over the players we have at our 4th round pick I have absolutely no problem with them trading for a depth qb.

Here's the issue though, you trade a 4th any of the positions I listed you get in return they actually will play without having to see a massive injury hit the person ahead of them. Even a #3 WR or #3 DL or a backup ILB will see plenty of the field and contribute far more. If Rodgers goes down this team is going down, just a fact of how most teams structure themselves when you have a QB of his caliber.

I 100% would love to have a better option waiting behind him....but it isn't happening unless you convince an old veteran to sign cheap or a guy like Mariota or Rosin is a toss off essentially and no one signs them.

 

[Jason Edens]

It's always the crux of the issue. How much of the cap are you going to put towards a position you hope never ever takes a snap? yes a back up QB can help get you thru some games, but at 8 million per, you're also missing out on some really good players that could help you every game of the year. 8 million would get you a couple vet WR's, an ILB a couple back up OLineman that come in handy far more often than a back up QB.

when youve invested 30 million in the position, you've kind of made your bed. You're not getting a decent veteran QB for a back up unless there are some other circumstances like coming off major injury or something

We are definitely in a salary cap hole, and unless someone suddenly becomes available on an affordable contract, it is a forgone conclusion that we really can't do it right now.

I don't think anyone would disagree with the preference....merely if it is smart to do so.

I look at it like insurance. It is a risk analysis when picking how much coverage you need. Rodgers is aging and has had more injuries recently. We are investing in the team as a whole, not just the QB position. We lost a significant number of games due to Rodgers injuries in 2017 and 2018. If he gets injured in 2020 is the team as a whole good enough to get to the playoffs and compete with Boyle?

 

[tynimiller]

We are definitely in a salary cap hole, and unless someone suddenly becomes available on an affordable contract, it is a forgone conclusion that we really can't do it right now.



I look at it like insurance. It is a risk analysis when picking how much coverage you need. Rodgers is aging and has had more injuries recently. We are investing in the team as a whole, not just the QB position. We lost a significant number of games due to Rodgers injuries in 2017 and 2018. If he gets injured in 2020 is the team as a whole good enough to get to the playoffs and compete with Boyle?

Nope. Neither is a team without Rodgers that ignores other more pressing issues than backup. As an organization we are all in on Rodgers for a year or two longer 100%...all our funds and plans should be about surrounding him with better weapons, line, and a defense.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If he gets injured in 2020 is the team as a whole good enough to get to the playoffs and compete with Boyle?

Well most of the scenarios with injuries aren't like 2017 where you lose your starting QB for a large part of the season or like 2018 when Rodgers was able to play most of the year, despite being injured. Can it happen? Yes, but more likely you lose him for a half of game or 2 with a concussion or more of a minor injury. What if you lose him in the 3rd Q of a playoff game that you are up by 10, can Boyle hold serve? Can Boyle win that last game of the year against the Lions to give us the #1 seed?

It's not as black and white of a decision as some are trying to make it. Do the Packers have the resources to pay a back-up QB $8M in 2021? They do, but unfortunately the need to improve other positions outweigh that luxury.

I like what the Chiefs did last year, they had vets Matt Moore and Chad Henne as backups. Moore was able to win 2 out of 3 when Mahommes went down. Funny thing is, they Paid Henne a lot more ($2.55M) than they paid Moore ($1.03M). Part of the reason they could do that was Mahommes is playing on his rookie deal, but a guy like Moore, is someone the Packers could justify paying and probably get more out of him than Boyle.

Packers seem like they are in a catch-22. They know they have to eventually replace Rodgers and seem to want to carry a developmental QB behind him, in case that comes sooner than expected.

 

[OldSchool101]

So I don't think there is really any hard fast rule. The Packers have been getting by very cheap on QB #2. We saw what happened in 2017 with Hundley. This past season, it worked out great, Rodgers stayed healthy, but had he not, I don't think Boyle gets us to a 13-3 record. So if the Packers keep improving, stays in SB contention and as Rodgers ages, I would prefer seeing a better backup than Tim Boyle, a guy that has thrown 4 passes in his NFL career.

That’s exactly it. It depends where the team is at from a momentum perspective. Then from a financial standpoint and what type of draft resources that team possesses. I do agree there’s a healthy balance of factors to consider.

My point being we have to pick n choose when and where to double down. The QB position is the Queen of the chessboard and guys like Ron Wolf would tell us there is an entire philosophy of weighting that position with resources in many seasons. As you said, maybe not so much coming off 6-9-1. But as you stated.. at 13-3? Absolutely a valid argument there.

If there are no veteran trade options in that 2-5M range.. that’s ok, but we shouldn’t stop there. There should, more often than not, be a late round selection used to bolster the QB room. Especially when your holding 5 picks in rounds 6-7. That’s just a no brainer.
Keep in mind that often, from a statistical view, said QB #2 just need to win several games and he’s improving even when he’s not starting. It’s not always a season ending situation. QB insurance is never a good deal on its face..until we need to make a claim.