Packers Roster Analysis - Building for the Future

[homer]

Michael Cohen had a really good article in The Athletic about roster needs and potential FA's. Mentioned Jared Cook, Za'Darius Smith, Golden Tate, Adam Humphries, Cole Beasley, Preston Smith and then possibly Adrian Amos, Earl Thomas or LaMarcus Joyner as possibilities (among others)

[FVBrewerFan]

They absolutely need someone who can backup at LT. (Which means said player should be able to backup RT also.)

 

You can retool the offense, get Rodgers back on track, add a WR, etc. but all that is for naught if Bakhtiari goes down for any length of time. For me, that's the #1 need, only because of the Grand Canyon sized gap between the starter and plan B at a critical position. Hopefully that guy is there for one of the 1st round picks.

 

In fact, if there's a stud OG or two I wouldn't mind going OT/OG with the two first round picks. I just believe Rodgers and the other skill position players become better immediately by having a better O line.

Remember, they will have somewhere around $50M in cap space, maybe a little more if they can restructure Graham and Perry. The draft isn't the only place to source starters.

 

This draft is so deep at DL and to a slightly lesser extent OLB/Edge - and fairly weak at OT and to a lesser extent OG - that I think they go DL/OLB early because they will likely be the positions with the BPA and go the free agent route to shore up OG. There is a lot of depth in free agent OG's too, and the supply/demand could work in their favor and the better value could be OG in FA. Pass rushers and defensive linemen cost a lot more in free agency than guards.

 

I could see an OT early to (hopefully) develop for a year, but don't want to reach for one just for the sake of spending a high draft pick on an OT.

 

Oh, I agree, doesn't have to be through the draft. In fact, I will be surprised if they keep those two 1st round picks. I fully expect them to trade up and/or down with those two picks. I mentioned the draft because over the years the end of the 1st usually has O linemen left at the top of the board. And then the early 1st round pick may get them a stud OT. Use all that cap space on the defensive side of the ball, maybe a WR.

 

Don't get me wrong, just a version of how I could see it all shaking out. There will be lots of twists and turns, and you get the best players you can however you can get them.

[Point Beer Is Best]

The Packers Unrestricted Free Agents located here: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/ufa/green-bay-packers/

 

Of that list, I would want Breeland back for sure. Matthews is more of a name than anything at this point, but they are just so painfully thin at EDGE. Definitely not worth a big contract. I still like what Cobb brings to the table and would welcome him back at a good deal, but I have a feeling he will wind up where McCarthy does (sounds like NY Jets).

 

For the first time awhile, the available cap space ($50M) feels like a real number of available spending cash on outside talent, rather than knowing a sizable chunk will be consumed by impending free agents that need a big extension. That's not necessarily a good thing either; rather it's an indictment into just how bad the 2015 draft class that nobody worth a second contract remains with the team. The bright side is that they can rectify that by using the cap space to use free agency. They also have some extra draft capital (Saints pick, 4th rounder from the HHCD trade) to also potentially trade for talent.

[LouisEly]

Michael Cohen had a really good article in The Athletic about roster needs and potential FA's. Mentioned Jared Cook, Za'Darius Smith, Golden Tate, Adam Humphries, Cole Beasley, Preston Smith and then possibly Adrian Amos, Earl Thomas or LaMarcus Joyner as possibilities (among others)

Jared Cook... imagine that.

 

How much did they blow combined on Bennett and Graham?

[homer]

Michael Cohen had a really good article in The Athletic about roster needs and potential FA's. Mentioned Jared Cook, Za'Darius Smith, Golden Tate, Adam Humphries, Cole Beasley, Preston Smith and then possibly Adrian Amos, Earl Thomas or LaMarcus Joyner as possibilities (among others)

Jared Cook... imagine that.

 

How much did they blow combined on Bennett and Graham?

 

Yeah that was peak Ted.

[PeaveyFury]

To be fair, the Cook/Bennett situation was universally praised as a win for the Packers at the time.

 

Unfortunately, you shouldn't consider a player's intangibles in a vacuum, apparently. Enough said.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I think Bennett was pretty much universally known as an odd duck, but maybe there was more to his exit than we've been led to believe. Obviously he saw the need to jump ship off the SS McCarthy, and I think we learned why this season. Very much a crap move regardless.

 

Also, it isn't like Cook was a no-brainer re-sign. He was hurt for a pretty good chunk of the year, and while he showed some good chemistry with Rodgers, his career has been a pretty big tease all along. Hard to trust that he'd turn into what he has with the Raiders.

