JSO: Packers must make drafting QB "high priority."

Exactly.

Only if he's the best player on their draft board. 

Lets see how this year unfolds health and injury wise.  But the time is probably sooner than later.  

2020 is a smart year to grab a QB if there is one worth taking (big caveat). Rodgers will be a UFA in the 2024 offseason. If they draft a QB in 2020 he will learn for 4 years then he will play under the 5th year option (unless they already know he stinks) to evaluate and then either extend or move on. If Rodgers falls apart over the next 3 years, they can move on with manageable dead money like they did with Favre and let the new guy take over having learned for a couple seasons. 

I think drafting a QB in the next 1-2 years makes sense.

I don't think they should force the issue and take a 2nd/3rd round guy in the 1st for the helluva it though. Beyond Tua and Herbert, I'm not sure there are many QBs that would make sense in the first in 2020.  Maybe Fromm?  

Fromm may end up being the best of the bunch. His predecessor Jacob Eason (now at Washington) will be one to watch also. Both guys come from Jim Chaney's pro style offense, which I think is an easier transition to the NFL than a RO or Spread offense. 

If they do go for a QB next year, see if Ron Wolf can come down and watch some film with the scouts for a little bit.  That guy was well above average when it came to evaluating QBs.  No, he wasn't perfect as Jay Barker, Ronnie McAda, and Kurt Warner will attest to.  I only mention Warner as Wolf at least had him in camp but released him not realizing that down the road he would eventually become Hall Of Fame caliber.

But wow, in 10 years with the Pack Wolf brought in Favre, Brunell, Hasselbeck, Aaron Brooks, and Ty Detmer.  3 of those guys were Pro Bowl caliber, Brooks had a couple of pretty good years as a starter with the Saints, and Detmer was a pretty good backup type QB.  Wolf did as good a job evaluating QBs as anyone around during that era. 

I think drafting a QB, if the value is there, is a top priority.  Gravedigger's post above explains it well.  

I agree to a point.   I just hate having to spend a 1st round pick on a QB that isn't first round talent.   The way teams panic and trade up to get QB's these days it's almost not even worth it.   Might be better off getting his eventual replacement via FA when the time comes and then consider blowing your load when THE qb you really want hits the draft. 

I guess I'm the only one who doesn't get the math.  If Rodgers is 35, he has at LEAST 5 more years, and probably more like 7 or 8.  So how is that a "high priority"?

Yes a good backup would be nice, but it seems like more of a luxury than a priority.  First round money to hold a clipboard?  I don't get it.

It is a rare occurrence that a NFL player can play at a high level into his 40's.  I know Brady and Brees are recent examples of that but that is certainly the exception to the rule.  You also have to take AR's injury history into consideration.  

It. Is. Time. 

Rookie contracts are 3 years right?  Rodgers has 4 years left in him easy.

I guess I disagree.  Spend high picks on giving him talent, not betting he's going to get injured.

In 2-3 years maybe think about using the word "priority."

A high draft pick for a QB is not a necessity. It’s a crap shoot. The just have to find the right guy regardless of the round. 

Pistol GB posted:

Rookie contracts are 3 years right?  Rodgers has 4 years left in him easy.

Players in the 1st round are 4 year deals with a 5th year option. 

Pistol GB posted:

I guess I'm the only one who doesn't get the math.  If Rodgers is 35, he has at LEAST 5 more years, and probably more like 7 or 8.  So how is that a "high priority"?

Yes a good backup would be nice, but it seems like more of a luxury than a priority.  First round money to hold a clipboard?  I don't get it.

That ignores his multiple injuries the past five seasons.

They should have drafted a QB in 2018.

Unless it's a lap-faller like AR,  it still seems too long a backup and definitely not a "high" priority next year, IMO JMO.

excalibur posted:

Pistol GB posted:

I guess I'm the only one who doesn't get the math.  If Rodgers is 35, he has at LEAST 5 more years, and probably more like 7 or 8.  So how is that a "high priority"?

