So... When is it time?

[PackerXLV]

Aaron still has plenty of life in him for some time, but when will it be time to go after another QB to serve as his successor? I'm assuming our men in office still have D&D in mind, so how long do we wait at this point?

This consideration may be premature now, but it won't be long before the organization acts upon this, right?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Even though I have no idea what D&D might be, I think you're looking at about 5 years from now when Rodgers is 35 assuming you mean spending a first round pick on a true successor.

That's assuming Rodgers stays healthy, he continues to show up for off-season activities, comes to training camp on time, does not insist on having everybody around him kiss his ring, and eschews tearful fake retirements in the interim.

If you draft a guy too soon you run the risk he'll rot on the bench...Rodgers' 3 years is about as long as you can wait to give the guy a shot.

The more pressing issue is whether Flynn will be re-signed and whether it can get done for another $1 mil. What you want from a #2 is what we got from Flynn in 2013...a guy who can play 0.500 ball against 0.500 teams for a few games to keep the team in the hunt. Tolzien's not that guy, or at least shouldn't be.

 

[Sky King]

He's been hurt each of the last two seasons -- this year despite playing behind the best line he's ever had. While he takes exceptionally good care of himself, Father Time remains undefeated. The Packers should still have several years to find his eventual successor, maybe by trying to find a hidden late round gem during each draft for the next several drafts. Maybe they can make it three HOF type QBs in a row. After last Sunday I'm thoroughly convinced that anything is possible no matter how unlikely it seems.

 

[PackerXLV]

Even though I have no idea what D&D might be, I think you're looking at about 5 years from now when Rodgers is 35 assuming you mean spending a first round pick on a true successor.

That's assuming Rodgers stays healthy, he continues to show up for off-season activities, comes to training camp on time, does not insist on having everybody around him kiss his ring, and eschews tearful fake retirements in the interim.

If you draft a guy too soon you run the risk he'll rot on the bench...Rodgers' 3 years is about as long as you can wait to give the guy a shot.

The more pressing issue is whether Flynn will be re-signed and whether it can get done for another $1 mil. What you want from a #2 is what we got from Flynn in 2013...a guy who can play 0.500 ball against 0.500 teams for a few games to keep the team in the hunt. Tolzien's not that guy, or at least shouldn't be.

D&D = Draft and Develop

 

[HardRightEdge]

D&D = Draft and Develop

That's apt. Better than "Dungeons & Dragons".

 

[PackerXLV]

That's apt. Better than "Dungeons & Dragons".

Hah, nothing wrong with a little Dungeons & Dragons

 

[HardRightEdge]

He's been hurt each of the last two seasons -- this year despite playing behind the best line he's ever had. While he takes exceptionally good care of himself, Father Time remains undefeated. The Packers should still have several years to find his eventual successor, maybe by trying to find a hidden late round gem during each draft for the next several drafts. Maybe they can make it three HOF type QBs in a row. After last Sunday I'm thoroughly convinced that anything is possible no matter how unlikely it seems.

OK, so lets say they draft now one of these "hidden late round gem" (which can't be know when the pick is made and rarely materializes as such) and at some point he plays lights out in practices and preseason against 3rd. stringers.

Then you have to wait for Rodgers to miss an extended period of play as in 2013 to find out if he can play in prime time. That could be years. In the mean time he rusts from misuse and after 4 years becomes a free agent; as few as two good games, like Flynn, and he'd be out the door for greener pastures because Rodgers would be 34 with plenty of tread on the tires.

That's not to say the Packers won't continue to look for mid-to-low round guys to develop as backups. Over the past 5 years they took this approach with Flynn (7th. round), Harrell (undrafted/CFL), Coleman (7th. round) and Tolzien (undrafted/Chargers/49ers). That doesn't include any of the long forgotten names that didn't survive camp. The track record here, or anywhere else for that matter, does not bode well for finding a franchise QB in the reject bin.

The only guys in the last 20 years I can think of who fit the description and went on to success have been Warner, Brady and Romo among the hundreds who were given a shot. There's even some irony here...Warner was undrafted and invited to the Packers camp in 1994 but did not make the opening day roster. So, even if you find a diamond in the rough you might just toss him aside anyway.

The clearest path to succession is to have a lousy season, earn a high pick, and have the right guy appear on the draft board around the time Rodgers hits 37 or 38 years old. The Colts executed it perfectly.

 

[PackerXLV]

Yeah, I think the simple answer to this is at least another half decade. Can't have a guy riding the pine for a decade, potentially, before taking over the wheel.

 

[Sky King]

OK, so lets say they draft now one of these "hidden late round gem" (which can't be know when the pick is made and rarely materializes as such) and at some point he plays lights out in practices and preseason against 3rd. stringers.

