Next QB?

[Deleted member 6794]

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.

It's unrealistic to expect the backup quarterback to have as much success as Rodgers, no matter how much money the Packers decide to spend on the position.

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.

A fourth round rookie will still have a bigger chance of contributing than a backup quarterback stuck being Rodgers.

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.

Don't forget that the Saints didn't consider him a legit backup quarterback either.

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.

In my opinion the Packers need to take the risk and rely on Rodgers staying healthy. With his championship window closing fast it seems to be the smarter move to surround him with more talent trying to win two more games if he's healthy than signing a veteran backup as an insurance policy to maybe keep the Super Bowl hopes alive if #12 suffers an injury.

With that being said I would definitely be in favor of spending a late round pick on a developmental quarterback competing with Boyle for the spot.

BTW Mahomes still being on a rookie deal had everything to do with the Chiefs being able to spend more money on his backups as well as other positions.

 

[Mondio]

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.

we still wouldn't have a back up QB,

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

maybe, if we have another good draft and get another FA this team could be good enough to compete with merely competent at QB. But we have pieces we need and it's not easy. On the other side of the coin, if this team isn't good enough as a whole to compete with a barely competent QB, does it matter? We can fantasize about all sorts of back ups, but if this team isn't better, as in a better a team, it's not going anywhere anyway.

Every good player we put on this team thru the draft helps this team, every dollar we spend on a better player helps this team get better. Ever dollar we spend at the back up QB limits our chances to put that better team around our QB. Where's your balance? I saw Rex Grossman go to a Super Bowl, and since we've made our bed with Rodgers, build the absolute best team around him we can get for the next 2 years and keep trying to develop a QB and see what happens.

OR spend 5-8 million on a QB that is never going to come close to doing what Rodgers is capable of no matter what, and limit the players we can keep or go get for the next couple years while Rodgers is still at this level? If you ask me, even a guy like Case Keenum at 3-4 million is a waste of 3-4 million dollars as he's not taking you anywhere unless the team takes him there.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

BTW Mahomes still being on a rookie deal had everything to do with the Chiefs being able to spend more money on his backups as well as other positions.

I mentioned the fact that Mahommes is on his rookie deal but also wanted to point out the fact that they only paid Moore $1.03M to be their #2 QB. For those not familiar with Moore, he is a 35 year old vet that has been in the league since 2007, with quite a few starts under his belt. He guided the Chiefs to a 2-1 record (wins VS Vikings and Broncos, loss to Packers) after Mahommes went down. That success can also be attributed to playing on a very good team, I recognize that.

So this notion that you can't have a Vet QB as your #2 as your backup because its too expensive is kind of hogwash. I think the more pertinent question for the Packers is "Is the Packer offense good enough, that a veteran backup QB like Moore could be expected to keep the Packers in games while Rodgers is out?" Last years team, I doubt it.

The other question I would like to ask Gute and the Packers about their philosophy on a #2 QB is. "Did you view someone like Boyle as a solid #2 this past season or more as a Development guy, that by default was your best and cheapest backup option?"

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I mentioned the fact that Mahommes is on his rookie deal but also wanted to point out the fact that they only paid Moore $1.03M to be their #2 QB. For those not familiar with Moore, he is a 35 year old vet that has been in the league since 2007, with quite a few starts under his belt. He guided the Chiefs to a 2-1 record (wins VS Vikings and Broncos, loss to Packers) after Mahommes went down. That success can also be attributed to playing on a very good team, I recognize that.

So this notion that you can't have a Vet QB as your #2 as your backup because its too expensive is kind of hogwash. I think the more pertinent question for the Packers is "Is the Packer offense good enough, that a veteran backup QB like Moore could be expected to keep the Packers in games while Rodgers is out?" Last years team, I doubt it.

The Packers could definitely afford to pay their backup quarterback $1 million next season but a lot of fans have been advocating to sign a veteran for several millions a year. That doesn't seem like a smart idea though considering the team is in need of an upgrade at several other positions.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers could definitely afford to pay their backup quarterback $1 million next season but a lot of fans have been advocating to sign a veteran for several millions a year. That doesn't seem like a smart idea though considering the team is in need of an upgrade at several other positions.

I agree with you on that, but I think many are associating a vet QB with big money and that isn't the case.

