PC Forums

General Category => Green Bay Packers News Talk => Topic started by: RT on May 15, 2019, 07:58:27 AM

Title: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 15, 2019, 07:58:27 AM
With the 90 man roster filled and for the most part is set until training camp (yes there will be a +/- or two along the way), I thought I would start a positional thread on a different position every few days and give people a chance to discuss each group. Starting this out with the QB's, well because everything in the NFL starts with the QB.

Depth Chart: Aaron Rodgers, DeShone Kizer, Tim Boyle, Manny Wilkins

Aaron Rodgers - Some of you may have heard of this guy before, ranks No. 1 in NFL history in career passer rating (103.79), interception percentage (1.59) and TD/INT ratio (4.01, 313/78). Two time NFL Most Valuable Player. Has a fair chance to make the roster.

DeShone Kizer - Was acquired by the Packers in a trade with the Cleveland Browns last year and ended up winning the back up QB spot coming out of training camp. Was a 15 game starter as a rookie for the Browns. Still a raw and developing player.

Tim Boyle - Signed by Green Bay as an undrafted free agent in 2018 and surprised most everyone by how well he played in the pre season. Showed to be a gritty and tough passer who was willing to stand in the pocket and make the tough throws. Year two should be interesting to watch.

Manny Wilkins - Signed as an undrafted free agent in 2019. Played in 40 games and was the starting quarterback for his final three seasons. He completed 704 of 1,114 pass attempts (63.2 pct.) for 8,624 yards and 52 touchdowns. Wilkins finished his career with the fifth-most passing yards in school history, the fourth-most completions and sixth-most touchdown passes. He also ran the ball for 1,035 yards and 20 TDs. Athletic QB who can make plays with both his arm and his legs.

The first question the Packers will face at cut down is do they keep 2 or 3 QB's on the 53 man roster? Last year the trade for Kizer locked him in for a year anyways to a roster spot and then Boyle played lights out for the first three pre season games, making Hundley available to trade. Does Boyle make a second year jump and now put Kizer in the trade market? Wilkins was a very effective QB in college, does he show enough to keep as a 3rd QB?

Does it end up,
A.) Rodgers and Kizer
B.) Rodgers and Boyle
C.) Rodgers, Kizer and Boyle
D.) Rodgers, Boyle and Wilkins
E.) Other

It is all yet to be determined and the players play will decide the end result, but it should be interesting to watch play out.       
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on May 15, 2019, 08:34:35 AM
This may be another deal where "getting used to new system" will be another reason ("excuse" has a negative pejorative ring to it) for not necessarily showing a big step, but still being accepted as "young", "learning".....

Kind of harder to draw conclusions and project to future performance based on present-camp-performance when adjusting to new system, and when all the other receivers in camp are doing the same. 

My guess is that Kizer and Boyle both stick, and that Wilkins is gunning for a practice-squad spot. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 15, 2019, 09:08:31 AM
This may be another deal where "getting used to new system" will be another reason ("excuse" has a negative pejorative ring to it) for not necessarily showing a big step, but still being accepted as "young", "learning".....

Kind of harder to draw conclusions and project to future performance based on present-camp-performance when adjusting to new system, and when all the other receivers in camp are doing the same. 

My guess is that Kizer and Boyle both stick, and that Wilkins is gunning for a practice-squad spot.

Agree it will be a little trickier waters to navigate with the new system be put in place, but in the end it will be players making plays that will make the end decision.

We are looking at new history to be made, but if past history means anything the Packers will only keep 3 QB's on the 63. If 3 on the 53 are kept, none have been kept on the practice squad. If 2 are kept on the 53, 1 has been kept on the practice squad. That is if the past history means anything.   
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on May 15, 2019, 09:13:59 AM
Question:  Did MM's Packers have unusual footwork coaching for QB's?  If so, will MLF and Getsy coach the possibly non-standard MM footwork, perhaps that Getsy is familiar with from his previous run as a quality-control coach with Packers? 

This Q comes to mind because last year when Kizer came in, he several times alluded to how the Packers coached different footwork than he'd been taught at Cleveland and Notre Dame.  So I'm kinda wondering how true or significant that is.  Was Cleveland and Notre Dame standard, and Packers had some unusual, perhaps innovative way?  Or did Cleveland and Notre Dame have something weird or old-fashioned, and the Packers way is perfectly normal and good and what most modern teams would teach?  Or is whatever difference there is really subtle, and Kizer was kind of exaggerating the magnitude of the adjustment? 

**IF** there is a real and non-trivial difference, then I'm again curious what MLF and Getsy will want to do, and if there is a shift whether that will help or hurt Rodgers, Kizer, and Boyle?   I could imagine for Kizer, doing things one way, then spending a year under MM trying to adjust to a different way, then readjusting to another way again might be kind of awkward. 

