Flynn or Tolzien?

[Guiness]

Who's got the inside track for backup QB, Flynn or Tolzien? Flynn came in first last night, but Tolzien seems to be playing better.

[pbmax]

Flynn looks like the definition of stop gap right now.

Tolzien looks like a future starter, though not a franchise guy. If you keep two I think you have to keep Tolzien at this point, as he clearly was the better QB last night.

[smuggler]

I was going Flynn until last night. Scoots it is.

[ThunderDan]

I think you can cut Flynn and no one will pick him up.

If you cut Tolzien, I think he might get picked up by someone.

[pbmax]

I think you can cut Flynn and no one will pick him up.

If you cut Tolzien, I think he might get picked up by someone.

The Texans or Jets might start him Week 1.

[red]

tolzien looks good this preseason going against other teams 2nd and 3rd stringers. he looked like hell last year playing in games that mattered up against real players

flynn on the other hand looked good last year against real players, but has looked like hell against 2nd and 3rd stringers in preseason

i know what kind of backup flynn is, tolzien still scares me based on last year

[Patler]

tolzien looks good this preseason going against other teams 2nd and 3rd stringers. he looked like hell last year playing in games that mattered up against real players

flynn on the other hand looked good last year against real players, but has looked like hell against 2nd and 3rd stringers in preseason

i know what kind of backup flynn is, tolzien still scares me based on last year

That's where I am at. We have seen Flynn succeed playing with the 1's against the other team's 1's in games that matter. We have not seen the same from Tolzien, so there is more uncertainty with him.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

For this year I would want Flynn. I think Tolzien is getting a lot better though and with one more year he should be ready to play if needed. You might need to keep 3 Qbs this year unless Tolzien is ready now. Hopefully it won't matter who we keep.

[pbmax]

tolzien looks good this preseason going against other teams 2nd and 3rd stringers. he looked like hell last year playing in games that mattered up against real players

flynn on the other hand looked good last year against real players, but has looked like hell against 2nd and 3rd stringers in preseason

i know what kind of backup flynn is, tolzien still scares me based on last year

I don't think Flynn looked good in general. He looked good in one sense. He did not throw the ball to the other team. Without looking it up, I think what he did better than Tolzien was not throw interceptions. That is good, but very limited.

If Tolzien has worked that out and become more careful, then he is superior in all respects. I agree though, perhaps not until he gets first half snaps next week, we might not know whether that will hold against starters.

Aaron Nagler blew up on Twitter at the idea that Flynn was outplayed. He castigated the team for playing Janis while Flynn was on the field. But Janis was a key reason Flynn looked good last week.

[smuggler]

Aaron Nagger can go sit on a brick.

[Pugger]

tolzien looks good this preseason going against other teams 2nd and 3rd stringers. he looked like hell last year playing in games that mattered up against real players

flynn on the other hand looked good last year against real players, but has looked like hell against 2nd and 3rd stringers in preseason

i know what kind of backup flynn is, tolzien still scares me based on last year

Of course last year when Tolzien was pushed into service after Wallace got hurt he had no clue what he was doing and it showed. I think he looks light-years better this summer. We won't know who will be our #2 until after next week's game against KC.

[Pugger]

I don't think Flynn looked good in general. He looked good in one sense. He did not throw the ball to the other team. Without looking it up, I think what he did better than Tolzien was not throw interceptions. That is good, but very limited.

If Tolzien has worked that out and become more careful, then he is superior in all respects. I agree though, perhaps not until he gets first half snaps next week, we might not know whether that will hold against starters.

Aaron Nagler blew up on Twitter at the idea that Flynn was outplayed. He castigated the team for playing Janis while Flynn was on the field. But Janis was a key reason Flynn looked good last week.

But that was a real bad pick Matt threw last night after we got a turnover. :-?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Flynn's had some big games as a reliever. But he's also not played well at other places in his career. So I think you have to say his record is mixed.

The notion that Tolzien needs to wait for another year of seasoning is unreasonably timid. You have to aggressively promote players when they are ready, and he is ready. If you wait until you think you've got no risk you've wasted too much gain.

The only thing I am sure of is that Tolzien has made the 53, he is far too valuable to give away. If Flynn puts in a decent performance next week, I'm fine with either guy as backup, and I stubbornly insist either guy would draw a decent draft pick as soon as the QB shortage hits inseason.

[Carolina_Packer]

Flynn's had some big games as a reliever. But he's also not played well at other places in his career. So I think you have to say his record is mixed.