Now maybe Boyle is better than Moore and/or Boyle is seen as a future #1 or if with the team long enough, a solid #2. I just don't really understand the philosophy of putting an UDFA with with little or no NFL experience as your #2 guy in the most important position on the field. Especially, on a contending team. It will be interesting to see how Gute and the Packers approach the position, after a successful 13-3 year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Now maybe Boyle is better than Moore and/or Boyle is seen as a future #1 or if with the team long enough, a solid #2. I just don't really understand the philosophy of putting an UDFA with with little or no NFL experience as your #2 guy in the most important position on the field. Especially, on a contending team. It will be interesting to see how Gute and the Packers approach the position, after a successful 13-3 year.

I agree that I would feel more comfortable with a veteran having to step in for Rodgers instead of Boyle. It will be interested to see if Gutekunst can acquire one for cheap this offseason.

 

[Dantés]

Here is the list of veteran QB's (i.e. not on a rookie deal), making less than 4M annually:

• C. Henne, KC, 3.35M
• D. Stanton, CLE, 3.25M
• C. McCoy, WAS, 3.25M
• N. Sudfeld, PHI, 3.095M
• A. McCarron, HOU, 3M
• R. Griffin, BAL, 2M
• M. Barkley, BUF, 2M
• J. McCown, PHI, 2M
• T. Siemian, NYJ, 2M
• M. Glennon, OAK, 1.95M
• M. Schaub, ATL, 1.89M
• B. Gabbert, TB, 1.6M
• R. Griffin, TB, 1.6M
• M. Moore, KC, 1.03M
• J. Webb, HOU, 1.02M
• B. Bortles, LAR, 1.02M
• G. Smith, SEA, 870K
• D. Fales, NYJ, 805K

Bunch of other rando's that I don't want to collect data on after that.

I would happily bring guys of this quality into camp to compete, but with a couple exceptions, I am not convinced that any of them would be locks to beat out Boyle. This isn't because I have a ton of confidence in Boyle, but I still think the quality level of these plays is low enough that he would stand a chance to hold them off, especially given that he has a leg up in the offense.

QB's who are generally considered to be high end backups (e.g. Fitzpatrick, Keenum, Taylor, Tannehill, Daniel, Bridgewater) are making 5-8M/season.

 

[tynimiller]

Here is the list of veteran QB's (i.e. not on a rookie deal), making less than 4M annually:

• C. Henne, KC, 3.35M
• D. Stanton, CLE, 3.25M
• C. McCoy, WAS, 3.25M
• N. Sudfeld, PHI, 3.095M
• A. McCarron, HOU, 3M
• R. Griffin, BAL, 2M
• M. Barkley, BUF, 2M
• J. McCown, PHI, 2M
• T. Siemian, NYJ, 2M
• M. Glennon, OAK, 1.95M
• M. Schaub, ATL, 1.89M
• B. Gabbert, TB, 1.6M
• R. Griffin, TB, 1.6M
• M. Moore, KC, 1.03M
• J. Webb, HOU, 1.02M
• B. Bortles, LAR, 1.02M
• G. Smith, SEA, 870K
• D. Fales, NYJ, 805K

Bunch of other rando's that I don't want to collect data on after that.

I would happily bring guys of this quality into camp to compete, but with a couple exceptions, I am not convinced that any of them would be locks to beat out Boyle. This isn't because I have a ton of confidence in Boyle, but I still think the quality level of these plays is low enough that he would stand a chance to hold them off, especially given that he has a leg up in the offense.

QB's who are generally considered to be high end backups (e.g. Fitzpatrick, Keenum, Taylor, Tannehill, Daniel, Bridgewater) are making 5-8M/season.

How many if any are FAs this year? I don't know off hand do you?

 

[mongoosev]

she can protect rodgers

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

 

[Pugger]

It's unrealistic to expect the backup quarterback to have as much success as Rodgers, no matter how much money the Packers decide to spend on the position.



A fourth round rookie will still have a bigger chance of contributing than a backup quarterback stuck being Rodgers.



Don't forget that the Saints didn't consider him a legit backup quarterback either.



In my opinion the Packers need to take the risk and rely on Rodgers staying healthy. With his championship window closing fast it seems to be the smarter move to surround him with more talent trying to win two more games if he's healthy than signing a veteran backup as an insurance policy to maybe keep the Super Bowl hopes alive if #12 suffers an injury.