Yes a good backup would be nice, but it seems like more of a luxury than a priority.  First round money to hold a clipboard?  I don't get it.

That ignores his multiple injuries the past five seasons.

They should have drafted a QB in 2018.

In the first round?

Did not read the article, but I am guessing the cliff notes say

"Aaron Rodgers is old"

Did I get it right?

McSorley looked better than anyone behind 12 and he was a 6th round pick. I am less worried about the heir apparent and more worried about a capable backup. 

Unless they have really bad years or get hurt they are likely gone before Packers draft. Tagovailoa, Hebert and Fromm. Then you are talking about 2nd tier guys like Stanley from Iowuh, Costello from Stanford, or Eason from Washington. The PAC 12 guys I’m not sold on.  

A 6th round backup looked good against a defense that sucked 

El-Ka-Bong posted:

Did not read the article, but I am guessing the cliff notes say

"Aaron Rodgers is old"

Did I get it right?

No.

35 isn't "old" for a quarterback.  

Cliff notes version is we should waste a first round pick next year on a player who could easily never start a game in Green Bay.

One minute these reporters are all-in on surrounding our HOF QB with top-level talent for a SB run, next minute it's build for 5 years down the road.  Make up your mind hey.

Rodgers sits out a pre-season game with tightness in his back and suddenly it's the beginning of the end? I ain't buying that bait.  

They gotta have something to write about.  Doesn't matter if it's contradictory.

True words.

Pistol GB posted:

El-Ka-Bong posted:

Did not read the article, but I am guessing the cliff notes say

"Aaron Rodgers is old"

Did I get it right?

No.

35 isn't "old" for a quarterback.  

Cliff notes version is we should waste a first round pick next year on a player who could easily never start a game in Green Bay.

One minute these reporters are all-in on surrounding our HOF QB with top-level talent for a SB run, next minute it's build for 5 years down the road.  Make up your mind hey.

Rodgers sits out a pre-season game with tightness in his back and suddenly it's the beginning of the end? I ain't buying that bait.  

You nailed it they are reading way more in to things with back tightness than they need to.  I guarrantee you that the back tightness is just a precaution and they don't want to risk playing him too much and have an eye on football that really counts.  Now do I think they need to improve the backup situation?  oh hell yes I do I think we all are in agreement on that one and I bet Gute knows that as well.

As for drafting a QB there are so many factors at play with injuries, where the Packers will be drafting, other teams reaching for QBs (they always do), retirements, free agency, the fact that Rodgers could play another four to five years, and if there is a QB worth it after the top QB prospects.  As Pistol said do you spend a first round pick on a guy who may never play in GB?

I dont know all the names of the top QB prospects but I would think Tua, Herbert (?) from Oregon, Fromm from UGA, and maybe Hurts  who all probably would be top 10 picks.  So if the Packers finish at about 10-6 it would take a LOT to get up high enough to pick one of these guys.

Do I think they need to upgrade the QB position? oh hell yes I do but to pee your pants in August without knowing how things will go? let things play out and R-E-L-A-X.

I think AR's health this year is the lynchpin in this decision. If he ends up playing all 16 with some minor injuries, then you push the decision onto the next season. I think this will be the mindset moving on from a year to year evaluation. As we've seen recently in the league (other than NE) is that it is an advantage to have a QB on a rookie deal and spend money on talent around them.  If GB drafts a quarterback in the next few years and AR plays at a high level until he's 40, then we have a rookie deal QB that we don't get the $ advantage of because we are still paying AR.  I think the team is better off riding with AR until he falls apart and then finding our new QB. 

There's an old saying, "the worst time to find a QB is when you need a QB.,"

DocBenni posted:

I think AR's health this year is the lynchpin in this decision. If he ends up playing all 16 with some minor injuries, then you push the decision onto the next season. I think this will be the mindset moving on from a year to year evaluation. As we've seen recently in the league (other than NE) is that it is an advantage to have a QB on a rookie deal and spend money on talent around them.  If GB drafts a quarterback in the next few years and AR plays at a high level until he's 40, then we have a rookie deal QB that we don't get the $ advantage of because we are still paying AR.  I think the team is better off riding with AR until he falls apart and then finding our new QB. 

