What wouold you give for a decent backup QB?

[Patler]

What is it worth to get a decent backup QB?

Let's say Oakland decides it is willing to trade Flynn. What would you give for him?

Draft pick(s)? How many? What rounds?
Oakland can use players, would you give one or more of the DBs, TEs, DLs or LBs?

I have a difficult time giving up anything, and might just go with the best FA I can find.

[Fritz]

I might give up a sixth for Flynn, but only if Oakland throws in a backup center.

Just Flynn, maybe a seventh. In 2016.

[NewsBruin]

It depends on how long we'd need him - a week, 8 games? If we have to finish the season with someone, I'm torn between a youngun with upside and a game manager.

Right now, there are enough guys on the couch waiting for that post-week-1 phone call that I wouldn't hurry over it. If you go for a trade, you have to compensate the team and pay the balance of his year's salary.

I like that Ted sticks by his value limits. I wouldn't go past the parameters set by the Palmer/Flynn trades. As for tradeable talent, I think our DBs are too good and our OLs are too poor, so I'd cringe and maybe drop a bottom-of-the-barrel TE or DL. I really don't want to sacrifice someone who could play any game for someone who I never want to come in unless there's a 20-point differential.

All this wondering makes me want to get a QB next year.

[Patler]

It depends on how long we'd need him - a week, 8 games? If we have to finish the season with someone, I'm torn between a youngun with upside and a game manager.

But you don't know that ahead of time. Let's say that McKenzie is willing to do a deal now. He has 4 QBs, including a young one he likes. You have AR, and don't know if you will need a 2nd QB at all, or if you will need him for 15+ games.

What are you willing to give for Flynn, who could step into the system immediately?

[NewsBruin]

I think Thompson would rather drive with a donut in the trunk than upgrade to a full-size.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Give um Boyd.

"Big guy, moves well, tremendous potential. Hard to find those big guys."

[Pugger]

Instead of wringing out hands over the backup QB I'd rather we assemble a top notch O line to protect the wonderful QB we already have. :-|

[Patler]

No one is wringing their hands over it. I started this thread to gauge how important the 'Rats think it is. I stated my position, that I wouldn't give anything and would settle for the best available FA. From the responses, it seems like no one else is willing to spend much either.

[MJZiggy]

No one is wringing their hands over it. I started this thread to gauge how important the 'Rats think it is. I stated my position, that I wouldn't give anything and would settle for the best available FA. From the responses, it seems like no one else is willing to spend much either.

Switch LT for QB and I think it's a different conversation.

[pbmax]

I would not be willing to go cheap veteran route unless the price is a sixth rounder or below (Matt Moore type).

I might consider more for a young one that could be developed but off the top of my head, I can't think of one a team would part with. Kirk Cousins would cost someone Schaub compensation to get off the Redskins now.

[Tony Oday]

It is not an important position fir a team on the way to the Superbowl.

[Pugger]

No one is wringing their hands over it. I started this thread to gauge how important the 'Rats think it is. I stated my position, that I wouldn't give anything and would settle for the best available FA. From the responses, it seems like no one else is willing to spend much either.

Maybe not on this forum but there is plenty of trepidation on other message boards about our O line right now.

[Tony Oday]

Best offense in the NFL poised to go 13-3

[Patler]

Switch LT for QB and I think it's a different conversation.

Probably. My interest was getting a feel for how concerned people were with the backup QB spot.

[Bretsky]

I'm not too concerned

The Packers need the best QB in football to excel

To be honest if we took a lower tier backup for a 6th or 7th rounder..Rodgers goes out...we're screwed anyways

I'd either take the best FA or offer up a 7th if I can get a guy I want for not too much money

[Patler]

Instead of wringing out hands over the backup QB I'd rather we assemble a top notch O line to protect the wonderful QB we already have. :-|


No one is wringing their hands over it. I started this thread to gauge how important the 'Rats think it is. I stated my position, that I wouldn't give anything and would settle for the best available FA. From the responses, it seems like no one else is willing to spend much either.


Maybe not on this forum but there is plenty of trepidation on other message boards about our O line right now.

We were talking about the backup QB, weren't we? What do peoples concerns on other boards about the O-line have to do with that?

[Patler]

I'm not too concerned

The Packers need the best QB in football to excel

To be honest if we took a lower tier backup for a 6th or 7th rounder..Rodgers goes out...we're screwed anyways

I'd either take the best FA or offer up a 7th if I can get a guy I want for not too much money

What if it's Flynn who is available? He has demonstrated the ability to run the O at a high level against good teams. Would you give a 5th? Higher? What about a second team player?

