Packers cut Vince Young

Dom Capers. Word is he'll be available soon.

Is there any word from practices as far as how VY may have been used?  Maybe he really was mostly brought in to have the Packers D practice against a mobile, read-option type QB.  And then they let him get some snaps in games to see if he could show anything as a QB.

All the cuts are in the other THREAD

 

However, this does deserve a topic of it's own.

 

No #2 QB. Use Cobb instead

PackLandVA, I was thinking that all along, but if they didn't have hopes of him making the roster, I don't think they would have released Harrell when they did.  They still need someone more competent as a backup to Rodgers.

 

Boris, I know Cobb played QB in college, so I wouldn't mind that in certain situations, but by using him as THE QB if Rodgers goes down, that takes a weapon off the WR corp.  I don't think I'd like that option much.

It would be a hoot if the Pack claim Tebow.
There I am the first to suggest it.

TB your an idiot.

There I am the first to post that too.

They've either got their eye on someone they think becomes available or they're rolling the dice and will re-sign Young later so they don't have to guarantee his salary for the season.

NA, not for the vet minimum. The Packers thinking could be if Rodgers goes down we are going to suck might as well suck with Coleman, a player that still may have a future.

NE released him so go for it,he is better than Young and Coleman put together as backups go.they need his experience and winning ways.

I never understand the whole "if Rodgers goes down, the Packers are gonna suck" logic??? They are far from a one-man show, and it's an insult to TT's roster assembly and a whole bunch of players on the team. 

 

The Packers have a ton of talent on both sides of the ball. Cobb, Jones, Jordy, Sitton, Finley, Pickett, Raji, Matthews, Shields and Tramon, Burnett to name a few.  They need a backup that could manage games in Rodgers absence.  Even if Rodgers were out an extended period of time, they could still be a very good team.  Super Bowl-worthy...probably not.  But playoff caliber...absolutely, with a serviceable backup.

Yep. They need Teblow. That dude has such a powerful arm that all the passes look like wounded ducks. Do they make a juggs machine that can throw a wobbler so the receivers can practice?

PacklandVA,

 

Not all positions are weighed the same in terms of importance.

Anybody playing behind our 2nd and 3rd string OL would have been awful.

 

Thought Young made things happen with the 1st string.

 

We're scrambling for sure with Coleman now.

 

 

 

TT is never "scrambling" he has a plan, you just aren't aware of it

 

 

Agreed it's far from a one man show but when that man is arguably the best player in the league at the most important position that's a huge hit.  I do tend to agree that the Packers could patch it together reasonably well without Rodgers but realistically you're talking a .500 team.  Of course, that may be enough if Rodgers is sidelined temporarily.

Bray, from the Chefs PS?

I dont see the Chiefs keeping 3 QBs on the active roster..

 

i would love this. Bray with both MM and Rodgers showing him how to practice and train would end up being an awesome QB IMHO.

I agree

Cobb and Lacy running a read option if worse came to worse.

I'd be fine with that and good luck to a defense dealing with that while Rodgers gets healthy.

Alex Tanney who was cut from the Cowboys would be far superior to Coleman---no super bowl with him--but playoffs yes....and maybe a trade to get Flynn back

TT's having a sh!t sandwich for lunch today. 

 

When your plan is Harrell will develop and then he doesn't and your backup plan is Vince Young and he goes down in flames and you have 196 hours to the first game of the season you're most certainly scrambling.

 

Sometimes it happens.  Just part of the job. 

My point about Rodgers is NOT that he isn't the most important player or position on the team.  I get that.  But your team doesn't have to have the "best player in the league" to be competitive/playoff contender.

 

Any backup QB is gonna be a huge downgrade from AR.  But they have play-makers on both sides of the ball. And I happen to think they're defense is gonna be significantly better than last year....and it wasn't that bad last year (save a few games). 

 

I'd be more concerned about the o-line play with a backup QB moreso than the backup QB.  Because with their receiving corps and potential at RB, solid line play is gonna make things "easy-pickins" for a lot of QBs.

Hearing from St. Louis that QB Austin Davis was let go. There's going to be a handful of guys for Green Bay to choose from. This preseason, Davis went 28 of 54 for 300 yards, 3 touchdowns, no picks.

I would really like to see more focus on interior line depth.

I hope there is a viable option there either in cuts or trades. With the youth at Tackle, GB would benefit from a veteran presence on the inside

 

Right now, if any of the 3 interior guys goes down....ugh

Amen.

@FrankCaliendo

BREAKING: Tim Tebow now available for your fantasy football league - as a team owner.

Maybe Colt McCoy? Pat White? They could even go back to Harrell. It just can't be Coleman.

You're one delicious injury away from Clowney!

 

Why, because of all the work he had with the 1st string? The guy is in his 2nd year. at least he should know some of the offense. I am sure that is why VY was cut.

Pehaps---although your team is always in the running for him

 

You're 8 days away from another year of Cutler.

now THAT'S a burn!

The guy does not belong an an active NFL roster.

I think the idea of having a viable backup is if Rodgers goes down for 2-3 games, not the entire season. You would like to give your team a chance to win those games. Obviously if Rodgers goes down for a significant amount of time, you're cooked anyways. The question is does Coleman give them that chance?

Based on what we've seen, the answer is no. 

You never know unless he gets on the field.

They could go into SFO with Coleman, then cut him and sign him to PS, then find a vet back-up to avoid paying full salary on a vested vet. Though I doubt they'd do this.

I'd be shocked if they don't pull the plug on Coleman. Likely learned a valuable lesson by wasting three years on Harrell and having nothing to show for it.

 I would say they have their eyes on the continued health and well being of their starter.