Then you have to wait for Rodgers to miss an extended period of play as in 2013 to find out if he can play in prime time. That could be years. In the mean time he rusts from misuse and after 4 years becomes a free agent; as few as two good games, like Flynn, and he'd be out the door for greener pastures because Rodgers would be 34 with plenty of tread on the tires.

That's not to say the Packers won't continue to look for mid-to-low round guys to develop as backups. Over the past 5 years they took this approach with Flynn (7th. round), Harrell (undrafted/CFL), Coleman (7th. round) and Tolzien (undrafted/Chargers/49ers). That doesn't include any of the long forgotten names that didn't survive camp.

The only guys in the last 20 years I can think of who fit the description and went on to success have been Brady and Romo among the hundreds who were given a shot.

The clearest path to succession is to have a lousy season, earn a high pick, and have the right guy appear on the draft board around the time Rodgers hits 37 or 38 years old. The Colts executed it perfectly.

They may not have been HOF quality but Brooks, Hasselbeck, and Brunell turned out rather nicely. Ron Wolf was certainly no slouch and he was right. You draft a QB every year. You just never know.

 

[Sky King]

Hey, who would complain if the problem was that there were two quality QBs on the roster, both capable of being a starter? That seems like a good problem to me.

 

[PackerXLV]

Hey, who would complain if the problem was that there were two quality QBs on the roster, both capable of being a starter? That seems like a good problem to me.

Cap space

 

[Sky King]

Cap space

For the vet, presumably Rodgers, yes. For the yet-t0-be found young guy, not so much. Kind of like when Rodgers backed-up Favre for four years, and Rodgers was making 1st round money. Not likely to be an issue with a mid to late round draft pick.

 

[HardRightEdge]

They may not have been HOF quality but Brooks, Hasselbeck, and Brunell turned out rather nicely. Ron Wolf was certainly no slouch and he was right. You draft a QB every year. You just never know.

Brunell was taken in the 5th. round and then traded two years and 27 passes later for a 3rd. and a 5th.

Hasselbeck was taken in the 6th. round and then traded to Seattle three seasons and 19 passes later. The Packers sent Hasselbeck, their #17 pick, and a 7th. rounder to Seattle for their #10 pick and a 3rd. rounder.

Brooks was taken in the 4th. round and traded the following year, without having taken a snap, to New Orleans with Lamont Hall for a 3rd. round pick and K.D. Williams. Ironically, McCarthy's QB development reputation was built in part on his work with Brooks in New Orleans.

Wolf said you draft a QB every year because, if nothing else, they have trade value, which is amply demonstrated in the above examples. Thompson is not Wolf, and certainly not in this regard. In any case, there was never any notion that these guys were Favre successors; he was too young at the time these guys were drafted. When succession thoughts were becoming more acute (Favre hitting 36 along with the other baggage), Thompson used a 1st. round pick.

Like I said, I would expect the Packers to draft and develop QBs as we go along. That will be an imperative if Flynn is not re-signed and they better do it in a hurry. But nobody we bring in the over the next 5 or so years is likely to see much playing time before he's out the door.

 

[HardRightEdge]

For the vet, presumably Rodgers, yes. For the yet-t0-be found young guy, not so much. Kind of like when Rodgers backed-up Favre for four years, and Rodgers was making 1st round money. Not likely to be an issue with a mid to late round draft pick.

Rodgers sat for three years, not four. Favre was turning 36 when Rogers was drafted, and had already threatened retirement. Rodgers was clearly the succession plan, and it cost a 1st. round pick. So, lets check back on this in about 5 years and see if Rodgers has turned into an insufferable and unmanageable prima donna.

 

[Sky King]

Rodgers sat for three years, not four. Favre was turning 36 when Rogers was drafted, and had already threatened retirement. Rodgers was clearly the succession plan, and it cost a 1st. round pick. So, lets check back on this in about 5 years and see if Rodgers has turned into an insufferable and unmanageable prima donna.

I'm not sure about the last part coming true. But one thing is true about winning the lottery and the NFL draft alike: You can't win if you don't play.

If by some miracle the Packers somehow managed to mine a gem during the upcoming draft, for example, that would be a good problem to have. However, it may take 3 or more years to realize that. First then would they need to worry about who is the best QB to keep.

Finding a quid pro quo replacement for Rodgers is going to be difficult enough as it is, even if they were to draft nothing but QBs over the next five years. Regardless, they may whiff no matter the round. Looking at all the first-round QB flops over the years and it is a sobering thought. Jerry Tagge and Rich Campbell for GB, just to name a couple. Brian Brohm was not so hot in the 2nd. A seventh beat him out for a roster spot, after all.