With that being said I would definitely be in favor of spending a late round pick on a developmental quarterback competing with Boyle for the spot.

BTW Mahomes still being on a rookie deal had everything to do with the Chiefs being able to spend more money on his backups as well as other positions.

But Hill would have been better than Hundley.

 

[Pugger]

Here is the list of veteran QB's (i.e. not on a rookie deal), making less than 4M annually:

• C. Henne, KC, 3.35M
• D. Stanton, CLE, 3.25M
• C. McCoy, WAS, 3.25M
• N. Sudfeld, PHI, 3.095M
• A. McCarron, HOU, 3M
• R. Griffin, BAL, 2M
• M. Barkley, BUF, 2M
• J. McCown, PHI, 2M
• T. Siemian, NYJ, 2M
• M. Glennon, OAK, 1.95M
• M. Schaub, ATL, 1.89M
• B. Gabbert, TB, 1.6M
• R. Griffin, TB, 1.6M
• M. Moore, KC, 1.03M
• J. Webb, HOU, 1.02M
• B. Bortles, LAR, 1.02M
• G. Smith, SEA, 870K
• D. Fales, NYJ, 805K

Bunch of other rando's that I don't want to collect data on after that.

I would happily bring guys of this quality into camp to compete, but with a couple exceptions, I am not convinced that any of them would be locks to beat out Boyle. This isn't because I have a ton of confidence in Boyle, but I still think the quality level of these plays is low enough that he would stand a chance to hold them off, especially given that he has a leg up in the offense.

QB's who are generally considered to be high end backups (e.g. Fitzpatrick, Keenum, Taylor, Tannehill, Daniel, Bridgewater) are making 5-8M/season.

And teams hang onto guys like these too.

 

[Mondio]

But Hill would have been better than Hundley.

doubt it. Can't play from the redzone and 3rd and short all game long. His niche is negated outside of a few specific plays for specific situations. He doesn't throw all that well anymore and 1 read and throw or run only works so often.

 

[Mondio]

I agree with you on that, but I think many are associating a vet QB with big money and that isn't the case.

Now maybe Boyle is better than Moore and/or Boyle is seen as a future #1 or if with the team long enough, a solid #2. I just don't really understand the philosophy of putting an UDFA with with little or no NFL experience as your #2 guy in the most important position on the field. Especially, on a contending team. It will be interesting to see how Gute and the Packers approach the position, after a successful 13-3 year.

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.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

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.

"Boyle has as good of arm as any of them" is what you are basing him being the backup you want coming in when Rodgers goes down in a critical moment of a playoff game? I think that you are discounting what a #2 QB is asked to do sometimes. If you are thinking a #2 is only meant to Replace Rodgers for the rest of the season when he goes down in week 2, then you are absolutely correct, there wasn't a backup in the NFL this year that would have gotten the current Packer team very far. However, if you are talking about a short term replacement, who would you rather have? A guy that has taken 0 NFL snaps in a real game that "has a good arm" or a Vet that has had to play under all sorts of circumstances? I don't care if the vet isn't a FHOF QB, if he is good enough to still be in the NFL, there is something there when it comes to his experience and to be able to manage a game.

If you can honestly tell me that given the choice, you would have trotted Tim Boyle in, instead of Matt Moore in a NFCC game that was tied in the 4th Q and Rodgers gets knocked out with a concussion? I don't need to hear anything more.

 

[Mondio]

"Boyle has as good of arm as any of them" is what you are basing him being the backup you want coming in when Rodgers goes down in a critical moment of a playoff game? I think that you are discounting what a #2 QB is asked to do sometimes. If you are thinking a #2 is only meant to Replace Rodgers for the rest of the season when he goes down in week 2, then you are absolutely correct, there wasn't a backup in the NFL this year that would have gotten the current Packer team very far. However, if you are talking about a short term replacement, who would you rather have? A guy that has taken 0 NFL snaps in a real game that "has a good arm" or a Vet that has had to play under all sorts of circumstances? I don't care if the vet isn't a FHOF QB, if he is good enough to still be in the NFL, there is something there when it comes to his experience and to be able to manage a game.