What is the highest you would go for Flynn?

[Tony Oday]

I would trade a 7th rounder at most for Flynn.

[Bretsky]

What if it's Flynn who is available? He has demonstrated the ability to run the O at a high level against good teams. Would you give a 5th? Higher? What about a second team player?

What is the highest you would go for Flynn?


I don't want to pay Flynn's salary. Isn't he still making around 5MIL ? I pass if that's the case. And I think he only has 1 year left. Pass again

If I could have him for 1MIL per year for 3 Yrs I'd pass them a 6th. But since that's not the case I pass

[Harlan Huckleby]

If I could have him for 1MIL per year for 3 Yrs I'd pass them a 6th. But since that's not the case I pass

Good answer. Hell, I'd give them a 4th for those terms. But it's silly talk, Flynn is looking for opportunity to stay in the big money, he would never lock-in to a 3 year deal to sit on the bench for peanuts.

[Joemailman]

I don't want to pay Flynn's salary. Isn't he still making around 5MIL ? I pass if that's the case. And I think he only has 1 year left. Pass again

If I could have him for 1MIL per year for 3 Yrs I'd pass them a 6th. But since that's not the case I pass

His base salary isn't too much this year, but would be 5 mil next year, which is the last year of the contract.

[Bretsky]

His base salary isn't too much this year, but would be 5 mil next year, which is the last year of the contract.

Not giving up a draft pick for a one year rental
So I pass

[Guiness]

really torn by that question Patler.

Part of me says nothing. If Rodgers goes down, the Packers are done, why pretend. There is not a QB in the league who's going to do what he does.

My left brain however, chants "Jeff Hostetler, Jeff Hostetler"

The current meta in the NFL, carrying only 2 QBs, forces a team to choose between a competent backup and a developmental player. At this juncture in Rodger's career, I'd value the competent backup and be willing to give up a mid-round pick for a Pederson type.

[channtheman]

I wouldn't give up anything for a QB right now. If Rodgers were to get injured, I don't really like our chances, but I would rather we go out and find a veteran FA who can maybe win a game or two (re: manage a game or two) for us. Again, only if the need arises.

[Pugger]

Probably. My interest was getting a feel for how concerned people were with the backup QB spot.

We survived having Harrell backup Rodgers last year and IMO Coleman is/will be a better QB than GH.

[Pugger]

We were talking about the backup QB, weren't we? What do peoples concerns on other boards about the O-line have to do with that?

If this porous line gets Rodgers hurt then the backup QB is a concern. With a stout line the backup isn't as big an issue.

[Patler]

We survived having Harrell backup Rodgers last year

They didn't survive with Harrell as backup QB, it just turned out that they didn't need a backup QB. That could happen again, which is why I wouldn't invest much in the position. Of course, the concern is that with the standard protocol for concussions now, it is significantly more likely that QB's will miss the remainder of games and entire games the weeks after concussions. It is beginning to be almost automatic that at least one game is missed.



IMO Coleman is/will be a better QB than GH.

Quite likely, it is low bar for him to get over!:smile:

[Pugger]

They didn't survive with Harrell as backup QB, it just turned out that they didn't need a backup QB. That could happen again, which is why I wouldn't invest much in the position. Of course, the concern is that with the standard protocol for concussions now, it is significantly more likely that QB's will miss the remainder of games and entire games the weeks after concussions. It is beginning to be almost automatic that at least one game is missed.




Quite likely, it is low bar for him to get over!:smile:

Maybe "survived" wasn't the best word to choose there. :lol:

[mraynrand]

... with the standard protocol for concussions now, it is significantly more likely that QB's will miss the remainder of games and entire games the weeks after concussions. It is beginning to be almost automatic that at least one game is missed.

That's a solid point, and just another reason among many (for example, giving up the most sacks in the NFL) to expect your QB won't play every snap that counts and will likely miss a game or two.

[gbgary]

Never mind.

[Guiness]

Maybe "survived" wasn't the best word to choose there. :lol:

I think survived is a very apt term. Rodgers survived being the most sacked QB in the NFL and didn't miss any time under center.

I would not want to roll those dice again. While I was in favour of the Pack going with 2QBs on the roster at a time when most teams were still carrying 3, Patler brings up a good point about the new concussion protocol, it has become a lot less likely a QB will play the whole season, so you want someone who can maybe win a game or two and hold on so you can get into the playoff and hopefully have your starter back.