Personally, I hope TT does not wait 5 years to begin his search for Rodgers replacement since it could likely take many years of searching just to get reasonably close.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm not sure about the last part coming true. But one thing is true about winning the lottery and the NFL draft alike: You can't win if you don't play.

If by some miracle the Packers somehow managed to mine a gem during the upcoming draft, for example, that would be a good problem to have. However, it may take 3 or more years to realize that. First then would they need to worry about who is the best QB to keep.

Finding a quid pro quo replacement for Rodgers is going to be difficult enough as it is, even if they were to draft nothing but QBs over the next five years. Regardless, they may whiff no matter the round. Looking at all the first-round QB flops over the years and it is a sobering thought. Jerry Tagge and Rich Campbell for GB, just to name a couple. Brian Brohm was not so hot in the 2nd. A seventh beat him out for a roster spot, after all.

Personally, I hope TT does not wait 5 years to begin his search for Rodgers replacement since it could likely take many years of searching just to get reasonably close.

This discussion began with a question about succession, which is a very specific consideration, and you keep interjecting thoughts pertaining to the general issue of QB development which is another issue.

You said, "however, it may take 3 or more years to realize that first then would they need to worry about who is the best QB to keep" and added a comment about a "Rodgers quid pro quo".

Are you suggesting the possibility that some low round QB who's not likely to see any playing time could be competing with Rodgers for a job in 3 years, when Rodgers is 33? That would be ludicrous. Or are you saying that guy is supposed to sit on the bench for 7, 8, 10 years and then suddenly emerge as a quality starter as Rodgers enters retirement? That's equally beyond plausibility.

For the next 5 years it's about developing backups who, under the best of circumstance, are serviceable when called into duty. If there happened to be two of them, glory be, one might be trade bait in the Wolf style.

As far as first round QB busts go, they're frequent and well noted. However, there are 20 times as many low round draft picks or RFAs invited to camp who never make it as even a serviceable starter. And if you scan the list of the passer rating leaders it's heavily populated with first round picks. The odds of finding a franchise QB in the first round are far greater that getting one out of a low round. Should this even need to be said?

Getting even further into repetition, if a developmental backup QB drafted this year shows promise, in his 5th. season he'll be out the door as a FA because he'll want the money and a shot at starting with another team...just as Flynn did...because Rodgers will be 35 and likely good for a couple more years and that backup guy is beyond waiting.

Optimally you'd want a developmental guy ready to go in his second year, third year at the most, or you risk seeing him go to seed.

Of course, Rodgers could suffer a series of concussions and feel it best to retire prematurely. If there happens to be a serviceable guy on the bench, that would be a happy circumstance. But that's not succession planning, which is what this was about.

 

[bozz_2006]

They're looking now. And have been. Looking and finding are two very different things. We'll know what we have once we see extended playing time from the guy. Which is hopefully a long way off.

 

[profile_removed]

I don't think we need to find the QB of the future this coming year. Beyond that I'm not really sure. Last year I saw a guy I would've liked to see them spend a 4 or 5 on, draft and develop and have him ready by the end of next year, but with this QB crop, I just think it'd be too big of a reach. I'm not a fan of the duel threats, and I didn't see a good pocket passer, or a roll out and throw it guy like Aaron is and Brett was. I think starting next year you take it year to year, and no later than 3 years from now when Aaron is 33 you have something in place.

 

[AKCheese]

I'd say start looking HARD in two years especially if Rodgers continues to fizzle in big games and the playoffs. Guy is solid in regular regular season games but let's be honest, take away the Super Bowl Year and he's Andy Dalton in the post season. If you get a chance to take a guy, take him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Rodgers has repeatedly said that he wants to play another 7-9 years. While the backup position needs to be addressed with both Flynn and Tolzien becoming free agents there's absolutely no reason to start searching for Rodgers successor. A guy drafted now will hopefully play not a meaningful down for the Packers before being able to leave the team in free agency. I'm fine with them drafting the team's future QB in five or six years.

The more pressing issue is whether Flynn will be re-signed and whether it can get done for another $1 mil. What you want from a #2 is what we got from Flynn in 2013...a guy who can play 0.500 ball against 0.500 teams for a few games to keep the team in the hunt. Tolzien's not that guy, or at least shouldn't be.

I agree with most of what you've posted in this thread and I wouldn't mind bringing both Flynn and Tolzien back. But I think Tolzien is a capable NFL backup and has a higher ceiling than Flynn.

 

[Sky King]

This discussion began with a question about succession, which is a very specific consideration, and you keep interjecting thoughts pertaining to the general issue of QB development which is another issue.

You said, "however, it may take 3 or more years to realize that first then would they need to worry about who is the best QB to keep" and added a comment about a "Rodgers quid pro quo".