[OnTheBlack]

Michael Cohen had a really good article in The Athletic about roster needs and potential FA's. Mentioned Jared Cook, Za'Darius Smith, Golden Tate, Adam Humphries, Cole Beasley, Preston Smith and then possibly Adrian Amos, Earl Thomas or LaMarcus Joyner as possibilities (among others)

 

 

Ohh...love the idea of snagging Amos away from the Bears. Like the idea of Earl Thomas as well as he was the best player on those Seattle teams IMO. But Amos is two birds-one stone.

 

 

As for Bulaga...he is still elite...when he plays. I guess I'm just a bit weary of depending on him. If you do draft an elite tackle early on though, he can certainly play guard. And I absolutely agree we need a guy who's got the footwork to play LT. We're spoiled with Bahktari. Plus...he wasn't the type that started out great. He started out surprisingly good starting right away, but didn't look like a franchise LT. Then he just kept improving until he became the best pass blocking LT in the league(or at least among the top 2-3).

[OnTheBlack]

There were some roster building comments in the LaFleur thread, so I thought I'd make my comments over here to keep the discussions separate.

 

I'm a bit more pessimistic than most regarding the talent presently on the roster. I think the past two drafts have some potential, but you could say that about pretty much any draft just a year or two after. The stretch of drafts before that was pretty bad, with the 2015 draft in particular setting us back in a big way. We're more than just a couple pieces away, and will need to explore free agency, particularly on the defensive side, like we haven't seen since Ryan Pickett/Charles Woodson.

 

My thoughts on Offense:

QB - still a question as to whether a capable backup to Rodgers is on the roster. Kizer was a freshman at ND when LaFleur was the QB coach, so there is some familiarity there. Has this team brought in an experienced veteran (a la Ryan Fitzpatrick, Matt Schaub types) to specifically be the backup QB since Jim McMahon? The premium on roster space has limited some teams from taking the 3 QB set up (Starter, Vet Backup, developmental QB) to what GB has been trying to do now for years (Starter, developmental QB & a prayer). I will be interested to see how they approach that this year. Still a couple years early to be looking for the heir apparent to Rodgers.

 

RB - really, really like Williams & Jones tandem. I just hope LaFleur knows how to use them properly (McCarthy did not). Still room for another mid-round draft pick (maybe with return skills). LaFleur used a lot of 21 package (2 RB, 1 TE) in Tennessee but used mostly bunch formation 11 (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR) with the Rams, so he is flexible in his scheme to maximize his personnel. Haven't checked but I'm assuming LaFleur doesn't use a FB.

 

TE - They probably keep Graham around another year to see how he does in this offense, but wouldn't be surprised if they move on. But they obviously need to address this position in a big way. Tonyan intrigues me but there's really nothing on the roster to lose sleep over if they cut them loose.

 

WR - Adams, and then a lot of potential and question marks. I don't think they'll bring back Cobb unless his market never materializes. MVS and EQ both flashed some ability. Allison is coming off an injury. Moore has the same ability as Adams to separate but struggled with drops, so too early to give up on. My opinion - you spend either a first or second day pick on a WR if the value is there. It's a passing league.

 

OL - One of the premier tackle tandems. Yes, you need to draft the eventual replacement for Bulaga but there is no way I cut him loose. He is still elite, but obviously can't be counted on to start every game. But that is no reason to just cut the guy loose if his cap number is not prohibitive. Linlsey is solid. Taylor had a down year. RG was atrocious. Significant attention needs to be paid to address the current and near-future construction of the OL.

 

 

I think we all agree that we need an influx of talent. You look at teams that have those big turnarounds, the Eagles last year, the Colts, Bears, Saints....there's a lot of examples over the past few years of teams that go from the top of the draft or middle of it to being a legitimate contender, and those teams, much like this Packers team had a lot of young guys with question marks pan out. The flip side is there are teams that just continue to struggle, but I'm willfully taking an optimistic point of view. There are a few guys who could really flash this year to change the team significantly. Kevin King....he starts 16 games and I think he'll be a pro-bowler. One of the young WR'ers makes the 2nd year leap and we've got two legit, big target playmakers on the outside...and so on.

 

Most importantly though is all those teams hit big on the draft. The Colts picked up the best LB'er(arguably...Smith was pretty damn good last year) and offensive linemen in last years draft. The Colts the year before picked up a All-Pro caliber CB and a dual threat RB.