May also be that Getsy understands the pros and cons, and a real guy can use a variety of footwork in a variety of conditions.  Any NBA basketball player or NFL pass rusher has a bunch of footwork variations.  So, maybe it's both, rather than one of the other?  MM and the Packers have some great ideas that Rodgers and Kizer/Boyle and Getsy are all familiar with, for certain situations; and maybe they are all good with normal stepping-into-the-throw footwork that works when you've got a secure pocket and a receiver getting open in a predictable zone? 

Anyway, will be interesting if we here any references to this issue. 

We all know that Rodgers has emphasized the importance of practicing quick real-time-real-game-speed throwing, on the run, off-balance, back-foot, etc., since he realizes how few of his throws really are classic stepping-into-it footwork throws. 

Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: B on May 15, 2019, 11:03:58 AM
My predictions:

Kiser and Boyle battle for #2 spot on 53
 -- I think Kiser wins, but it will be a real competition.

Assuming Boyle loses above

Boyle and Wilkens battle for #3 practice squad QB
 -- winner will be whoever the staff believes has the most upside, not necessarily who performs best - which one may expect to be Boyle.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 15, 2019, 12:50:49 PM
Question:  Did MM's Packers have unusual footwork coaching for QB's?  If so, will MLF and Getsy coach the possibly non-standard MM footwork, perhaps that Getsy is familiar with from his previous run as a quality-control coach with Packers? 

This Q comes to mind because last year when Kizer came in, he several times alluded to how the Packers coached different footwork than he'd been taught at Cleveland and Notre Dame.  So I'm kinda wondering how true or significant that is.  Was Cleveland and Notre Dame standard, and Packers had some unusual, perhaps innovative way?  Or did Cleveland and Notre Dame have something weird or old-fashioned, and the Packers way is perfectly normal and good and what most modern teams would teach?  Or is whatever difference there is really subtle, and Kizer was kind of exaggerating the magnitude of the adjustment? 

**IF** there is a real and non-trivial difference, then I'm again curious what MLF and Getsy will want to do, and if there is a shift whether that will help or hurt Rodgers, Kizer, and Boyle?   I could imagine for Kizer, doing things one way, then spending a year under MM trying to adjust to a different way, then readjusting to another way again might be kind of awkward. 

May also be that Getsy understands the pros and cons, and a real guy can use a variety of footwork in a variety of conditions.  Any NBA basketball player or NFL pass rusher has a bunch of footwork variations.  So, maybe it's both, rather than one of the other?  MM and the Packers have some great ideas that Rodgers and Kizer/Boyle and Getsy are all familiar with, for certain situations; and maybe they are all good with normal stepping-into-the-throw footwork that works when you've got a secure pocket and a receiver getting open in a predictable zone? 

Anyway, will be interesting if we here any references to this issue. 

We all know that Rodgers has emphasized the importance of practicing quick real-time-real-game-speed throwing, on the run, off-balance, back-foot, etc., since he realizes how few of his throws really are classic stepping-into-it footwork throws.

Good points craig about footwork. I believe MM was forward thinking with his work with QB's and minimizing wasted motions though footwork. I am only guessing here like all of us, but I would think the current work being done on footwork is play specific to MLF playbook and minimizing wasted motion also. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: dannobanano on May 15, 2019, 01:29:25 PM
Question:  Did MM's Packers have unusual footwork coaching for QB's?  If so, will MLF and Getsy coach the possibly non-standard MM footwork, perhaps that Getsy is familiar with from his previous run as a quality-control coach with Packers? 

MLF was on staff at Notre Dame when Kizer was a freshman (I believe), so he has some/limited knowlwdge about Kizer already.

Getsy started with GB as offensive quality control, but the 2016-2017 seasons he was the WR's coach. Not sure if that matters when it comes to QB's and there footwork, but he will coach "what" and "how" MLF wants him to coach.

So, it's all a wait-n-see thing that has yet to unfold.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: ricky on May 15, 2019, 02:33:19 PM
Is Gurekunst going to effectively his trade for Kizer was not a good move? If so, then perhaps Boyle could be backup and Wilkins could be stashed on the practice squad, If Gutekunst and MLF believe that Kizer can become an effective backup, and can design a game plan that plays to his strengths, then they'll again probably keep Kizer. Also, if MLF prefers Boyle as a backup and thinks Wilkins has more upside, would Gutekunst allow Kizer to be cut/traded? This of course goes back to the dynamics of who how much decisiion making power MLF has. Anyway, here is a scouting report on Wilkins. It's a mixed bag, and he definitely doesn't seem ready to start or backup AR, but has "potential".