The notion that Tolzien needs to wait for another year of seasoning is unreasonably timid. You have to aggressively promote players when they are ready, and he is ready. If you wait until you think you've got no risk you've wasted too much gain.

The only thing I am sure of is that Tolzien has made the 53, he is far too valuable to give away. If Flynn puts in a decent performance next week, I'm fine with either guy as backup, and I stubbornly insist either guy would draw a decent draft pick as soon as the QB shortage hits inseason.

HH, you may be right about the trade part. Not that history always indicates what will happen, can you think of in-season back-up QB trades where a team was addressing an injury need? I'm sure there have been, but I can't think of any in recent past (not counting the John Hadl trade :-))

[Cheesehead Craig]

I'd rather have Tolzien as the #2. As Pugger said, he looked like shit but that was with very little prep time last year. He's much better this year and to me has a higher ceiling than Flynn.

[esoxx]

Tolzien pls.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Flynn is a known commodity. He has a tendency to not look good in practice but shine in actual games.

Tolzien I saw in the preseason when he was with the 49'ers and I thought the 49'ers should have kept him. He looked good for a young QB.
Last year with the Packers I don't think he knew the playbook all that well. He has more potential. He is 26 Flynn is 29.

Ted looks long term. Tolzien is practice squad eligible. The Packers may pay him extra to stay on their practice squad.
If he clears waivers Ted looks wise and gutsy and he keeps both.

Right now I think it is a coin flip. Whoever is the more accurate passer this next week is the likely winner.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Tolzien is practice squad eligible.

Tolzien is not practice squad eligible.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/columnists/dougherty/2014/08/23/packers-cant-afford-keep-tolzien-flynn/14483513/

Pete Dougherty doesn't think so much of Tolzien or Flynn, so the Packers should only keep one. He gives the example of the Patriots with better backups, Ryan Mallett and Jimmy Garoppolo, who might be wise to keep three and get some trade value out one of the backups down the road.

Jaguars traded Blaine Gabbert to 49ers for 6th last spring
Raiders got a 7th for Terrelle Pryor from Seattle

There are a lot of trades for unheralded backups, but I can't remember anything during fall season.

[King Friday]

I go with Flynn. Tolzien is a decent prospect, but his only production has come against scrubs in the vanilla environment of the preseason. 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.

What the Packers need is that Doug Pederson type QB...and I think that is what Flynn is. He had his chance to be a starter in the league and failed. He knows he is a career backup at this point. He has more value to Green Bay than anyone else due to his knowledge of the system and players. He can fill in for 2-4 games and keep the team afloat if need be.

[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-titans/post/_/id/8529/four-titans-gain-practice-squad-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-packers/post/_/id/12288/packers-should-keep-both-flynn-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-titans/post/_/id/8529/four-titans-gain-practice-squad-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/2013/05/29/nfl-cba-series-credited-vs-accrued-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/gamecenter/55175/SF_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/gamecenter/55190/SF_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/gamecenter/55198/CIN_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/gamecenter/55219/PHI_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/gamecenter/55236/SF_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/gamecenter/55243/DET_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/gamecenter/55515/GB_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/gamecenter/55534/SF_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/gamecenter/55542/MIN_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/gamecenter/55559/NYJ_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/gamecenter/55578/SF_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/gamecenter/55591/SF_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.

[Bretsky]

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.

You overestimate Tolzien IMO
It's not a given San Fran grabs him
There will be other QB's cut with higher upside

[Carolina_Packer]

You overestimate Tolzien IMO
It's not a given San Fran grabs him
There will be other QB's cut with higher upside

Because of Tolzien's history with the 49'ers, they might like him better than Yo Gabba Gabbert, who has looked pretty bad in pre-season

[Harlan Huckleby]

Well, the good news is we'll have our answer in six days or sooner. I'd hate to have to wait much longer for that crow to be served. The taste and taunting are more bitter when fresh.

[pbmax]

You overestimate Tolzien IMO
It's not a given San Fran grabs him
There will be other QB's cut with higher upside

Maybe one's with more experience starting (and winning) but I am not sure about upside.

[sharpe1027]

After his flops elsewhere, does Flynn have any value outside of the Packers? If not, would he will still be available even if they cut him? I suspect that they go with Tolzein and keep Flynn on their speed dial.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm starting to think it's 50/50 for Flynn. Tolzien may have shown enough to think he could be a solid backup, and he has more potential. I still think back to last year, and I'm not sure the brass is ready to go through that again. Both guys have shown they belong on an NFL roster.