 

 

I just feel confident because I think we struggled last year because Rodgers struggled....McCarthy just got stale in GB(still a great coach, but as a number of well renowned coaches have stated, 10 years is the maximum lifespan of a coach...even greats like Knoll, Landry, Shula...had limited success after those first 10 years) . Guys just stop responding....with the exception apparently of BB in NE.

 

So I think a HC who can generate excitement and engage the players and bring creativity to the offense and Rodgers playing like he had prior to last year where he just missed too many guys for someone of his talent...and I think we're a 9-ish win team right there before any additions.

 

I think with the right additions and some aggressive moves...that could turn into a 11,12 win team and a legit contender again.

 

And I wouldn't even bother worrying about the Cap. All our contracts right now are pretty safe. If a Clowney gets to free agency, get irresponsible. Give him 6/130 with 60 guaranteed. Elite defensive players raise the level of play of the defenders they play with. Clowney doesn't have gaudy sack numbers, but he's an all around player and a dynamic one. Clowney would also free up Clark, Daniels, Lowry, hopefully Wilkerson and maybe Adams if he can continue to improve.

 

A guy like Earl Thomas could do the same in the backend.

 

These are long shots, and we also need to get lucky(King starting 16 games for example). But it takes luck to get to a SB.

[OnTheBlack]

One guy I forgot to mention as a possible target, Anthony Barr. I think he's mis-cast in Minnesota's defense and think he'd be a great fit in ours. Coming out of college, he was mentioned as a Mack like talent...and while I wouldn't suggest he is, I do think he could thrive as a LB'er in our system. Pettine using our OLB'ers in coverage more than usual in the 3-4, but I think he's got the speed, strength and bend to be a really good pass rusher. He just wasn't utilized in Zimmer's D. He's also a lot more realistic than Clowney since the Texans have 20 million more in cap room than us.

[LouisEly]

Most importantly though is all those teams hit big on the draft. The Colts picked up the best LB'er(arguably...Smith was pretty damn good last year) and offensive linemen in last years draft. The Colts the year before picked up a All-Pro caliber CB and a dual threat RB.

The Colts have had three really good drafts in a row. Not just Nelson and Leonard this year, but all but one 2018 draft pick played in a game this year and both 7th round picks (including Zaire Franklin, a guy I had mocked to the Packers in the 7th) played in all 16 games.

 

Only one 2017 draft pick has played in less than 20 games, and he's also the only player from the 2017 draft to not start at least a few games (including Nate Hairston and Anthony Walker, guys I had mocked to the Packers).

 

Only one player from their 2016 draft has played in less than 30 games, and every player from that draft has started at least one game.

 

I'd look to the Colts scouting department to poach some talent evaluators.

[OnTheBlack]

They absolutely need someone who can backup at LT. (Which means said player should be able to backup RT also.)

 

You can retool the offense, get Rodgers back on track, add a WR, etc. but all that is for naught if Bakhtiari goes down for any length of time. For me, that's the #1 need, only because of the Grand Canyon sized gap between the starter and plan B at a critical position. Hopefully that guy is there for one of the 1st round picks.

 

In fact, if there's a stud OG or two I wouldn't mind going OT/OG with the two first round picks. I just believe Rodgers and the other skill position players become better immediately by having a better O line.

Remember, they will have somewhere around $50M in cap space, maybe a little more if they can restructure Graham and Perry. The draft isn't the only place to source starters.

 

This draft is so deep at DL and to a slightly lesser extent OLB/Edge - and fairly weak at OT and to a lesser extent OG - that I think they go DL/OLB early because they will likely be the positions with the BPA and go the free agent route to shore up OG. There is a lot of depth in free agent OG's too, and the supply/demand could work in their favor and the better value could be OG in FA. Pass rushers and defensive linemen cost a lot more in free agency than guards.

 

I could see an OT early to (hopefully) develop for a year, but don't want to reach for one just for the sake of spending a high draft pick on an OT.

 

Lot of early mocks have a run on EDGE early, so if a guy like Jonah Williams is there at #12 I could see them pulling the trigger. Really like him at OT, but could be a guy they try at G just to get him into the lineup and then kick him out to RT to replace Bulaga.

