Packers SHOULD sign Matt Leinart

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Why not? Cut Nick Mcdonald and sign this guy. Develop him and trade in a year or two.

[gbgary]

wouldn't waste a spot on him.

[Patler]

Why not? Cut Nick Mcdonald and sign this guy. Develop him and trade in a year or two.

The question is:
"Is he developable? (OK, maybe that's not a real word, but you know what I mean! :lol: )

[Lurker64]

All that aside, would he want to come here? If he came to Green Bay, he'd probably be relegated to the QB3 spot. Don't you think he'd rather go somewhere where he could be the primary backup?

For example, the Texans are apparently interested in him and in Houston he'd only have to combat Dan "I stepped out the back of the endzone" Orlovsky for the #2 job.

[pbmax]

He made a lot of noise with pre-cutdown rumors that he did not want to be a backup. So even after he got permission to shop himself, there was limited interest. He might be calculating that waiting (without pay) for a starting gig to open will be better than taking a backup job at a much lower salary.

[packerbacker1234]

or we continue to develope flynn and trade him. Afterall, he has shown a lot more on the field then Leinart did, and that is saying something considering we barely have any game tape on Flynn.

[The Leaper]

Um...why? Flynn to me seems to be no worse than Leinart, and he's not a dumbass that is more interested in his own celebrity than his football career.

[Lurker64]

Jason La Canfora is reporting that Leinart has signed a 1 year deal with the Texans. So we can change the title to "Packers should have signed Leinart".

[NewsBruin]

I'm not a fan of "Flip This Quarterback;" I'll leave the wheeling-dealing to the Pats and Cowboys.

From what I can find, Leinart had a medium-strength arm and spent much of this Training Camp throwing the shorter checkdown passes. Maybe he was so enamored with getting completions that he never wanted to throw a strike and risk a turnover.

Leinart's beef with the club was that he wanted to start. Maybe he felt insulted that someone as "below him" as Edwards would take his spot, and he felt so passionately about it, he took it to the press. If I were a coach/GM, I wouldn't let him back in my lockerroom, certainly not at his salary to be a backup.

Leinart's had a fair chance to play in Arizona since 2006. Despite having great receivers, he was mediocre as a starter and got beaten out by his understudy TWICE. Maybe he was rushed into starting too soon. Maybe he had a touch of Jamarcusitis, where one's love for celebrity grows at a faster rate than one's talent and leadership. Maybe he's truly not starter material. Maybe his current coach is a meanie and biased against him.

So with all that information, if I were Leinart, I would not look for the best chance to start. I would look for the best place to learn and improve. I would look for the best coaching staff, and I would look for a deal that gives me adequate time to develop without rushing back into proving my ability while learning a new offensive gameplan and terminology.

I would not choose a one-year deal, and he did. Now, Leinart's going to have to prove that he's a changed man who's seen the light, who believes in discipline and maturity and humility, and all that self-serving blather we read in this year's oh-no-this-time-it's-serious Redemption Profile story (see Iverson, Allen and Russell, Jamarcus). Then, he's going to have to beef up his skill set and get some kind of playing time without coming off like a backstabber (see Garcia, Jeff and Rosenfels, Sage).

I think it's too short a time to make the changes that Leinart has to make. I think that if the usual suspects didn't give up low draft picks for him, that's telling something, especially since there's no salary cap to consider. I don't mind us being mentors at a position where we have strength and character, but not at quarterback. One year is time enough to -MAYBE- help Leinart, and not enough time to do anything for the team.

The Texans can have him.