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/manny-wilkins?id=32195749-4c08-8704-d220-729afe7d681f
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: B on May 15, 2019, 02:49:24 PM
Final roster decisions are process decisions with lots of input from multiple people at the table. Bottom line, from Wolf, to Sherman, to Thompson, to Gutekunst the final call on rosters is led by the General Manager
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: Hands on May 16, 2019, 06:11:03 AM
The pre-season will be the main event for Boyle verses Kizer. Multiple teams will want to see which QB is cut. I see two QBs on the active squad this year and one on the PS. There won't be three QBs protected this year. I hope that if something does sideline Rodgers for a game or two that the backup can still keep them in the game and hope the defense makes some plays. It couldn't happen for the past 4 years, but maybe this year we see the defense show their teeth.
It will be hard enough to win with Rodgers...winning many games with either Kizer or Boyle will be difficult.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: ricky on May 16, 2019, 06:31:00 AM
Final roster decisions are process decisions with lots of input from multiple people at the table. Bottom line, from Wolf, to Sherman, to Thompson, to Gutekunst the final call on rosters is led by the General Manager

OK. But if Gutekunst "strongly suggests" that Kizer remain on the roster?
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 16, 2019, 07:34:49 AM
Final roster decisions are process decisions with lots of input from multiple people at the table. Bottom line, from Wolf, to Sherman, to Thompson, to Gutekunst the final call on rosters is led by the General Manager

OK. But if Gutekunst "strongly suggests" that Kizer remain on the roster?

This really isn't that hard. Gutekunst has the final say on the 53. He will continuously monitor all the players through training camp, he will meet with his personnel staff and coaching staff several times to field opinions on each player and make his decisions from there. Many position coaches along with the HC will pound the table for their guys, but not everyone can be kept. In the end if Gutekunst believes it is in the best interest of the Green Bay Packers to keep Kizer, he will keep Kizer.     
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 16, 2019, 07:50:44 AM
The pre-season will be the main event for Boyle verses Kizer. Multiple teams will want to see which QB is cut. I see two QBs on the active squad this year and one on the PS. There won't be three QBs protected this year. I hope that if something does sideline Rodgers for a game or two that the backup can still keep them in the game and hope the defense makes some plays. It couldn't happen for the past 4 years, but maybe this year we see the defense show their teeth.
It will be hard enough to win with Rodgers...winning many games with either Kizer or Boyle will be difficult.

Good post Hands. Agree that multiple teams will be watching the Packers QB situation and be looking to pick up a leftover. With Seattle signing Geno Smith they are probably out as a trade partner, but Jacksonville and Dallas are both light a servable backup and may be a trade partner at the cutdown. Minnesota also is in need, but I don't think a trade there is an option.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: OneTwoSixFive on May 16, 2019, 08:05:52 AM
I don't care much about the current QB2. The Packers are unlikely to have a QB2 good enough to do well if Rodgers goes down..........at least, not beyond the odd game or two.

What I do care about is the succession plan, post Rodgers. I believe the Packers should be thinking about his successor years in advance of that successor seeing the field. They (the Packers) need to identify who they want as early as possible. If the guy they want is good (and he should be) then you will need a very high pick to secure him.

That means trying to get extra first round pick(s) in the year you think he becomes available, which takes some pre-planning in the previous year, or even two. I'd also budget at least one year where the rookie can (mostly) sit and learn and get better, while AR shows by example how to be a QB in the NFL.

So, for example, you trade down from your first rounder in 2020 (like the Packers did with New Orleans) for a future first, or give up a second round pick (maybe with a sweetner) for a first the following year, anything really for an extra first rounder, next year. Ideally you want more than that, an extra second as well, maybe. Then, because of your forethought, in the year 'the man' becomes available you have trade up capital to spend. You draft your guy in 2021, let him (mostly) sit, as he learns the playbook and work on his game. In 2022 he is ready to go (hopefully).

Of course this process doesn't have to start in 2020, it could start a year, or two, or three later than that, it all depends on when 'the guy' is likely to come out, and it might need some fancy footwork to get things to align (and how Rodgers is playing, will impact that as well). The whole point is that you start manoeuvring years before the guy you want sees the field.

This kind of pre-planning isn't worth it for most players, but a QB is so crucial to a team, that a good one is worth the effort.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: scoremore on May 16, 2019, 08:33:15 AM
They blew it this year.  Could have gotten Rosen for #2 pick and we would have been set.  Missed opportunity to land a potential franchise QB on the cheap.  We will be hard pressed to get a guy going forward as I expect the Packers to be drafting late over the next few years.  This was the year to grab one either Lock or Rosen.  Next transition will likely be a tough one.   
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 16, 2019, 09:04:04 AM
They blew it this year.  Could have gotten Rosen for #2 pick and we would have been set.  Missed opportunity to land a potential franchise QB on the cheap.  We will be hard pressed to get a guy going forward as I expect the Packers to be drafting late over the next few years.  This was the year to grab one either Lock or Rosen.  Next transition will likely be a tough one.

I understand the frustration of feeling like it was a missed opportunity, but I don't think the door is now closed on future opportunities. Another QB will come their way and the most important thing is that they are prepared to capitalize on the situation. I do believe they were very interested in Lock with their 2nd round pick.