 

Off topic, but I saw that the Colts will have a league-leading $122M in cap space heading into next season. They hit big in the draft in 2018 also, so they have a young core, a franchise QB already on his 2nd contract, and tons of cap space. They are set up well - and they're not even done playing yet this season. I was a HUGE fan of Quenton Nelson coming out. I knew he wouldn't last to the Packers, but was just praying he wouldn't fall to the Bears (who had just hired ND's o-line coach) because I knew he would terrorize us for the next decade. Thankfully the Colts nabbed him at 6.

 

Some kids want to see QB/RB/TE highlights - my boys ask me before bedtime to see film of Quenton Nelson mauling defenders.

 

The idea of drafting a guy like Jonah Williams isn't an "exciting" move, but the more I keep thinking about it and watching the playoffs and see the other teams best rusher constantly lining up on the left(over the RT/RG)...the more I like it. He provides depth at the tackle spots and I actually think he try him outside first and slide Bulaga inside to guard. The idea being the OL is disrupted less if you have to replace a guard due to injury and while Bulaga IS still elite and they could easily keep him at tackle...I'm just wondering when the bottom drops out on his athletic ability as a pass blocking tackle as the knee and lower leg injuries pile up.

[OnTheBlack]

Most importantly though is all those teams hit big on the draft. The Colts picked up the best LB'er(arguably...Smith was pretty damn good last year) and offensive linemen in last years draft. The Colts the year before picked up a All-Pro caliber CB and a dual threat RB.

The Colts have had three really good drafts in a row. Not just Nelson and Leonard this year, but all but one 2018 draft pick played in a game this year and both 7th round picks (including Zaire Franklin, a guy I had mocked to the Packers in the 7th) played in all 16 games.

 

Only one 2017 draft pick has played in less than 20 games, and he's also the only player from the 2017 draft to not start at least a few games (including Nate Hairston and Anthony Walker, guys I had mocked to the Packers).

 

Only one player from their 2016 draft has played in less than 30 games, and every player from that draft has started at least one game.

 

I'd look to the Colts scouting department to poach some talent evaluators.

 

All that's true, and the Saints added talent in other drafts as did the other teams. But they added two rookie all-pro starters. One draft stands out more than the others.

 

Incidentally, I said the Colts picked up a all pro caliber CB and a duel threat RB, obviously I meant the Saints with Lattimore and Kamara.

[Point Beer Is Best]

Most importantly though is all those teams hit big on the draft. The Colts picked up the best LB'er(arguably...Smith was pretty damn good last year) and offensive linemen in last years draft. The Colts the year before picked up a All-Pro caliber CB and a dual threat RB.

The Colts have had three really good drafts in a row. Not just Nelson and Leonard this year, but all but one 2018 draft pick played in a game this year and both 7th round picks (including Zaire Franklin, a guy I had mocked to the Packers in the 7th) played in all 16 games.

 

Only one 2017 draft pick has played in less than 20 games, and he's also the only player from the 2017 draft to not start at least a few games (including Nate Hairston and Anthony Walker, guys I had mocked to the Packers).

 

Only one player from their 2016 draft has played in less than 30 games, and every player from that draft has started at least one game.

 

I'd look to the Colts scouting department to poach some talent evaluators.

 

All that's true, and the Saints added talent in other drafts as did the other teams. But they added two rookie all-pro starters. One draft stands out more than the others.

 

Incidentally, I said the Colts picked up a all pro caliber CB and a duel threat RB, obviously I meant the Saints with Lattimore and Kamara.

 

The Saints also picked up Ryan Ramczyk in that same draft. Before that draft, they had been playing .500 football for a few years, then had a resurgence last year largely fueled by their 2017 draft class. By the way, they had 2 1st round picks that year (#11 and #32 - eerily similar to the Packers in 2019 having #12 and TBD pick 30-32):

 

#11 - Lattimore

#32 - Ramczyk

#42 - Marcus Williams

#67 - Alvin Kamara

 

That's FOUR starters in their first 4 picks. And above average starters at that. That's the kind of draft the Packers need to have if they want to see a quick rebound.

[CheezWizHed]

Similar to 2009 when the Packers drafted Raji (9), Matthews (26) and Lang (109) with their first three picks. Followed by 2010 with Bulaga (23), Neal (56) and Burnett (71), not to mention Super Bowl star Starks (193). Granted, I don't remember Neal doing much his rookie year and Burnett tore his ACL.