If you can honestly tell me that given the choice, you would have trotted Tim Boyle in, instead of Matt Moore in a NFCC game that was tied in the 4th Q and Rodgers gets knocked out with a concussion? I don't need to hear anything more.

oh, so I can just go pick a backup off any team and say he'd do better in any situation? Look GB had 4 freaking qb's in camp. 4, how many do they need to go to camp with. 2 undrafted guys, one they had around for a season on the PS and liked him and a 2nd round draft pick entering his 3rd season. I don't care that he didn't work out, he was a 2nd round draft pick and was fairly well scouted and the professionals liked his skill set. would you advocate for GB to use their 2nd round draft pick on a potential back up this year?

Why does matt moore make you feel so confident? I don't know if I'd feel better if Boyle went it, I have no idea what he can do other than he seems to have a decent arm, which is more than I can say about some of these other vets. What I do know about Matt Moore, oh, he won a couple games with KC. I know he's been other places where he hasn't. He's a cheap back up for a reason. I'd be fine seeing what he can do for a million bucks, i'd never go so far as to say he'd make a difference.

I've seen some of these guys manage games, and it's half the reason they're not starters. They aren't that good, they miss a lot of the little things. Maybe an UDFA is worse, maybe not. Every one of these cheap vets has proven time and time again, they're not that reliable.

 

[rmontro]

If you can honestly tell me that given the choice, you would have trotted Tim Boyle in, instead of Matt Moore in a NFCC game that was tied in the 4th Q and Rodgers gets knocked out with a concussion?

Remember when McCarthy was asked about if he'd like Kaepernick as backup QB in Green Bay? His answer was that he had invested all that time in Hundley, so why would he want to throw that away. Well, Hundley didn't really work out, but you could say the same thing about Boyle. We've invested time in him, why not give him his chance to shine? If they have no confidence in him, why is he our backup QB? Plus Boyle's youth gives him some extra potential upside. Potentially.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Every one of these cheap vets has proven time and time again, they're not that reliable.

I think you are forgetting about the times that they actually prove themselves worthy too. As are you forgetting how often an unproven backup QB comes in and sh*ts the bed, no matter where they were drafted.

would you advocate for GB to use their 2nd round draft pick on a potential back up this year?

Absolutely not, unless they thought it was time to replace Rodgers in the next few years. But even then, I would want him as the #3 and a vet as #2. So THAT is actually my EXACT point that you seem to be missing. As long as the Packers team is in the conversation for a Super Bowl run in a given year, I prefer not having a guy with little or no experience being the backup for the most important position on the field. A position where experience often shows.

I don't expect you to remember my posts, but I was absolutely fine with Tim Boyle as our #2 QB this season, only because I thought we were in rebuild mode and never expected a 13-3 season and making it to the NFCCG. I figured a good year to spend money on other positions and if Rodgers goes down, we weren't going to be that good of a team anyway.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Remember when McCarthy was asked about if he'd like Kaepernick as backup QB in Green Bay? His answer was that he had invested all that time in Hundley, so why would he want to throw that away. Well, Hundley didn't really work out, but you could say the same thing about Boyle. We've invested time in him, why not give him his chance to shine? If they have no confidence in him, why is he our backup QB? Plus Boyle's youth gives him some extra potential upside. Potentially.

Developing QB's is great and part of the process of a good NFL team. However, developing a QB and using him as a #2 QB on a team that is in legitimate contention for a Super Bowl is a fools move IMO. Your starter goes down and here comes "Mr Development", let's see what he can do in the NFCCG!

As far as McCarthy's comment about Hundley, what would you expect him to say? "Nahh....Hundley sucks, but we are going to stick to him, until he can prove that he sucks on the field"?

I hope Boyle works out and becomes a HOF QB someday, but I would prefer he starts that quest as our #3 QB if we are on a Super Bowl run.

 

[Mondio]

I think you are forgetting about the times that they actually prove themselves worthy too. As are you forgetting how often an unproven backup QB comes in and sh*ts the bed, no matter where they were drafted.



Absolutely not, unless they thought it was time to replace Rodgers in the next few years. But even then, I would want him as the #3 and a vet as #2. So THAT is actually my EXACT point that you seem to be missing. As long as the Packers team is in the conversation for a Super Bowl run in a given year, I prefer not having a guy with little or no experience being the backup for the most important position on the field. A position where experience often shows.

I don't expect you to remember my posts, but I was absolutely fine with Tim Boyle as our #2 QB this season, only because I thought we were in rebuild mode and never expected a 13-3 season and making it to the NFCCG. I figured a good year to spend money on other positions and if Rodgers goes down, we weren't going to be that good of a team anyway.