[Smidgeon]

What happens next year now that Seneca and Tolzoid are with the team? Does TT draft a little higher than the 7th for a backup QB or does he continue to roll with an older-nondevelopmental QB. Or does Tolzoid become the backup?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Given Flynn's contract, wouldn't give up a thing currently. A-Rod gets hurt and we're screwed anyway.

[Patler]

I thought it might be interesting to look back at our discussion about backup QB before we needed a backup QB.

Unless I missed it, no one seemed willing to invest much to get one.

[Pugger]

I thought it might be interesting to look back at our discussion about backup QB before we needed a backup QB.

Unless I missed it, no one seemed willing to invest much to get one.

Because no one could foresee us losing Rodgers AND Wallace in back to back weeks. I can't imagine another team faring any better if given this QB situation we are in presently. We'll never know if Wallace could have eked out a couple of wins while Rodgers was out. It also appears many of us thought Flynn was better than he is. We should have paid more attention to why QB needy teams like Oakland and Buffalo didn't want him. Had Senaca not gone down Flynn would still be unemployed.

[woodbuck27]

It depends on how long we'd need him - a week, 8 games? If we have to finish the season with someone, I'm torn between a youngun with upside and a game manager.

Right now, there are enough guys on the couch waiting for that post-week-1 phone call that I wouldn't hurry over it. If you go for a trade, you have to compensate the team and pay the balance of his year's salary.

I like that Ted sticks by his value limits. I wouldn't go past the parameters set by the Palmer/Flynn trades. As for tradeable talent, I think our DBs are too good and our OLs are too poor, so I'd cringe and maybe drop a bottom-of-the-barrel TE or DL. I really don't want to sacrifice someone who could play any game for someone who I never want to come in unless there's a 20-point differential.

All this wondering makes me want to get a QB next year.

There you go.

It was right there and has been right there since the end of the 2011 season.

[woodbuck27]

I would not be willing to go cheap veteran route unless the price is a sixth rounder or below (Matt Moore type).

I might consider more for a young one that could be developed but off the top of my head, I can't think of one a team would part with. Kirk Cousins would cost someone Schaub compensation to get off the Redskins now.

On March 8, 2013, (Matt) Moore re-signed with the Dolphins, agreeing on a two-year deal to remain a backup for Ryan Tannehill

[channtheman]

I wouldn't give up anything for a QB right now. If Rodgers were to get injured, I don't really like our chances, but I would rather we go out and find a veteran FA who can maybe win a game or two (re: manage a game or two) for us. Again, only if the need arises.


Yeah... who knew it would be THIS bad though?

[woodbuck27]

I think survived is a very apt term. Rodgers survived being the most sacked QB in the NFL and didn't miss any time under center.

I would not want to roll those dice again. While I was in favour of the Pack going with 2QBs on the roster at a time when most teams were still carrying 3, Patler brings up a good point about the new concussion protocol, it has become a lot less likely a QB will play the whole season, so you want someone who can maybe win a game or two and hold on so you can get into the playoff and hopefully have your starter back.

I wasn't here to see this thread but I'm certain of this now. If I had been I would have certainly seconded this B. post.

Well ..... I usually do agree with this member. Why?

He's smart and not emotional or objective in his views and responses to any issues.

B. calls it straight up >>> Right On !

[woodbuck27]

Given Flynn's contract, wouldn't give up a thing currently. A-Rod gets hurt and we're screwed anyway.

See it now?

It would depend on the duration of any injury to AR in reference to being completely 'screwed'..

During hopefully some short time out.

TT had to secure a backup to hold things down...be capable of winning. Winning > zero games out of five.

[woodbuck27]

Because no one could foresee us losing Rodgers AND Wallace in back to back weeks. I can't imagine another team faring any better if given this QB situation we are in presently. We'll never know if Wallace could have eked out a couple of wins while Rodgers was out. It also appears many of us thought Flynn was better than he is. We should have paid more attention to why QB needy teams like Oakland and Buffalo didn't want him. Had Senaca not gone down Flynn would still be unemployed.

I will give you and some others here a FULL A+ ... A 100% SCORE for arguments that cover up MM and TT.

CONGRATULATIONS !

and we continue to >>> LOSE !

[pbmax]

I am still in the camp that says he should draft someone. Cheap, young (flexible hamstrings) and upside. Also have chance to stash him on PS.