[OnTheBlack]

 

The Saints also picked up Ryan Ramczyk in that same draft. Before that draft, they had been playing .500 football for a few years, then had a resurgence last year largely fueled by their 2017 draft class. By the way, they had 2 1st round picks that year (#11 and #32 - eerily similar to the Packers in 2019 having #12 and TBD pick 30-32):

 

#11 - Lattimore

#32 - Ramczyk

#42 - Marcus Williams

#67 - Alvin Kamara

 

That's FOUR starters in their first 4 picks. And above average starters at that. That's the kind of draft the Packers need to have if they want to see a quick rebound.

 

 

Yes, exactly. I had forgotten about Ramczyk. I know he's been a starter and hasn't been bad, but I really haven't followed the Saints close enough to know just how good he's been. Can you give me an idea? Those drafts are rare, but...what the heck, if the Packers are gonna win another SB, they're gonna need some good luck.

 

Quick turnarounds though are hardly a rare thing in the NFL. How many years was it that the NFC East had a team go worst to 1st? The Saints went through pretty much the same type of relatively "lean years" when Brees was the age Rodgers is now.

 

The Taysom Hill move sucks for the Packers, but man...he's been amazing for the Saints. 3 4th down fakes he's converted, he nearly had a 46 yard TD catch(Brees missed him) and then came back and hit Kamara on a 46 yarder that would have been a TD had it not been called back. Plus the punt blocks he's had. Not sure he'd have been really used as a Packer though...

 

There's a long way to go, but there is more to look forward to on this team than I think most believe.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

 

The Saints also picked up Ryan Ramczyk in that same draft. Before that draft, they had been playing .500 football for a few years, then had a resurgence last year largely fueled by their 2017 draft class. By the way, they had 2 1st round picks that year (#11 and #32 - eerily similar to the Packers in 2019 having #12 and TBD pick 30-32):

 

#11 - Lattimore

#32 - Ramczyk

#42 - Marcus Williams

#67 - Alvin Kamara

 

That's FOUR starters in their first 4 picks. And above average starters at that. That's the kind of draft the Packers need to have if they want to see a quick rebound.

 

 

Yes, exactly. I had forgotten about Ramczyk. I know he's been a starter and hasn't been bad, but I really haven't followed the Saints close enough to know just how good he's been. Can you give me an idea? Those drafts are rare, but...what the heck, if the Packers are gonna win another SB, they're gonna need some good luck.

 

Quick turnarounds though are hardly a rare thing in the NFL. How many years was it that the NFC East had a team go worst to 1st? The Saints went through pretty much the same type of relatively "lean years" when Brees was the age Rodgers is now.

 

The Taysom Hill move sucks for the Packers, but man...he's been amazing for the Saints. 3 4th down fakes he's converted, he nearly had a 46 yard TD catch(Brees missed him) and then came back and hit Kamara on a 46 yarder that would have been a TD had it not been called back. Plus the punt blocks he's had. Not sure he'd have been really used as a Packer though...

 

There's a long way to go, but there is more to look forward to on this team than I think most believe.

 

There is no way McCarthy had the creativity needed in oder to find an effective use for Hill. That sucks, but it is what it is. McCarthy didn't see value in hanging on to a 27-year-old rookie as his developmental QB.

 

Speaking of backup QBs, it's time to finally grab a decent one. Enough of the Hundleys and Kizers of the world. Go out and get a guy that stands a chance of moving the offense if Rodgers goes down.

[Jenkins5]

Boyle is the future! One of those 90s Brunell, Hassellback, Brooks guys.... feel it

[CheezWizHed]

McCarthy didn't see value in hanging on to a 27-year-old rookie as his developmental QB.

 

I don't think this is true. I think they felt comfortable (MM & TT) with stashing Hill on the PS for a year and keeping 2 QBs as was their norm at the time. I think everyone was pretty shocked that Hill was claimed immediately.

 

Frankly, Boyle makes me think of Hill (at least the ball he throws) with less of the scramble option. But I do think Boyle will be decent. He has a nice arm.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

McCarthy didn't see value in hanging on to a 27-year-old rookie as his developmental QB.

 

I don't think this is true. I think they felt comfortable (MM & TT) with stashing Hill on the PS for a year and keeping 2 QBs as was their norm at the time. I think everyone was pretty shocked that Hill was claimed immediately.

 

Frankly, Boyle makes me think of Hill (at least the ball he throws) with less of the scramble option. But I do think Boyle will be decent. He has a nice arm.