I'm not forgetting, i'm saying YOU meaning all of us, don't know exactly what you're going to get until it happens. It's not as easy as saying, see Moore did decent for KC we should have him when his next chance is likely be like the ones that relegated him to back up anyway. There are zero QB's on that list that give me any confidence of being decent for this team unless this team is a lot better around them.

I don't care if Moore is our back up, unless this team gets much better overall, it won't matter. So you spent 2 million bucks on a back up. It's just a guess.

 

[HardRightEdge]

With his championship window closing fast....

This is often repeated. He could have 5 good years left. He keeps saying he wants to play into his 40s. There is a pretty strong consensus, justifiably so, that Graham was past his sell-by date and the WR position needs a serious upgrade, bigger factors in pass game performance decline than any erosion of the QBs skills. The challenge is Gutekunst's to find those players within budget while not compromising the line play, which means primarily the draft.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Remember when McCarthy was asked about if he'd like Kaepernick as backup QB in Green Bay? His answer was that he had invested all that time in Hundley, so why would he want to throw that away. Well, Hundley didn't really work out, but you could say the same thing about Boyle. We've invested time in him, why not give him his chance to shine? If they have no confidence in him, why is he our backup QB? Plus Boyle's youth gives him some extra potential upside. Potentially.

"Chance to shine"? More like chance to survive, i.e., play well enough over a few games to not blow any playoff chances, scratching out a win or two against weaker competition. In answer to why he's our backup QB, one of the key factors is that he's dirt cheap.

There is one thing in Boyle's favor. You see Rodgers commiserating with him on the sidelines during timeouts (as opposed to exchanging pleasantries on the bench) as much as with any of the coaches. When Boyle speaks he has Rodgers' attention. So, Boyle must have been doing his tape work and has leared a few things about the pro game. Of course, that might make him coaching material more that player material. We won't know until he takes the field in a money game, and we would prefer not to find out the answer to that question.

Many, many are called, few are chosen once the bright lights go on.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There are zero QB's on that list that give me any confidence of being decent for this team unless this team is a lot better around them.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Since if I was presented a list of UDFA QB's with little or no NFL regular season playing experience, I would feel exactly the same about that list.

Much like a FG kicker, in a high pressure situation. Give me that Vet kicker, that no matter why he is no longer the best in the game, he is still in the NFL after 15 years, lining up for that game winning kick.

 

[Mondio]

I guess we can agree to disagree. Since if I was presented a list of UDFA QB's with little or no NFL regular season playing experience, I would feel exactly the same about that list.

Much like a FG kicker, in a high pressure situation. Give me that Vet kicker, that no matter why he is no longer the best in the game, he is still in the NFL after 15 years, lining up for that game winning kick.

2 completely different situations. #1 even an expensive and proven top of the league kicker is 3-5 million for a guy that will have an effect on every game and likely be one of your scoring leaders. Nobody pays for a back up kicker and if they did we’re taking thousands not millions.

without a great deal of luck or just fortunate circumstances, nobody is signing a proven qb with more to give for 3-5 million, those guys are 5+ Million easily and most of them are still questionable how much they bring. And this isn’t for a guy affecting every game, it’s for one you hope never sees the field.

 

[OldSchool101]

without a great deal of luck or just fortunate circumstances, nobody is signing a proven qb with more to give for 3-5 million, those guys are 5+ Million

Well it obviously does happen and the Browns and Cardinals disagree with your take as examples. I didn’t have to go back very far..this season in 2019 Drew Stanton was on a back up contract Cost=2.78mil plus incentives. That’s not 1, but 2 franchises who spent $ on a capable veteran in contemporary times. That’s just one example, but multiple franchises essentially took that same avenue.
https://fanbuzz.com/nfl/highest-paid-backup-qbs/amp/
we can’t argue he’s not good enough to go at least .500+ either. He has a 11-6 Backup QB starting record.
This wasn’t luck, far from it. this was one quick example of a deliberate and long thought out calculated risk by both GMs and their staffs.
The average price?? Almost exactly 3Mil annual over a 7 year 2 contract span (actually closer to 2.5mil including his full career) That’s what they got at the low end of that scale. A 65% win rate when asked to start. At #9 on that list.. He’s the very first backup QB I clicked on under “top paid backups”.

 

[Mondio]

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.