[vince]

I'm with Joe on Tolzien. He needs to prove he can put points on the board. Notwithstanding the outstanding grab be Gillette - after the gift unsportsmanlike gave them another set of downs after the play in which the field goal team was coming on the field - I'm not sure he's shown that he can consistently deliver that yet. Maybe he has in practice. Flynn didn't play great last game but he was hurt by a drop at the goal line by Adams and going back to st. Louis one by Dorsey as well on a couple good throws in the red zone.

Drive for show and putt for dough.

[Guiness]

I'm with Joe on Tolzien. He needs to prove he can put points on the board. Notwithstanding the outstanding grab be Gillette - after the gift unsportsmanlike gave them another set of downs after the play in which the field goal team was coming on the field - I'm not sure he's shown that he can consistently deliver that yet. Maybe he has in practice. Flynn didn't play great last game but he was hurt by a drop at the goal line by Adams and going back to st. Louis one by Dorsey as well on a couple good throws in the red zone.

Drive for show and putt for dough.

Rex 'Sex Cannon' Grossman would disagree! Drive for show ALL THE TIME!

[George Cumby]

Flynn has shown he can win games, Tolzien has yet to do that.

How much upside do we need in a back-up QB?

But Ted always throws us for a loop come cut downs, history shows; 3 fullbacks anyone?

[Patler]

Flynn has shown he can win games, Tolzien has yet to do that.

How much upside do we need in a back-up QB?

But Ted always throws us for a loop come cut downs, history shows; 3 fullbacks anyone?

Agreed. I'll take a calm, proven performer with somewhat less potential over the unproven player with a potentially higher ceiling for my back up QB that I hope to never play.

3 fullbacks and 5 TEs were interesting, to say the least. But I'm not sure he can ever top the brief period of no backup QBs that he gave us last year at the end of camp!

[pbmax]

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-titans/post/_/id/8529/four-titans-gain-practice-squad-eligibility


Score one for CaliCheez

Wes Hodkiewicz ‏@WesHod 6m
I give up RT @RobDemovsky Clearing up Scott Tolzien's practice-squad eligibility. Guess what? He's eligible NFL says http://es.pn/1vStz5b

Feel free to use this testimonial in your business: Whenever I need an interpretation of overly complicated and poorly written bureaucratic rules, I always trust CaliforniaCheez.

All that work with the GameBooks out the window.

[pbmax]

He does have three accrued seasons, so the GameBook adventure wasn't a total loss, but he has never had a qualifying number of games on the Active roster in one of those seasons.


Citing that rule, a league spokesman said: "Tolzien is eligible to be on the practice squad. … While Tolzien does have three accrued seasons, he's never been on an active roster for nine or more games in any of those three [seasons]."

Tolzien has been on the 46-man game-day roster for 11 career games, but it was broken up over two seasons. He dressed for eight games last year with the Packers and three in 2012 with the San Francisco 49ers. Tolzien was on the 49ers roster for all of 2011, but was inactive for all 16 games that season.

Demovsky: http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/12473/clearing-up-tolziens-practice-squad-status

[pbmax]

Wes Hodkiewicz ‏@WesHod 4m
Tolzien made it by one game. He was active for 8 with a single-season maximum of 9. His 8 weeks on PS counted as 1 of his 3 eligible seasons

[Patler]

Wes Hodkiewicz ‏@WesHod 4m
Tolzien made it by one game. He was active for 8 with a single-season maximum of 9. His 8 weeks on PS counted as 1 of his 3 eligible seasons

My mistake was in thinking he had been on the 49ers PS for two years, which would have made last year his third and final. Why didn't anyone correct me when I wrote things like this??:


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.

[Patler]

Last year, Tolzien was in the same situation as Breno Giacomini at one time, I think, going to a PS after two years on regular rosters. The Packers kept Giacomini on their 53 man roster for two years, then cut him his third season and signed him to their practice squad, only to have the Seahawks offer him a regular roster spot a few weeks later.

[pbmax]

My mistake was in thinking he had been on the 49ers PS for two years, which would have made last year his third and final. Why didn't anyone correct me when I wrote things like this??:

Do you have a source that makes it clear the exact roster designation of a player?

Because to determine his accrued seasons, I had to dig into six game books each for the 49ers for two seasons. Once I got to six, I stopped looking. To figure out he was NOT on the PS by that method, I would have had to look at all 16 games.

[Patler]

Do you have a source that makes it clear the exact roster designation of a player?