Out of 32 teams how many are "finding our new QB"?  It ain't that easy.  

My take?  After 35, if a team has a shot at whom they perceive as a difference maker they need to look seriously at it.  If nothing else that guy is an asset for other deals down the line. 

Agree with Pete. Easilly the hardest position to evaluate and the team needs some room for error.

Michigan, I agree and it is only going to get harder to evaluate with the way the majority of college teams use the run/pass option or an air raid offense.  I know the NFL is using more of those concepts but I don't see them going all in on that offense.  So they are going to have to figure out not only if the QB is any good but if their games will translate to the NFL.  

My other thought is that we better enjoy Rodgers while we have him because it is going to be extremely hard as a franchise to catch lightening in a bottle THREE times in a row.  

Trevor "Jesus" Lawrence or nothing. 👍

The problem with finding QB's now and in the foreseeable future is that the college game is tilting more and more toward spread and RO offenses.  And the thing is, they set the trend because they're only interested in winning, not in producing NFL prospects.  Those offenses are scoring the most points in CFB.  BAL is going to be a bit of a test bed in bringing a more college style offense in WITH Lamar Jackson so that he can be successful.  They decided not to try to find the next great pocket passer, instead going all in on the type of player Jackson and so many recent grads are.  There will always be a handful of strong pocket passers as their college program probably took advantage of their innate skill set.  But that is more rare than the RO QB who gains the passing advantage of the D not knowing whether he will run or throw.

Colleges should be ONLY concerned with winning......they are not an arm of the NFL

IMHO it will be interesting how NFL offenses evolve/don't evolve in the next few years.  Will they continue down the RO dual threat QB's or will they shy away from that because you simply cannot run the QB as much in the NFL.  NFL defenses will eventually catch up the RO (Chip Kelly is a perfect example) and do you really want a QB you are paying $30 Million a year running the ball a lot?

I'm okay with drafting a QB next year. I tend to think QBs are like pitchers -- you can never have too many. And if they find a great one -- or even a really, really good one who's a step away from great -- you have to take him. Few QBs play really well and almost injury-free until they're 40, and I am not convinced that AR is one of them. 

After little consideration I've decided to change my opinion.  However, maybe the next trend in the NFL will be to treat the QB position like the RB position.  Could a team focus it's draft/fa on linemen only and churn through RPO style QB's like they RB's?  It seems that it would be easier to find an athletic running QB  with mediocre throwing skills than a QB who can read defenses and is very accurate. Or, are NFL defenses too good to sustain an RPO offense long term?

I can see RPO going the way of the Wildcat, unless you get a sudden influx of Dom Capers clones as defensive coordinators.

It's that time of year where everybody is an armchair GM/Scout/Talent Evaluator.
No consideration is given to draft position, available talent; or whether Boyle or anybody else will develop to a point where they can be a bona fide backup; it's a 1st round QB or it's nothing, by gawd. Gotta have one, or the Packers are doomed to hell in a few years.

I think it's a good idea to draft a QB assuming one is available where cost/value makes sense, and hope we can every year or two. But to suggest that one must be picked in the 1st round, and it must be done next year is just...silly.

I see Tim Boyle developing into a solid backup at a minimum.  He is coming along in spite of not having been in the same system for two years in a row since high school - where he shined.  He has physical tools.  I would like to give him a chance to see what happens when he plays in the same system for a couple years straight.  History says it usually takes 2-3 years to develop a guy.  

That said, Kizer can take a hike.  Whoever the replacement guy is has to be a match for the offense, the coach, the organization, and the city for it all to work out.  He touches the ball on every play - relationships and the intangibles are as (if not more) important than the physical requirements for a QB in today's NFL.  I realize that guy isn't going to meet every requirement 100%, but he has to rank high in areas the GM & scouts place the most value.  I don't care what round he is taken in.  

Kizer is only still around because he's a second round draft choice.