 
Benjamin Allbright

Verified account
 
@AllbrightNFL
Follow
Follow @AllbrightNFL
 
More
Per source: Green Bay was definitely interested in Drew Lock, Broncos traded up to get ahead of Packers.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: scoremore on May 16, 2019, 09:08:49 AM
Wasn't all that enamored with Lock to be honest.  Accuracy is more important than arm strength.  Rosen was the guy I really wanted would have been a perfect fit for the Packers.  Would have felt a lot better with him backing up Rodgers and believe he could have thrived with the Pack.  Oh well guess Gute felt differently.  They may still be able to get him eventually.  Rosen thrown into another bad situation in Miami hopefully it doesn't ruin him.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: The GM on May 16, 2019, 02:49:03 PM
They blew it this year.  Could have gotten Rosen for #2 pick and we would have been set.  Missed opportunity to land a potential franchise QB on the cheap.  We will be hard pressed to get a guy going forward as I expect the Packers to be drafting late over the next few years.  This was the year to grab one either Lock or Rosen.  Next transition will likely be a tough one.

I like Rosen as much as the next guy, but there will be opportunites to get a good QB down the road.  Its no so much what you spend in draft choices to get one, its finding  the right fit for your team.  Brady, Wilson, and Brees weren't first round choices.    You also have to figure Rodgers longevity and what the plans are with him.  Is he breaking down with injuries?, is he going to play into his 40's?   You always want a capable backup but looking for his replacement at this point might be a little premature.  JMO.       
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: Gregg on May 16, 2019, 05:34:14 PM
I kind of agree with that one.

I think we are all aware of how this team plays when AR is injured.  And AR is not getting any younger.

I would have liked us to either trade for Rosen, or drafted a QB.

Wolf used to do this all the time with Favre..  And it worked.  Since he would just trade the guy for picks. And some of those guys ended up being starters after.

For some reason, we do not do that anymore.  I don't know why.

Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on May 16, 2019, 05:51:02 PM
...For some reason, we do not do that anymore.  I don't know why.

I can think of at least 3 reasons why:
1.  We've been in full Nowacrat mode.  And after some not-that-successful drafts, our roster has been talent-deficient.  With 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round selections, they've been targeting other positions and players who might be good help within a year or two. 
2.  IN Wolf's day, they had an extra year of rookie contract.  That extra year is huge, hugely huge, for trade value, and it's huge for value as a good backup too if you sacrifice the first couple of years to development.
3.  Not only do we lose that year of development and value, but the CBA doesn't allow practice.  They could practice 3 times as much in Wolf's day, and even in early MM era he could do his QB school and stuff like that to bring prospects along.  With no QB school and 1/3 the practice time, it's a lot harder to develop a raw prospect. 

I would also say that Wolf was good at scouting QB's.  Not sure that Gute and the recent guys are as good?  (Beats me, but my understanding is that they had a 1st-round grade on Kizer pre-draft and continued to love him after his rookie season, an evaluation that thus far doesn't seem vindicated.) 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: dannobanano on May 16, 2019, 07:02:46 PM
I would also say that Wolf was good at scouting QB's.  Not sure that Gute and the recent guys are as good?  (Beats me, but my understanding is that they had a 1st-round grade on Kizer pre-draft and continued to love him after his rookie season, an evaluation that thus far doesn't seem vindicated.)

To be honest, I'm not sure TT was ever that great at evaluating QB's. With Rodgers, he got lucky with a future HOF'er falling into his lap.

Go back and look at some of the other QB's he drafted along the way (Ingle Martin, Brian Brohm, Matt Flynn, BJ Coleman, and Brett Hundley).

Ted had the final say on all those picks, regardless of input from Gute, E. Wolf, McKenzie, Schneider, or Dorsey.

I'm not trying to be mean to TT, but he always had the final word.

With regard to Kizer............TT was already compromised, healthwise, and MM was pounding the table for him. I think MM owns that one more than anyone else.

Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 17, 2019, 08:13:14 AM
...For some reason, we do not do that anymore.  I don't know why.

I can think of at least 3 reasons why:
1.  We've been in full Nowacrat mode.  And after some not-that-successful drafts, our roster has been talent-deficient.  With 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round selections, they've been targeting other positions and players who might be good help within a year or two. 
2.  IN Wolf's day, they had an extra year of rookie contract.  That extra year is huge, hugely huge, for trade value, and it's huge for value as a good backup too if you sacrifice the first couple of years to development.
3.  Not only do we lose that year of development and value, but the CBA doesn't allow practice.  They could practice 3 times as much in Wolf's day, and even in early MM era he could do his QB school and stuff like that to bring prospects along.  With no QB school and 1/3 the practice time, it's a lot harder to develop a raw prospect. 

I would also say that Wolf was good at scouting QB's.  Not sure that Gute and the recent guys are as good?  (Beats me, but my understanding is that they had a 1st-round grade on Kizer pre-draft and continued to love him after his rookie season, an evaluation that thus far doesn't seem vindicated.)

