What wouold you give for a decent backup QB?

[Guiness]

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

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