Only one cut. From 90 to 53 on September 1st.
https://operations.nfl.com/foo...important-nfl-dates
Prior to 4:00 p.m., New York time, clubs must reduce rosters to a maximum of 53 players on the Active/Inactive List. Interesting formatting.
Joe Thomasitis has infected JSonline.
After four weeks of training camp, we can say that while there’s not much difference between Kizer and Hundley, Hundley looks like the better of the two. The game has slowed for him a little more than for Kizer.
Best case for the Packers would be finding a trade partner for one of the two. Maybe a late-round draft pick, or a backup offensive lineman.
Maybe some interest in Kizer simply because he hasn't been in the league that long but what you see is what you get with Hundley. God's speed if GooHaa! can pull it off. I'd be happy if that meant Boyle gets a shot to develop.
Maybe Kizer just isn’t a good QB? I’ve been totally underwhelmed with that guy.
Hundley is who we thought he was. Good enough to keep his job but clearly not the answer either.
Honestly, maybe you 86 both of them and keep Boyle as your #2. The reality is if 12 gets hurt they are probably hosed anyway so why burn a roster spot on Kizer or Hundley?
Probably hosed? Nothing has changed from last season. You remove 12 and this team goes from a SB contender to a Top 5 draft pick contender.
I agree tsch. Don’t throw good money and a position on someone just because you drafted or traded for a certain guy. If he has skills and potential keep him. If not, let him go.
Which is why all of this backup QB debate going on is kind of a waste of time. The only QB that I’d consider keeping is Boyle out of nothing more than a glimmer of raw, unharnessed talent.
Tschmack posted:Hundley is who we thought he was.
So crown his ass?
If 12 goes down for a half of season or more the season is toast as most teams seasons would be. What the Packers need is a backup competent enough to win a game or two if AR is only out for a game or so. Is that guy on the roster?
Pike, Hundley did actually win a game or two. But that’s it. That’s all he won. Yet it was a couple of more games than Kizer. What the team should consider is who can really be a backup with potential beyond a game or two.
Could a contributing factor also be that MM's scheme had evolved into counting on things that only AR can do? The extending of plays, the back shoulder, the adjustment of routes, etc., instead of more "scheming to get guys open"? Did last year open his eyes to this & thus the "scrubbing of the playbook" & Philbin coming back?
I see no real difference in Kizer and Hundley, which is why I keep Kizer. If he can do the same as Hundley with 3 less years in the system and 2 less years in the league, he's the guy I keep.
I'd be happy if the jettisoned them both and looked for more tackle depth. Hell, let Cobb play QB if Rodgers goes down.
Speaking of QB’s... looking towards next year’s draft. Anybody in favor of using one of them on a QB? Anybody in favor of using them both to trade up and take a QB?
I would not be in favor of a QB. I would only do that if confident that AR would have only 3 or less years left.
Great question. This season should go a long ways in determining what we'll need come draft time next year, but right now...just right now...I'd be good with using one of them if there's one worth taking. Not saying some future HOFer is going to be sitting in the green room for 31 picks, but...it could happen.
Packaging them both? That's a steep price.
Is there a QB in the next couple of years worth making that kind of deal?
This is not aimed anyone specific, but if Rodgers goes down, the Packers are a 6-9 win team. Like any team without a franchise QB.
when a team is paying for the Man, other areas suffer, simple fact.the only team I can think of that still wins without their franchise QB is the patriots.
What does this tell us about BB or Brady?
Without Rodgers the Packers resemble the Bills.
Without Brady the Patriots resemble the Patriots.
this is the reason I will never say that Brady is the GOAT. Never.
i say forget about Hundley and Kizer and start trying to develop the future.
Is that Boyle? I have no idea. But, I would rather win 6-9 games with him rather than knowing the team is lucky to beat the browns with Hundley playing against Kizer.
Also a great point. Lots to chew on.
The starter-to-backup-to-champion is rare. And I didn't see enough of Wentz to say he is a franchise QB. Not saying he isn't, saying I'm ignorant.
Top of my head, there's Wentz to Foles. Simms to Hosteltler.
Any more? Seems there might be a Unitas to Morrall in there too.
If they lose Rodgers this is a 3-6 win team. If the defense turns around, maybe it gets respectable. I wouldn't mind seeing an effective approach to building this defense and oline. Not only for when Rodgers departs but it'll make it a hell of a lot easier on the transition if someone has to step in.
The more you think the more it seems absurd to worry about devoting resources to backup QB. I'd carry one back up and quit worrying about every possible kid who flashes as the next Rodgers.
As great as Unitas was, Morrall was no slouch.
We could also say Staubach to White..
Or Montana to Young.
but, that is not the point I am trying to make.
i am also unsure of Wentz, as well as Luck. Show me more....
I agree with you, Henry. But I differ by believing that this team can win between 6 and 9.
I'm assuming AR signs some sort of extension. That will help with the "find his replacement" timeline.
Trade both to move up for a QB. No. Not a fan of that at all.
Pick a QB with one. Maybe. I guess if a guy the org really likes comes to them, I can see making that move. Still prefer not to.
Trade both picks for a left tackle? I can really get on board with a move like that.
Brak posted:Also a great point. Lots to chew on.
The starter-to-backup-to-champion is rare. And I didn't see enough of Wentz to say he is a franchise QB. Not saying he isn't, saying I'm ignorant.