All good points craig. One more point is that it just isn't normally a good return on investment. Look at the Patriots and Garoppolo, they invest a 2nd round pick in him and train him for 3 years and trade him for a 2nd round pick. That is the one that worked out. None of the guys Wolf drafted and traded brought a windfall of any sorts. Brooks was a 3rd round pick and the Packers got a 3rd round pick back. The only deal that returned much of a positive return was Mark Brunell, he was a 5th round pick and the Packers got back a 3rd and a 5th.

Fans remember the good, but forget about the QB picks that were just lost draft capital with Wolf. The Wolf theory of drafting a QB every year brought the Packers in '95, '96 and '97 the QB's Jay Barker, Kyle Wachholtz and Ron McAda. Nothing gained there.   
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: ricky on May 17, 2019, 03:37:19 PM
A major here: that Rosen is a starting caliber QB. Totally unproven, though he does have potential. Whether that potential will make him a franchise QB or a good backup or a journeyman remains to be seen. If Rosen was brought in, would be the defacto heir apparent to Rodgers? And what would happen to Boyle or Kizer if the Packers only went with two QB's? This would be putting a lot of faith in Rosen's ability to become a franchise QB. And would very probably cause some hard feeling from Rodgers. We've seen this scenario play out once before, and personally, the thought of seeing AR in another uniform is very unappetizing.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 17, 2019, 04:12:19 PM
                          GAMES   ATT/COMP   COMP%   YARDS   TDS/INTS   RATING   QBR   RUSH YARDS       
Rookie QB #1        14        393/217       55.2       2278       11/14         66.7     26.6       138

Rookie QB #2        15        476/255       53.6       2894       11/22         60.5     29.7       419

Two rookie QB's thrown into the fire as rookies. Some think one is a future franchise QB while the other is a bum, but who is the franchise QB?     
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 17, 2019, 08:17:48 PM
                          GAMES   ATT/COMP   COMP%   YARDS   TDS/INTS   RATING   QBR   RUSH YARDS       
Rookie QB #1        14        393/217       55.2       2278       11/14         66.7     26.6       138

Rookie QB #2        15        476/255       53.6       2894       11/22         60.5     29.7       419

Two rookie QB's thrown into the fire as rookies. Some think one is a future franchise QB while the other is a bum, but who is the franchise QB?     

One of these is DeShone Kizer and one is Josh Rosen.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: footballdad on May 18, 2019, 05:58:04 AM
No facts whatsoever to base this on, but maybe somebody not currently on the roster? Would really love to see a vet. Pederson or Flynn type who can step in and win a few games if need be.
Vets will be available when cutdowns start.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: scoremore on May 18, 2019, 07:09:35 AM
A major here: that Rosen is a starting caliber QB. Totally unproven, though he does have potential. Whether that potential will make him a franchise QB or a good backup or a journeyman remains to be seen. If Rosen was brought in, would be the defacto heir apparent to Rodgers? And what would happen to Boyle or Kizer if the Packers only went with two QB's? This would be putting a lot of faith in Rosen's ability to become a franchise QB. And would very probably cause some hard feeling from Rodgers. We've seen this scenario play out once before, and personally, the thought of seeing AR in another uniform is very unappetizing.

If Rosen is beats out Rodgers so be it.  Rodgers beat out Favre.  Given Aaron's injury history think it is reckless not to have a legitimate QB behind him.  Rosen is unproven but is very smart and also is accurate with the football.  Firmly believe he would have thrived in GB.  Played on one of the worst teams in the NFL last year.  No O-line and no weapons.  Now he's going to Miami another bad situation.  I really don't care about Kizer or Boyle.  We could have had Rosen for our #2 pick in the draft.  Rosen or no Rosen Aaron will retire a Packer. 

Whether Rosen would have been our next great QB who knows?  Way I look at it cheap insurance against Aaron going down again.  Also taking a shot at finding the next guy.  Don't care about stats from Rookie seasons Kizer can't hold Rosen's jock strap IMO.  Rosen might not do well in Mia either.  GB would have been the perfect situation.  Sit and learn behind Rodgers until he's ready.   Unless Aaron changes his style of play he won't last more than 2 or 3 seasons.

Packers need to start the search now.  It's incredibly difficult to find a franchise QB.  We'll be drafting late which will make it that much harder.  Feel like we missed an opportunity here.  The Packers need to start planning for life after Rodgers.  It might take a couple of shots before we hit on the next great GB QB.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 18, 2019, 07:52:14 AM
A major here: that Rosen is a starting caliber QB. Totally unproven, though he does have potential. Whether that potential will make him a franchise QB or a good backup or a journeyman remains to be seen. If Rosen was brought in, would be the defacto heir apparent to Rodgers? And what would happen to Boyle or Kizer if the Packers only went with two QB's? This would be putting a lot of faith in Rosen's ability to become a franchise QB. And would very probably cause some hard feeling from Rodgers. We've seen this scenario play out once before, and personally, the thought of seeing AR in another uniform is very unappetizing.