Are you suggesting the possibility that some low round QB who's not likely to see any playing time could be competing with Rodgers for a job in 3 years, when Rodgers is 33? That would be ludicrous. Or are you saying that guy is supposed to sit on the bench for 7, 8, 10 years and then suddenly emerge as a quality starter as Rodgers enters retirement? That's equally beyond plausibility.

For the next 5 years it's about developing backups who, under the best of circumstance, are serviceable when called into duty. If there happened to be two of them, glory be, one might be trade bait in the Wolf style.

As far as first round QB busts go, they're frequent and well noted. However, there are 20 times as many low round draft picks or RFAs invited to camp who never make it as even a serviceable starter. And if you scan the list of the passer rating leaders it's heavily populated with first round picks. The odds of finding a franchise QB in the first round are far greater that getting one out of a low round. Should this even need to be said?

Getting even further into repetition, if a developmental backup QB drafted this year shows promise, in his 5th. season he'll be out the door as a FA because he'll want the money and a shot at starting with another team...just as Flynn did...because Rodgers will be 35 and likely good for a couple more years and that backup guy is beyond waiting.

Optimally you'd want a developmental guy ready to go in his second year, third year at the most, or you risk seeing him go to seed.

Of course, Rodgers could suffer a series of concussions and feel it best to retire prematurely. If there happens to be a serviceable guy on the bench, that would be a happy circumstance. But that's not succession planning, which is what this was about.

Let me see if I understand what you're stating. Wait until it is certain that Rodgers is retiring in a year or two, then draft his replacement. Where, of course, he'll be sitting there for the taking when the Packers get their first pick. I never realized it was that simple and easy. Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Let me see if I understand what you're stating. Wait until it is certain that Rodgers is retiring in a year or two, then draft his replacement. Where, of course, he'll be sitting there for the taking when the Packers get their first pick. I never realized it was that simple and easy. Thanks.

It's pretty simple. Rookie contracts in the NFL run for four years. With Rodgers planning on playing another 7-9 years it doesn't make any sense to draft his replacement for at least another four years as that guy would be able to leave before playing any meaningful downs for the Packers.

 

[Sky King]

It's pretty simple. Rookie contracts in the NFL run for four years. With Rodgers planning on playing another 7-9 years it doesn't make any sense to draft his replacement for at least another four years as that guy would be able to leave before playing any meaningful downs for the Packers.

That's based upon the belief that whenever you need the next QB it's merely a matter of drafting him. He'll be there. That it's just a matter of timing. Personally, I believe this is way too simplistic and limits the possibility to succeed.

My contention is that it may take drafting many QBs to find one that's a capable starter to both backup or replace Rodgers. You never know what round he'll come from. The two starters in this year's SB came from the 6th and 3rd rounds, if I'm not mistaken. One of them has won the same number of SBs as Rodgers and the other has won several more.

Drafting QBs regularly may address the short term backup issue. Why not get better whenever you can? And if a team is really lucky they may even find their long term solution in any round, including through free agency. The odds will diminish with less attempts.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's based upon the belief that whenever you need the next QB it's merely a matter of drafting him. He'll be there. That it's just a matter of timing. Personally, I believe this is way too simplistic and limits the possibility to succeed.

My contention is that it may take drafting many QBs to find one that's a capable starter to both backup or replace Rodgers. You never know what round he'll come from. The two starters in this year's SB came from the 6th and 3rd rounds, if I'm not mistaken. One of them has won the same number of SBs as Rodgers and the other has won several more.

Drafting QBs regularly may address the short term backup issue. Why not get better whenever you can? And if a team is really lucky they may even find their long term solution in any round, including through free agency. The odds will diminish with less attempts.

It's not easy to find a franchise QB at all, even a lot of top 10 picks at the position have turned out to be busts.

But once again, drafting Rodgers successor now won't work as the guy will be able to sign with any other team after four years at a time when Rodgers still plans on playing for another 3-5 years.

 

[Sky King]

It's not easy to find a franchise QB at all, even a lot of top 10 picks at the position have turned out to be busts.

But once again, drafting Rodgers successor now won't work as the guy will be able to sign with any other team after four years at a time when Rodgers still plans on playing for another 3-5 years.

That's the point. When you draft a QB you really don't know if he's Rodgers successor, even if he comes from a high draft round. Assuming the Packers were to stumble across that QB within the next 3-5 years -- regardless of what round or if he's an undrafted free agent -- wouldn't you like to have that problem?

But you are quite correct that if the Packers don't draft or give FA tryouts (with the ultimate goal of replacing any of the QBs on the current roster over the next few years) they probably won't have to worry about finding such a player.

BTW, an undrafted FA had the best QB rating in the NFL this past season. Montana went in, what, the 5th?