Quote Originally Posted by mraynrand View Post
I agree with most of this except for the fact that you did have evidence of Foles playing well in a collection of actual regular season NFL games. That of course you address by your critique of the Packer staff thinking that Hundley was ready (did they really believe this? Or were they just crossing fingers that Rodgers didn't get hurt/didn't want to put money and time into a vet QB).

Either way, you're kinda wasting time replying to Yeti. His first troll post was a strawman. People here who acknowledge TT's indisputable top 5 GM performance over his career don't dispute that there are other ways to build successful teams.
I think the question about the backup QB is pretty fascinating. Packer writers might be obsessed about veteran depth at CB, which I find to be a red herring, but the QB spot is a different matter.

Developing a younger player has risks as we saw this year and in the other year of the collarbone. Having Rodgers and Flynn succeed while Harrell, Coleman and Hundey failed is about as good an illustration as you could have of the risk/reward.

But just as with any FA, the hit rate on vets is still going to be 50%. Keenum and Foles are working now (or were up until 7 PM on Sunday) but history suggests they will fall back to earth. I have no feel for Hundley's prospects.