Into The Future....QB

Mark87

Mark87

Carpe Diem
Admin
Moderator
Messages
12,264
Reaction score
16,109
Website
wisconsinsportstalk.net
Let's Jump 5 yrs down the road.... GB will need a new QB. It was asked in shout with the lackluster pool how do you handle that ?

In my opinion you need 2 prospect QB on your roster now..already. Stop with the musical chairs because we need ST bodies on the PS crap and commit to 2 extra QB now.

These guys need 2-3 years to learn pro ball and study film etc. You have to invest in the future now to get payback later IMHO. Thoughts ?
 
Agree but GM and HC want their own QB aka TT and MM did when they drafted Rodgers. So imo can't really do this until a change is made at GM and HC.

Think it's obvious why this so, HC want a QB that fits their system.
 
The problem is with developmental QBs is that you invest time and money in them, teach them how to play, and with the length of NFL contracts, you lose them to FA before most of them can give you any return on your investment. That's the reason teams look at these guys coming in as being "plug and play," not willing to wait to develop them.

Add to this the fact that most new GM/HC combos are already on the clock as to when they will get fired, they need to turn that QB into a winner immediately. We're seeing coaches fired three years into 4 year contracts, or even less, with buy outs now being part of each contract.

Now we come to the fans. After three years of not reaching the top, and fans are ready to throw the whole franchise under the bus. You have to show progress from the 2nd year on, or you're out the door.

I remember the discussions, back when they went to the 53 man roster, how this would pretty much guarantee three QBs on every roster. Guess what? Never really happened. I have a hunch we're going to see a 55 man roster with the next bargaining agreement.
 
TW said:
The problem is with developmental QBs is that you invest time and money in them, teach them how to play, and with the length of NFL contracts, you lose them to FA before most of them can give you any return on your investment. That's the reason teams look at these guys coming in as being "plug and play," not willing to wait to develop them.

Add to this the fact that most new GM/HC combos are already on the clock as to when they will get fired, they need to turn that QB into a winner immediately. We're seeing coaches fired three years into 4 year contracts, or even less, with buy outs now being part of each contract.

Now we come to the fans. After three years of not reaching the top, and fans are ready to throw the whole franchise under the bus. You have to show progress from the 2nd year on, or you're out the door.

I remember the discussions, back when they went to the 53 man roster, how this would pretty much guarantee three QBs on every roster. Guess what? Never really happened. I have a hunch we're going to see a 55 man roster with the next bargaining agreement.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you will see a 55 man roster but I think you will see them get rid of the game day inactives and let everyone on the roster play on game day.
 
What this team needs to do is go back to what Ron Wolf did. Draft a QB every year. Look at how many good QB's he drafted and traded for picks. If Ted was doing that know perhaps he stumbles upon one or two that could be a replacement for Rodgers.

Also as I have mentioned before. I think we should look to starting our rebuild early. This team has a few players you could move for picks that are getting older. So why not move them after the season while you can get something for them. Gives you some more picks to help the rebuild move along faster than instead of letting all the players getting old and either moving on to new teams or getting cut and just becoming a bad team and have to rely on the draft picks that you end up with from having a bad record. IMO we start moving players to get picks to rebuild this roster perhaps you can start to turn things around in 3 years. You wait 3-4 years to start rebuild you might be looking at another 5 years before you can contend again.

Fact is we also were spoiled. We ended up with back to back HOF QB's. We are not going to get another HOF QB to replace Rodgers. We are likely going to be forced to use journeyman QB's and draft guys till we find an above average QB that we can win with. The odds of finding another HOF QB in the draft are slim at best.
 
TW, great post. You hit the nail on head. When you have a Favre or Rodgers type, where injuries are few and far between, developing a QB becomes a game of musical chairs and you have to wait until it's closer to the end of their careers until you really start developing that next starter .​
 
We're just talking dual threat QBs on TV. Jackson of course but not sold on him as pure QB. Watson am not high on at all at this time. Barrett though they say is like a coach on the field. And the Houston QB they said has basically carried the team on his shoulders.

As the game evolves this just might be more the future of QBs vs what the standard criteria QB used to be.
 
I think the biggest question teams ask is if they draft the "best" QB available, then adjust your offense to meet his skill set, or do you draft someone who has the right skill set, and hope you can coach him up, to be as good as the best was in the draft. I know that doesn't sound like it makes sense, but it does. It's how the Packers decided to take Rodgers. It also shows us how knowledgeable Thompson is, when it comes to judging talent.

I also have to give credit to McCarthy here. He did work on Rodgers development. When he came in, he held the ball too low, his footwork was off, and he had to work on field vision. They worked on him, and Rodgers ultimately watched Favre, and learned what he did right, and what he did wrong. He even figured out how you throw passes when your feet aren't planted, but your body is properly positioned. It's the pass that both our QBs have done so well, when flushed out of the pocket.

My theory is that comfortable coaches, not fearing getting fired, look for a solid QB to teach, that fits their system. Coaches that have to win ASAP pick the best athletes, then work furiously to change their offense to fit the talent of the player they drafted. Thompson and McCarthy were comfortable training the man they wanted.

So, how early do you draft a QB as a replacement? You have to remember that the moment you go high in the draft for a QB, you alienate the guy you have, and he's not going to be happy about it. The way Favre felt was normal, not an anomaly.

So, when do you make the move? I think the Packers should be looking at "futures." Guys that aren't there yet in college but very well should be in two or three years. Then you trade up, to give yourself a shot at getting the guy you want. I'd be looking now, possibly not drafting for as many as three years.
 
Perfectly said TW and in total agreement. Can remember writing something similar some years back on other sites before TT and drafting of Rodgers.

Have had many discussions over the years of either drafting players that fit a system or adjusting the system to fit a player's strengths.

Imo would prefer the player that has above average skills and adjusting to his strengths. In a way it's what Holmgren did with Favre, especially in the beginning.
 
When Wolf was drafting QB's while GM most guys coming out were pro style types and could adjust to the pro game quickly. Not today. My guess is 75% if not more run a spread or read option system. The transition to the next level is more difficult.

I think if your guy is there take him. It's such a shallow pool. If you feel good about a guy in Rounds 3-4 this year grab him
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top