Flynn or Tolzien?

[CaliforniaCheez]

Tolzien is not practice squad eligible.

Tolzien is practice squad eligible.

He has been on the game day roster for only 3 games in his career. You are eligible until the 10th game active.

This season with the expansion of 2 spots on the practice squad those 2 are allowed to be over the 3 year limit. There are new rules this year and you may want to read about it.

http://espn.go.com/blog/tennessee-ti...ad-eligibility

[Patler]

Tolzien had been in Green Bay 10 weeks before he played last year. He had little prep time with the starters, but he had two and a half months to study the playbook and familiarize himself with the Packer system. His overall lack of playing experience was probably more of an issue than his time in GB.

Either one could be kept as Rodger's backup until they find Rodgers' successor. At this point, I am more comfortable with Flynn as that guy than I am with Tolzien because he has done well at it in the past, and his opportunities to be a starter are likely done. Tolzien will probably still look for a chance to compete to be a starter.

[Joemailman]

The question in my opinion is whether Tolzien has improved enough to be effective in the red zone. He was able to move the team downfield at times last year, but couldn't get them in the end zone from the red zone. He was 5-13 for 25 yards with 1 INT for a passer rating of 14.58.

[Bretsky]

Still torn on this; I bleed Badger Red but I've never been that impressed with Tolzien or enamored with his talent. He was an ok college QB who was brilliantly smart with a fanatical work ethic. I don't buy he's ever a long plan starter for a team. His arm is stronger than Flynn's. The staff likes him because he has some talent but is a work a holic so the attitude is there. I'm fine either way.

I'd be surprised if GB keeps 3 QB's. Both backups are ok but neither is that good. It's not like we're NE who are carrying 3 guys who can probably start some day. Neither of these backups are starters IMO

[Harlan Huckleby]

Tolzien is practice squad eligible.

The Packer's practice squad is the Vikings & Bears & San Fran's practice squad too, in that any team can sign players off of other teams' practice squads. San Fran would instantly sign Tolzien.

[Bretsky]

http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-pa...nn-and-tolzien


GREEN BAY, Wis. -- Coach Mike McCarthy should just go ahead and call off the competition for the Green Bay Packers' backup quarterback job and demand that general manager Ted Thompson keep both Matt Flynn and Scott Tolzien on the roster.





Tolzien


Flynn

Flynn
Maybe Thompson will feel as though he cannot afford to use three roster spots on quarterbacks. After all, he hasn't done so since 2008, and even then it was only because he wasn't ready to give up on second-round pick Brian Brohm.

But he also hasn’t had three worth keeping like he does now.

Given how close the competition is behind Aaron Rodgers, the safe thing to do would be to find a place for Flynn and Tolzien, especially after what the Packers went through last season when Rodgers broke his collarbone and missed seven starts.

The Packers need three quarterbacks to practice anyway, and since Tolzien has run out of practice squad eligibility, it’s the roster or bust for both backups.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Tolzien may have better measureables and probably has a slightly higher ceiling than Flynn along with being younger, but he's never going to be the starter in GB because Rodgers has another 6-8 years anyway. Keeping a backup who is HUNGRY to get his chance at being a starter someday is foolish IMO for the Packers. It just means you need to find and train a new backup 2 years down the road.

Tolzien won the Johnny Unitas Award in college, but he is not the second coming of Johnny Unitas. I think the Packers can find a way to keep his awesomeness in GB for two years as a backup, and that's plenty. Forget ceiling, Tolzien is better than Flynn now.

I agree it would be comforting to have Flynn as a backup for four years. I'd be OK with that. But probably TT will want to replace him with a younger guy before then anyway.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Packers need three quarterbacks to practice anyway, and since Tolzien has run out of practice squad eligibility, it’s the roster or bust for both backups.

That writer could be wrong, since they just changed the rules to add two vet players to practice squad.

But doesn't matter, Tolzien gets picked-up off waivers if he is cut.

[run pMc]

That writer could be wrong, since they just changed the rules to add two vet players to practice squad.

But doesn't matter, Tolzien gets picked-up off waivers if he is cut.

Yep.

[Rutnstrut]

Flynn has proven himself in pressure situations and actually seems to play better under pressure. Tolzien will crumble under pressure.

[Patler]

That writer could be wrong, since they just changed the rules to add two vet players to practice squad.

But doesn't matter, Tolzien gets picked-up off waivers if he is cut.

Yep.

As I understand it, a player can still spend only three years on practice squads. Tolzien has used those up.

They made some changes to practice squad eligibility of players who have been on active rosters, but I don't think that helps Tolzien at all because he has already used up his three years on practice squads.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Tolzien is practice squad eligible.

He has been on the game day roster for only 3 games in his career. You are eligible until the 10th game active.

This season with the expansion of 2 spots on the practice squad those 2 are allowed to be over the 3 year limit. There are new rules this year and you may want to read about it.

http://espn.go.com/blog/tennessee-ti...ad-eligibility

Not according to every beat writer. Wilde verified via a Twitter post. Something about Tolzien being in his 4th year and players with 3 or less years being eligible.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Not according to every beat writer. Wilde verified via a Twitter post. Something about Tolzien being in his 4th year and players with 3 or less years being eligible.

Will you read the link provided? Please.

Now, what about my original post wherein there is the possibility that the Packers pay Tolzien enough to keep him on the practice squad?

It does not have to be an either/or question. The Packers are more creative than that and have the cap space.

[vince]

Second, each club will be permitted to sign a maximum of two Practice Squad players who have earned no more than two accrued seasons of free agency credit. Absent this exception, a player who has earned one or more accrued seasons would not be eligible for a Practice Squad unless the player spent fewer than nine games on a club’s 46-player active list in each of his accrued seasons.