Because to determine his accrued seasons, I had to dig into six game books each for the 49ers for two seasons. Once I got to six, I stopped looking. To figure out he was NOT on the PS by that method, I would have had to look at all 16 games.

Most teams, including the Packers, have all of their transactions listed on their websites going back a lot of years. It's easy to see all signings to their regular rosters and practice squads. It's easy to search a player name and see eveything for him on that team I couldn't find that for the 49ers, so I searched news releases, and found one from when they released him last year that said he had been on their regular roster the full seasons of '11 & '12, but mostly inactive. I took them at their word, and since he was on GB's PS last year....

[KYPack]

My mistake was in thinking he had been on the 49ers PS for two years, which would have made last year his third and final. Why didn't anyone correct me when I wrote things like this??:

Once you broke into the clear, nobody could stop you!

[bobblehead]

My mistake was in thinking he had been on the 49ers PS for two years, which would have made last year his third and final. Why didn't anyone correct me when I wrote things like this??:

I refuse to correct you until someone makes me a personalized "bobblized" stamp.

[pbmax]

Once you broke into the clear, nobody could stop you!

Love this, but is it from a movie or TV show? Seems vaguely familiar.

[Patler]

Once you broke into the clear, nobody could stop you!

:-):-)

[CaliforniaCheez]

Score one for CaliCheez

Wes Hodkiewicz ‏@WesHod 6m
I give up RT @RobDemovsky Clearing up Scott Tolzien's practice-squad eligibility. Guess what? He's eligible NFL says http://es.pn/1vStz5b

Feel free to use this testimonial in your business: Whenever I need an interpretation of overly complicated and poorly written bureaucratic rules, I always trust CaliforniaCheez.

All that work with the GameBooks out the window.

Thank you. When I always try to know what I am talking about. When I use bold type, I'm pretty sure.

But my point has two big questions:

1) Can he clear waivers (not be added to an active roster)?
2) Would Ted pay him enough cap money to stay on the Packers practice squad during the season?

Ted has made enough gutsy calls in the past (like cutting AJ Hawk) that I think he can get away with it.
Tolzien will not know another teams playbook so his value to them is diminished.

The counter argument is he would be running someone else's scout team and maybe Seattle keeps him for a week or so for scouting.

[pbmax]

Paying him is not the problem. Getting him past waivers is. There are three teams, Texans, Titans and Jets that he might be their starter. Though the Jets might be beholden to Vick first. And would you be surprised to see Oakland (Schaub/McGloin) take a flyer on him?

[pbmax]

I refuse to correct you until someone makes me a personalized "bobblized" stamp.

First we need to get CaliCheeze a "You've been curdled" stamp.

[Guiness]

Paying him is not the problem. Getting him past waivers is. There are three teams, Texans, Titans and Jets that he might be their starter. Though the Jets might be beholden to Vick first. And would you be surprised to see Oakland (Schaub/McGloin) take a flyer on him?

Jets? Haven't been paying attention, Smith been that bad? I'd heard Vick was acting like he was patently uninterested in being given the ball. As far as Oakland, Carr's performance is probably enough for them to be happy going into the season.

[Patler]

Have to admit, Tolzien looked good last night. It won't surprise me in the least if he is the pick for #2, but I still lean toward Flynn's experience. If the idea is to keep the best 53 players regardless of positions, both should be kept. It just seems that a 3rd QB does so little to help you in a typical season that it is a waste to keep one on the 53 man roster. The chances of him playing a single meaningful snap are really quite small.

[Pugger]

Paying him is not the problem. Getting him past waivers is. There are three teams, Texans, Titans and Jets that he might be their starter. Though the Jets might be beholden to Vick first. And would you be surprised to see Oakland (Schaub/McGloin) take a flyer on him?

Yes, after seeing Carr play last night. From what I've been hearing the 49ers backups have not looked very good.

[Pugger]

Have to admit, Tolzien looked good last night. It won't surprise me in the least if he is the pick for #2, but I still lean toward Flynn's experience. If the idea is to keep the best 53 players regardless of positions, both should be kept. It just seems that a 3rd QB does so little to help you in a typical season that it is a waste to keep one on the 53 man roster. The chances of him playing a single meaningful snap are really quite small.

Experience is a good thing but if one player is outplaying another why would you cut the better player? I don't know if we have the luxury of keeping 3 QBs.

[Patler]

Experience is a good thing but if one player is outplaying another why would you cut the better player? I don't know if we have the luxury of keeping 3 QBs.

That's just it, I don't see that either clearly outplayed the other, so I would go with the proven commodity, which is Flynn.