Top of my head, there's Wentz to Foles. Simms to Hosteltler.
Any more? Seems there might be a Unitas to Morrall in there too.
Didn’t Warner win it all the year Green went down?
Tough call on drafting a QB. AR will be 35 this year. I know he wants to play into his 40’s, but that doesn’t mean he can. I certainly wouldn’t put it past him as he shows no signs of slowing down... but Father Time is undefeated as they say.
Something to think about it guess...
GrainBelt66 posted:As great as Unitas was, Morrall was no slouch.
We could also say Staubach to White..
Or Montana to Young.
but, that is not the point I am trying to make.
i am also unsure of Wentz, as well as Luck. Show me more....
I was thinking in season, but you still might be right. I haven't looked.
El-Ka-Bong posted:
Trade both picks for a left tackle? I can really get on board with a move like that.
To play RG? Because we already have LT and RT covered. Barring injury, of course. Not saying it's a bad idea, though...
If cut, I’d be open to picking up RG3 and 86ing Kizer and Hundley.
GrainBelt66 posted:I agree with you, Henry. But I differ by believing that this team can win between 6 and 9.
Big drop off, but we just witnessed it. So another question is, should you have (and somehow be able to keep) a better than average QB at all times when you are lucky enough to have a Rodgers starting? At the cost of...well, a lot.
Are we really that bereft of talent?
Great insights, if the goal is the SB now, then QB backups be dammed. As others have noted, take a chance at backup QB and devote resources to other areas of need.
However, if the goal is playoffs then I can see the need for constantly building and rebuilding a competitive team with draft picks and the occasional FA.
Pakrz posted:Brak posted:Also a great point. Lots to chew on.
The starter-to-backup-to-champion is rare. And I didn't see enough of Wentz to say he is a franchise QB. Not saying he isn't, saying I'm ignorant.
Top of my head, there's Wentz to Foles. Simms to Hosteltler.
Any more? Seems there might be a Unitas to Morrall in there too.
Didn’t Warner win it all the year Green went down?
Yep, good catch. Green tore his ACL in the preseason.
PackerPatrick posted:Pike, Hundley did actually win a game or two. But that’s it. That’s all he won. Yet it was a couple of more games than Kizer. What the team should consider is who can really be a backup with potential beyond a game or two.
They beat the Browns, Bears, and Bucs. Three terrible teams. At least they did beat them, but the common denominator was that all their QBs sucked too (or at least were too inexperienced to win yet).
Lot's of signs that Denver is going to part ways with Paxton Lynch. I'd love to see him in GB behind Rodgers for a few years.
Those two 1st rounders next year should be edge and OL/T IMO. 2019 draft is pretty deep at T.
Pakrz posted:Tough call on drafting a QB. AR will be 35 this year. I know he wants to play into his 40’s, but that doesn’t mean he can. I certainly wouldn’t put it past him as he shows no signs of slowing down... but Father Time is undefeated as they say.
Something to think about it guess...
The concern about Rodgers playing into his 40s is that his game is based on his outstanding movement in and around the pocket. This leaves him open to the types of hits that Barr and Shea Mcclellin did that essentially ended Packer seasons with (at least in terms of getting home field and byes for the playoffs). Brady doesn't get exposed in odd positions like that (neither did/does Payton Manning, Drew Brees, etc.). - at least not as much.
MichiganPacker2 posted:PackerPatrick posted:Pike, Hundley did actually win a game or two. But that’s it. That’s all he won. Yet it was a couple of more games than Kizer. What the team should consider is who can really be a backup with potential beyond a game or two.
They beat the Browns, Bears, and Bucs. Three terrible teams. At least they did beat them, but the common denominator was that all their QBs sucked too (or at least were too inexperienced to win yet).
Played well against Pittsburgh, albeit a loss.
MichiganPacker2 posted:Pakrz posted:Tough call on drafting a QB. AR will be 35 this year. I know he wants to play into his 40’s, but that doesn’t mean he can. I certainly wouldn’t put it past him as he shows no signs of slowing down... but Father Time is undefeated as they say.
Something to think about it guess...
The concern about Rodgers playing into his 40s is that his game is based on his outstanding movement in and around the pocket. This leaves him open to the types of hits that Barr and Shea Mcclellin did that essentially ended Packer seasons with (at least in terms of getting home field and byes for the playoffs). Brady doesn't get exposed in odd positions like that (neither did/does Payton Manning, Drew Brees, etc.). - at least not as much.
He's smart. Smart enough to overcome any deteriorating skill set.
And they only beat Cleveland because Kizer screwed up so badly.
Gotta find a way to keep Boyle. His college career was a mess at UConn (three head coaches, OCs, and QB coaches in three years), and then he transferred to Eastern KY for one year. He came through that wreck with some good skills, but you can see the consistency isn’t there. He’s a pro-style QB, which is also a help, as he doesn’t do the Hundley duck-and-run and seems to have better accuracy than Kizer. He could become a real gem, given time and consistency. He sits and learns this year, but next year is the backup.
El-Ka-Bong posted:
Trade both picks for a left tackle? I can really get on board with a move like that.
Why not use both picks on a left tackle? If one gets injured you still have another. Draft and develop. You could always trade which ever one is a lesser talent.