If Rosen is beats out Rodgers so be it.  Rodgers beat out Favre.  Given Aaron's injury history think it is reckless not to have a legitimate QB behind him.  Rosen is unproven but is very smart and also is accurate with the football.  Firmly believe he would have thrived in GB.  Played on one of the worst teams in the NFL last year.  No O-line and no weapons.  Now he's going to Miami another bad situation.  I really don't care about Kizer or Boyle.  We could have had Rosen for our #2 pick in the draft.  Rosen or no Rosen Aaron will retire a Packer. 

Whether Rosen would have been our next great QB who knows?  Way I look at it cheap insurance against Aaron going down again.  Also taking a shot at finding the next guy.  Don't care about stats from Rookie seasons Kizer can't hold Rosen's jock strap IMO.  Rosen might not do well in Mia either.  GB would have been the perfect situation.  Sit and learn behind Rodgers until he's ready.   Unless Aaron changes his style of play he won't last more than 2 or 3 seasons.

Packers need to start the search now.  It's incredibly difficult to find a franchise QB.  We'll be drafting late which will make it that much harder.  Feel like we missed an opportunity here.  The Packers need to start planning for life after Rodgers.  It might take a couple of shots before we hit on the next great GB QB.

I thought there was a chance the Packers might of been players for Rosen, but they didn't get involved and that is fine also. I don't think Kizer is the answer because he is just too slow to process on the field, but I also don't know if Rosen was the answer either. The Packers decided that they would rather keep their 2nd round pick and draft an OLineman and if that is what the Packers thought was the best decision, well I guess I don't disagree with the decision. I am sure that the Packers are always looking for their next great QB, but I doubt they are even a little concerned they missed out on Rosen.     
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: scoremore on May 18, 2019, 09:00:08 AM
No doubt they aren't losing any sleep over it or he'd be a Packer.  They are in win now mode that is clear.  Me I like to keep on eye toward the future.  Also don't like putting all my eggs in on Aaron.  His ability to stay healthy is a major concern for me.  No faith in Kizer at all.  None.  Agree the game is too fast for him.  Sure he has physical traits but that won't cut it at QB.  Have to be able to read a defense. 

Packers must have faith that Rodgers has several more good years.  I hope they are proven right.  Rosen was in mind the perfect fit for the Packers.  Smart and accurate.  Just having him as a back up was worth #44 for me.  If Rodgers goes down we at least wouldn't throw the season away.  With MLF and the new offensive game plan maybe Rodgers will get the ball out quickly avoid getting hit and this will be a non issue.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: dannobanano on May 18, 2019, 09:30:17 AM
No doubt they aren't losing any sleep over it or he'd be a Packer.  They are in win now mode that is clear.  Me I like to keep on eye toward the future.  Also don't like putting all my eggs in on Aaron.  His ability to stay healthy is a major concern for me.  No faith in Kizer at all.  None.  Agree the game is too fast for him.  Sure he has physical traits but that won't cut it at QB.  Have to be able to read a defense. 

Packers must have faith that Rodgers has several more good years.  I hope they are proven right.  Rosen was in mind the perfect fit for the Packers.  Smart and accurate.  Just having him as a back up was worth #44 for me.  If Rodgers goes down we at least wouldn't throw the season away.  With MLF and the new offensive game plan maybe Rodgers will get the ball out quickly avoid getting hit and this will be a non issue.

Cheer up score! All is not lost.

The Packers may still be able still get your man, who you pound the table for, after this next season.

Miami is a dumpster fire that just keeps burning. They could easily be in the race for the #1 pick in next years draft (Tua? Herbert?), and that could put Rosen squarely on the trading block again, but maybe for even less than what Miami anted up this year (pick #62) to get him.

https://www.thephinsider.com/2019/4/29/18522407/miami-dolphins-could-still-draft-a-quarterback-in-2020-nfl-draft-josh-rosen-tua-herbert-fromm

[According to Albert Breer of Sport’s Illustrated’s MMQB, Chris Grier would be open to drafting a quarterback in 2020 if things didn’t pan out with The Chosen One.
“Every team in the league is looking for that guy that’s going to lead them to championships,” Grier said. “And so for us, we’re in a position where we’re trying to find that guy, like a lot of teams in the league. So yeah, it was an easy decision. And it doesn’t stop us from doing anything in the future. Who knows? If things go well and we feel he’s the guy, who knows? But it doesn’t stop us from doing anything.”
If Rosen doesn’t pan out, the Dolphins have set themselves up quite nicely to acquire their quarterback of the future. But until they find the heir apparent to Dan Marino’s Iron Throne, they should do whatever it takes to find ‘their’ franchise signal caller. Even if that means drafting a Tua Tagovailoa or Justin Herbert in 2020.]