It's a tad unclear as I'm reading it but while this is Tolzien's fourth year he was on the Packers active roster the final 8 games, which are the only games he's ever been active. On the one hand he seems to have too many accrued seasons but on the other he has never been active more than 8 games in any season...

It does read like he'd be PS-eligible but that article summation/interpretation from ESPN may not be worded quite properly...

[Harlan Huckleby]

[B]Now, what about my original post wherein there is the possibility that the Packers pay Tolzien enough to keep him on the practice squad?

I read somewhere that San Fran's backups are struggling. Tolzien has trained in the San Fran system. Even without 49er interest, Tolzien likely would not clear waivers.

If you continue to harp on this practice squad stuff, I'm going to ask Madtown to give you a little timeout.

[Patler]

I think the "no more than 3 years on practice squads" trumps everything. Tolzien has had that.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think there is zero chance that Tolzien will be cut, he's made the roster. The question is only whether the Packers would keep Flynn if Tolzien beats him out.

[red]

let tolzien get most of the snaps in the next game

then ship him off to st. louis for a mid round pick

the audition was last year in games that mattered, and flynn won hands down

[Pugger]

We better keep both. With all of the injuries starting to mount yet again who's to say Rodgers won't be next?

[pbmax]

Will you read the link provided? Please.

Now, what about my original post wherein there is the possibility that the Packers pay Tolzien enough to keep him on the practice squad?

It does not have to be an either/or question. The Packers are more creative than that and have the cap space.

It IS an either/or question regarding eligibility. He either is or is not eligible. If he doesn't qualify for PS, then pay scale is meaningless.

http://in2theleague.wordpress.com/20...crued-seasons/

Accrued Seasons

Accrued Seasons determine a player’s free agency designations (Art. 8, Sec. 1, 34).

The faster one accrues seasons the faster they can reach free agency, where, especially given the addition of the Rookie Compensation Pool, the bigger money is. If a player hits free agency at a young enough age, they could secure two or three large contracts through free agency.

In order to accrue a season, a player must be on (or should have been on) full pay status for six or more regular season games.

As with players earning Credited Seasons, a player can’t accrue seasons if he is on the Exempt Commissioner Permission List, the Reserve PUP List, a team’s practice squad, or the Injured Reserve List.

You cannot have more than 2 and be eligible for PS even under the new rules. I think without research we can all agree Tolzien met that requirement last season.

Now what about 2011?

Week 1 Not Active: QB 3 S.Tolzien, WR 10 K.Williams, S 38 D.Goldson, G 67 D.Kilgore, G 78 M.Person, DT 93 I.Williams, DT 96 D.Dobbs
http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...F_Gamebook.pdf
Week 2 Not Active: QB 3 S.Tolzien, WR 15 M.Crabtree, S 38 D.Goldson, G 67 D.Kilgore, G 78 M.Person, DT 93 I.Williams, DT 96 D.Dobbs
http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...F_Gamebook.pdf
Week 3 Not Active: QB 3 S.Tolzien, WR 17 B.Edwards, FB 44 M.Norris, G 67 D.Kilgore, G 78 M.Person, DT 93 I.Williams, DT 96 D.Dobbs
http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...N_Gamebook.pdf
Week 4 Not Active: QB 3 S.Tolzien, WR 17 B.Edwards, FB 44 M.Norris, G 67 D.Kilgore, G 78 M.Person, DT 93 I.Williams, DT 96 D.Dobbs
http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...I_Gamebook.pdf
Week 5 Not Active: QB 3 S.Tolzien, WR 17 B.Edwards, CB 26 T.Brock, FB 44 M.Norris, G 67 D.Kilgore, G 78 M.Person, DT 90 I.Sopoaga
http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...F_Gamebook.pdf
Week 6 Not Active: QB 3 S.Tolzien, WR 17 B.Edwards, CB 26 T.Brock, FB 44 M.Norris, G 67 D.Kilgore, G 78 M.Person, NT 93 I.Williams
http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...T_Gamebook.pdf

And 2012?

Week 1 Not Active: QB 3 S.Tolzien, WR 19 T.Ginn, RB 23 L.James, RB 45 B.Jacobs, G 66 J.Looney, TE 81 G.Celek, NT 93 I.Williams
http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...B_Gamebook.pdf
Week 2 Did Not Play Actives: QB 3 S.Tolzien, QB 7 C.Kaepernick, LB 51 C.Haggans
http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...F_Gamebook.pdf
Week 3 Not Active: QB 3 S.Tolzien, WR 17 A.Jenkins, WR 19 T.Ginn, RB 23 L.James, RB 45 B.Jacobs, G 66 J.Looney, NT 93 I.Williams
http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...N_Gamebook.pdf
Week 4 Not Active: QB 3 S.Tolzien, WR 17 A.Jenkins, RB 23 L.James, S 30 T.Robinson, RB 45 B.Jacobs, G 66 J.Looney, NT 90 I.Sopoaga
http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...J_Gamebook.pdf
Week 5 Not Active: QB 3 S.Tolzien, WR 17 A.Jenkins, RB 23 L.James, S 30 T.Robinson, RB 45 B.Jacobs, G 66 J.Looney, NT 93 I.Williams
http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...F_Gamebook.pdf
Week 6 Not Active: QB 3 S.Tolzien, WR 17 A.Jenkins, RB 23 L.James, S 30 T.Robinson, RB 45 B.Jacobs, G 66 J.Looney, NT 93 I.Williams
http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...F_Gamebook.pdf

That is 3 seasons at full pay for minimum of six games and on the roster, not PS, IR or other. He has earned three accrued seasons, he is not eligible for the PS even under the new rules.