Wallace is proof that no matter who the 2 is, they might not last long either.

[woodbuck27]

I am still in the camp that says he should draft someone. Cheap, young (flexible hamstrings) and upside. Also have chance to stash him on PS.

Wallace is proof that no matter who the 2 is, they might not last long either.

Yes there aren't many Matt Hasselbeck types available. He's the 'only' Matt Hasselbeck.

Yup ... your position is good.

TT has to most realistically/prudently select his backup QB in the next Draft.

[Patler]

I am still in the camp that says he should draft someone. Cheap, young (flexible hamstrings) and upside. Also have chance to stash him on PS.

Wallace is proof that no matter who the 2 is, they might not last long either.

I don't think there is much disagreement on that. Coleman really screwed up their plans. They must have felt there was no hope for him at all, to give up on him after only one season. There was no inclination to even get him on the practice squad. Instead, they went after Tolzien.

As for Hasselbeck, he is 5 years older than Wallace. I'm not sure he would have been a good option in the off season.

[pbmax]

I don't think there is much disagreement on that. Coleman really screwed up their plans. They must have felt there was no hope for him at all, to give up on him after only one season. There was no inclination to even get him on the practice squad. Instead, they went after Tolzien.

As for Hasselbeck, he is 5 years older than Wallace. I'm not sure he would have been a good option in the off season.

Hass is costing the Colts $7.5 million for 2 seasons.

I agree that it was not likely that Ted was going to draft a QB after he already had Coleman. And that leads me to my conundrum.

If you go two recently drafted backup QBs (at least one or the other low round or UFDA) the odds of a bust are high (Brohm, Coleman, Harrell). You run the risk of what happened this year.

If you go veteran, its more costly, there is no upside and that rookie/young 3rd QB has got to be 4th round or lower to save both the money AND the roster spot so you can stash them on the PS. Brohm and Flynn was an example of this working well. Harrell and Coleman was the opposite.

The vet + later draft pick end QB would be my preferred method. But you will not end up with a Rodgers like this, only a Flynn. Or maybe a Brady :lol:

[woodbuck27]

Hass is costing the Colts $7.5 million for 2 seasons.

I agree that it was not likely that Ted was going to draft a QB after he already had Coleman. And that leads me to my conundrum.

If you go two recently drafted backup QBs (at least one or the other low round or UFDA) the odds of a bust are high (Brohm, Coleman, Harrell). You run the risk of what happened this year.

If you go veteran, its more costly, there is no upside and that rookie/young 3rd QB has got to be 4th round or lower to save both the money AND the roster spot so you can stash them on the PS. Brohm and Flynn was an example of this working well. Harrell and Coleman was the opposite.

The vet + later draft pick end QB would be my preferred method. But you will not end up with a Rodgers like this, only a Flynn. Or maybe a Brady :lol:

With a Brady you would have another problem :no:

Favre and Rodgers comes to mind.

Sometimes things come full circle.

[Pugger]

I will give you and some others here a FULL A+ ... A 100% SCORE for arguments that cover up MM and TT.

CONGRATULATIONS !

and we continue to >>> LOSE !

I have been on record here and on other forums saying TT and MM truly screwed up hoping Harrell and/or Coleman would develop into capable backup QBs. And then by the time it became obvious those kids were not going to pan out our choices were few. We even brought in Vince Young for crying out loud. We did eventually sign Wallace and a project in Tolzien. We'll never know if Wallace could have won a couple of these games while Aaron's collarbone healed. Losing both Rodgers and Wallace in subsequent weeks really put us in a bind. I'd wager no other team in this league would fare any better than us if they had this sorry QB situation.

[Carolina_Packer]

We survived having Harrell backup Rodgers last year and IMO Coleman is/will be a better QB than GH.

That's like saying Ecuador is better than Columbia in ice hockey.

[bobblehead]

Because no one could foresee us losing Rodgers AND Wallace in back to back weeks. I can't imagine another team faring any better if given this QB situation we are in presently. We'll never know if Wallace could have eked out a couple of wins while Rodgers was out. It also appears many of us thought Flynn was better than he is. We should have paid more attention to why QB needy teams like Oakland and Buffalo didn't want him. Had Senaca not gone down Flynn would still be unemployed.

Lets be fair to Flynn. He squeeked us a tie in minny and never had a chance in Detroit. Lets see how he does with multiple practices and hopefully a 3 count to throw.