My personal preference would be to see the Packers trying to draft a QB next year to develop as the potential heir to Rodgers.
The two guys I'd have eye's on would be Jake Fromm and Jacob Eason.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: scoremore on May 18, 2019, 04:51:14 PM
Thanks Danno.  Thinking the same thing.  Miami is a dumpster fire for sure.  Another new system Rosen will have to learn as well.  Tough situation to be put in.  If he doesn't do well there probably a 3rd/4th or player trade.  It might very well wreck him.  Guess next year is supposed to be a real good QB class so maybe that is what Gutenheimer has in mind.

Not at all comfortable with our back ups currently.  Fingers crossed Aaron doesn't get hurt this season.  Wasn't a fan of Lock.  Big arm but accuracy issues.  Can't have that in the NFL.  He may still end up being a stud but will be a work in progress.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: Starr2Max on May 18, 2019, 06:34:48 PM
I just love fans that have absolutely no patience especially with the toughest position on the field.  Perhaps everyone here is too young to remember that after two years, Rogers was panned as a wasted first round pick.  Then, I only remember him having one good game his third year, after which it seemed that the only ones that believed in him was the FO and coaching staff.  When TT went with Rogers and shipped Favre to the Jets, fans booed AR during training camp - like it was his fault.  Is Kiser the answer?  I don't know.  He is currently on his third HC, OC and QB coach, and that alone may doom him.  However, I have no doubt  that if we had brought in Rosen and he isn't immediately the second coming, that the same fans would blast Gute and call for us to go get the new "flavor of the month."  soapbox
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: Gregg on May 18, 2019, 09:15:59 PM
I think we are forgetting about Matt H.

Its not just Brunell and Brooks.

Mr September ended up playing in three Pro Bowls, and drove the Hawks to six playoff appearances.

My real point though was that those guys offered quality depth because they were really starters, not just back ups.

What quality depth have we had behind AR?  Hundley?  Kizer?

I just don't think its smart to gamble with that position.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: scoremore on May 18, 2019, 09:22:42 PM
I just love fans that have absolutely no patience especially with the toughest position on the field.  Perhaps everyone here is too young to remember that after two years, Rogers was panned as a wasted first round pick.  Then, I only remember him having one good game his third year, after which it seemed that the only ones that believed in him was the FO and coaching staff.  When TT went with Rogers and shipped Favre to the Jets, fans booed AR during training camp - like it was his fault.  Is Kiser the answer?  I don't know.  He is currently on his third HC, OC and QB coach, and that alone may doom him.  However, I have no doubt  that if we had brought in Rosen and he isn't immediately the second coming, that the same fans would blast Gute and call for us to go get the new "flavor of the month."  soapbox

Kizer is a turnover machine.  He has had his opportunities and he sucked.  As for Aaron none of us knew what we had until Farve went down in Dallas.  Rodgers first action and he nearly led the Packers to a win after Farve stunk up the joint.  He was prepared and it showed.  Anyone watching that game should have taken notice.  He's was real deal. 

This will be Kizer's third year assuming he even makes the team.  Football intelligence is critical.  You can have all the tools in the world if you can't read a defense forget it.  Rosen has it Kizer doesn't.  That's the way I see it.  We'll see what the season brings.   BTW Starr2 what makes you think we are all young?  You must be new to this board.  Before you start criticizing other posters maybe you should step back and read a little more.  People on this forum are not your average clueless fans.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: B on May 19, 2019, 05:34:21 AM
Perhaps you are correct about Kizer scoremore, but that isn't exactly true of Rodgers.

Aaron's first real action came Dec 19, 2005 against the Baltimore Ravens and he looked completely overwhelmed
 ~~ 8 of 15 for 65 yards 0 TD and 1 interception for a QB rating of 36.8   

His next came when Brett got knocked out of the New England game Nov 19, 2006, and again Aaron looked lost
 ~~ 4 of 12 for 32 yds with an improved QB rating of 42.4   

Aaron's exciting performance against Dallas that you referred to came on Nov 19, 2007 in his 3rd season.

I've never been overly excited about Kizer, if fact I was disappointed in the trade that obtained him. However, the Packers did make a rather significant trade to get him, and I think he will (and should) be given and opportunity to compete and develop if he wins that competition.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 19, 2019, 06:53:26 AM
Very true B that he will be given every chance to compete and win the job as a backup. As I stated in the first post on this thread he is 'still a raw and developing player' and he will be given the chance to mature. The trait that I do not like about him is how slow he is to process after the ball is snapped. As he matures and develops is this something that will speed up for him? Without a doubt, but will it be enough to be an effective QB at the NFL level. The list is very long of gifted athletes with great arm talent that played the QB position yet still failed because of the inability to process quickly enough. This is not claiming Kizer is not an intelligent person, but maybe more of a concrete thinker.   
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: dannobanano on May 19, 2019, 07:25:33 AM
Very true B that he will be given every chance to compete and win the job as a backup. As I stated in the first post on this thread he is 'still a raw and developing player' and he will be given the chance to mature. The trait that I do not like about him is how slow he is to process after the ball is snapped. As he matures and develops is this something that will speed up for him? Without a doubt, but will it be enough to be an effective QB at the NFL level. The list is very long of gifted athletes with great arm talent that played the QB position yet still failed because of the inability to process quickly enough. This is not claiming Kizer is not an intelligent person, but maybe more of a concrete thinker.

