The Hole in the Cheese

[pbmax]

So backup QB quality not so important to winning those, say, 5 games? You seem to suggest all backups are similarly unlikely to win. I doubt that.

I am saying if Rodgers misses two fewer games, each season might turn out differently. Spending $5 million more per year on a vet backup looks like a solid idea. This year the beat writers would understand and buy your argument and call it the Tramontana effect. But I don't think it produces a lot more wins even when its the QB.

In 2013, 2 wins was a big deal as the Packers captured the Division, so Flynn was worth a load of money. Barely. But in 2017, 2 more wins just ruins your draft position.

The problem isn't that a better backup is a bad idea. The problem is that there aren't 32 capable starters. So good backups earn starter's money.

That said, not keeping Flynn kinda looks dumb in retrospect. They just have been horrible at picking up another functional guy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I read in an article from 2016? that half the teams had to use a backup at some point in the season. If half the houses in your neighborhood caught fire in a year, you’d see fire insurance as a good idea. Trouble is, QB insurance often fails to pay out.

I can’t figure out whether it is better to pay (low end) starter’s money for a proven player or gamble on a cheap young guy. Either approach is justified, IMO, the point is you have to guess right. Packers have judged wrong a lot. I don’t know enough about the NFL as a whole to say definitively how Packers compare to other teams, but my sense is that other teams do better.

[Harlan Huckleby]

That said, not keeping Flynn kinda looks dumb in retrospect.

Did he win any games after leaving Pack? (I am too busy to look it up.)

[mraynrand]

I read in an article from 2016? that half the teams had to use a backup at some point in the season. If half the houses in your neighborhood caught fire in a year, you’d see fire insurance as a good idea. Trouble is, QB insurance often fails to pay out.

It also depends on the fires - if they are all total losses, you buy iron-clad replacement value insurance/higher premium. If they are generally limited fires, you buy less insurance/lower premium - or you kick out your pot-smoking 24 year old.

[mraynrand]

I can’t figure out whether it is better to pay (low end) starter’s money for a proven player or gamble on a cheap young guy. Either approach is justified, IMO, the point is you have to guess right. Packers have judged wrong a lot. I don’t know enough about the NFL as a whole to say definitively how Packers compare to other teams, but my sense is that other teams do better.

I agree. I generally see other team's backups come in and look reasonably effective. That doesn't necessarily translate into wins though. Brissett wasn't terrible, didn't look as hapless as Hundley often did, but he wasn't able to carry the Colts (4 wins). The rest of the team didn't help much, and I think that's a general trend - even if the rest of the team is good, they will tend to play more poorly when they see they have no chance. Saw it With Manning going down, saw it with Luck, saw it with Rodgers II (probably because the injury was more severe and looked final). When the Broncos lost Manning for a stretch and put in their horror of a back-up, they had the defense to carry the squad. Lot of factors involved - every situation has it's own unique look.

[hoosier]

Unfortunately I get to watch the Colts every week and I can tell you that Brissett looked every bit as bad as Hundley. And the Brissett-led Colts looked worse than the Hundley-led Packers, probably because the Packers had some semblance of a running game and their defense wasn't quite as bad as Indy's. Maybe the question of whether you have a functional backup QB is actually a multivariable issue that includes overall team talent level and user-friendliness of the offensive schemes. Brissett looked like a revelation when he replaced Garropolo for a game when Brady was deflated, and then when he replaced Luck he sucked. Why? I don't think it was just that the Pats as a team were that much better than the Colts, though that surely didn't hurt: I suspect NE's offense is also easier than many to run for a newby. By contrast, Green Bay's offense appears to be quite difficult to master. Maybe Hundley learned something last year and he'll come out a different QB this year. And then we'll be left to wonder whether he's an August wonder who can't hack it when the calendar page turns.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Maybe Hundley learned something last year and he'll come out a different QB this year.

Except he throws like a girl.

[Joemailman]

Except he throws like a girl.

Yeah, but he's no Jennie Finch.