What's working against Kizer is that he will now be learning his 3rd offensive system in 3 years as an NFL QB. That's a tough job, even for a seasoned veteran, let alone a young QB still feeling his way into the NFL.

Also, even his college coach (Brian Kelly) said Kizer should have stayed, at least, another year in school rather than declaring early for the draft. Most people have forgotten that Kizer declared for that draft as a 3rd year sophomore at Notre Dame.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000797133/article/brian-kelly-deshone-kizer-should-have-stayed-in-school

[Notre Dame coach Brian Kelly isn't any more sure about DeShone Kizer's readiness for the NFL than some of Kizer's critics.
The coach made it clear Monday that he sees his former quarterback as a developmental pro prospect, even though he's considered a possible first-round draft choice, telling Sirius XM Radio that Kizer still has quite a bit of needed growth ahead of him.
"Well, he still should be in college. The circumstances are such that you have to make business decisions and he felt like it was in his best interest," Kelly said. "I'm going to support him and his decision. But the reality of it is he needs more football, he needs more time to grow in so many areas. Not just on the field, but off the field."]

After all MLF has history with Kizer.

https://www.packers.com/news/five-things-to-know-about-matt-lafleur

[After his four seasons in Washington, LaFleur spent a year coaching quarterbacks at the University of Notre Dame in 2014. It just so happens his one season in South Bend coincided with current Packers quarterback DeShone Kizer’s redshirt freshman season.]

So if MLF thinks there's enough talent in Kizer to give him a fair shot in his offense, you have to respect what he see's, rather than what we think we see.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 19, 2019, 07:46:51 AM
What I see is not a professional opinion and what the Packers front office and coaching staff see's is. It why I watch the Packers actions and attempt to read from there on all their moves and not get overly invested in my opinion. I share what I see, but if the Packers chose to put their faith in Kizer, I will attempt to see what they see and not declare them wrong for not sharing my thoughts.

Gute's investment in Kizer was not much, he traded a player that they probably were going to cut if they did not find a trade partner. He saw a player with physical tools and a season of hard lessens under his belt, certainly a player worth the roll of the dice. I am not pulling against the young man, I would love to see him be a success story, just a little leery is all.   
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 22, 2019, 11:31:52 AM
I thought this was a note worth sharing from an article on Fox Sports. A little under the radar, positive quote about Tim Boyle from Rodgers.
Rodgers is in the middle of his own competition. No, not for the starting quarterback job. Rather, it’s competing with fellow quarterbacks DeShone Kizer, Tim Boyle and rookie Manny Wilkins in learning LaFleur’s offense.
 
“Tim’s been kicking my butt a little bit with some of the formation tests, so I’ve had to do some extra studying to get on top of a few of those,” Rodgers said.
 
“It’s reps. It doesn’t matter what offense you’re in, whether it’s a new offense or an offense you’re second or third year in, it’s all about reps and getting more reps with the plays. I’m a rep guy. I need the reps, just like those guys do.”

 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: B on May 22, 2019, 12:32:08 PM
Indeed a positive note about Boyle. It also sounds like Rodgers is having to face a little humility and shake off some potential complacency that may have developed by playing in the same system for so long. 

Something I see as a good thimg.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: dannobanano on May 22, 2019, 01:22:07 PM
Maybe Boyle is one of those 2nd year guys who takes a big step forward.

Aaron may be finding out that change is a good thing.............especially for growing as a player.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on June 05, 2019, 06:31:17 AM
It is way to early to make any strong judgements on any players yet, but just looking at the little bit that is coming out of the 3 open OTA practices it sounds like Kizer has been more consistent then Boyle. Boyle and Rodgers have thrown some INT's that have been noted by reporters, but I have not seen any reported by Kizer as of yet.

Boyle was given an attaboy by Rodgers last week for how well he understood the playbook.

The feeling I get from comments of those at the OTA's is that Kizer is off to a good start.

 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 05, 2019, 07:48:29 AM
Would be nice if both Kizer and Boyle come along well and merit keeping. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on June 13, 2019, 06:14:40 PM
I'll put this here, seems like a fit for QB transition and how long it may take the Packers offense to hit their best stride.


Geoff Schwartz

Verified account
 
@geoffschwartz
Follow
Follow @geoffschwartz
 
More
Geoff Schwartz Retweeted Michael Silver
Just as a reminder ... and this isn’t me being a “hater” because I say this for every new offense. It takes 8-10 regular season weeks for a new OC to get his offense fully running. There are exceptions but this is mostly the rule.