 

Hill had a terrific preseason, and there was a lot of talk at cutdown time that he'd likely be claimed if cut. He looked substantially better than Hundley and Callahan. I guess I should have prefaced my comment to say that McCarthy didn't see value in hanging onto a 27-year-old rookie on the active roster as his developmental QB. I know that hindsignt is 20/20, but given the dearth of solid backup QB talent in the NFL, that was a clear, clear miss.

[HiAndTight]

 

The Saints also picked up Ryan Ramczyk in that same draft. Before that draft, they had been playing .500 football for a few years, then had a resurgence last year largely fueled by their 2017 draft class. By the way, they had 2 1st round picks that year (#11 and #32 - eerily similar to the Packers in 2019 having #12 and TBD pick 30-32):

 

#11 - Lattimore

#32 - Ramczyk

#42 - Marcus Williams

#67 - Alvin Kamara

 

That's FOUR starters in their first 4 picks. And above average starters at that. That's the kind of draft the Packers need to have if they want to see a quick rebound.

 

 

Yes, exactly. I had forgotten about Ramczyk. I know he's been a starter and hasn't been bad, but I really haven't followed the Saints close enough to know just how good he's been. Can you give me an idea? Those drafts are rare, but...what the heck, if the Packers are gonna win another SB, they're gonna need some good luck.

 

Quick turnarounds though are hardly a rare thing in the NFL. How many years was it that the NFC East had a team go worst to 1st? The Saints went through pretty much the same type of relatively "lean years" when Brees was the age Rodgers is now.

 

The Taysom Hill move sucks for the Packers, but man...he's been amazing for the Saints. 3 4th down fakes he's converted, he nearly had a 46 yard TD catch(Brees missed him) and then came back and hit Kamara on a 46 yarder that would have been a TD had it not been called back. Plus the punt blocks he's had. Not sure he'd have been really used as a Packer though...

 

There's a long way to go, but there is more to look forward to on this team than I think most believe.

 

There is no way McCarthy had the creativity needed in oder to find an effective use for Hill. That sucks, but it is what it is. McCarthy didn't see value in hanging on to a 27-year-old rookie as his developmental QB.

 

Speaking of backup QBs, it's time to finally grab a decent one. Enough of the Hundleys and Kizers of the world. Go out and get a guy that stands a chance of moving the offense if Rodgers goes down.

 

 

I don't think it's even close to being fair to say that Kizer isn't that guy. Not if you're talking about a backup. The guy was likely going to be a 1st round draft pick had he played another year for ND. He went to Cleveleand and looks awful, but so did everyone before the current regime took over. And last year he struggled in short stints, but so did everyone else. Even Rodgers struggled last year....relative expectations.

 

He's got as much talent as anyone they've had in a long time.

 

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this one, but I'd like to see the guy actually be able to stick around and learn an offense and actually develop before getting rid of him.

[HiAndTight]

McCarthy didn't see value in hanging on to a 27-year-old rookie as his developmental QB.

 

I don't think this is true. I think they felt comfortable (MM & TT) with stashing Hill on the PS for a year and keeping 2 QBs as was their norm at the time. I think everyone was pretty shocked that Hill was claimed immediately.

 

Frankly, Boyle makes me think of Hill (at least the ball he throws) with less of the scramble option. But I do think Boyle will be decent. He has a nice arm.

 

Hill had a terrific preseason, and there was a lot of talk at cutdown time that he'd likely be claimed if cut. He looked substantially better than Hundley and Callahan. I guess I should have prefaced my comment to say that McCarthy didn't see value in hanging onto a 27-year-old rookie on the active roster as his developmental QB. I know that hindsignt is 20/20, but given the dearth of solid backup QB talent in the NFL, that was a clear, clear miss.

 

 

He did look great that pre-season. And looking at his measurables, he was even more impressive. But keep in mind even in NO, he's not really being groomed at QB. If they really thought he was that impressive, they wouldn't have sent a 3rd rounder to get Teddy Bridgewater when they were already short on draft capital.

 

That said, I thought he was almost a Tebow type QB before he made a throw in the 4th pre-season game(maybe it was the 3rd). He started to take off, then threw a 30 yard strike while running to a WR'er coming open over the middle in the Endzone. That was a helluva impressive play. Really showed off his great arm strength. Prior to that it was primarily his scrambling and running ability that helped him keep drives alive.

 

Still, can't fault the Packers too much for trying to slip him past waivers. People seem to forget how good Hundley had looked in the Pre-season....so good people were talking about the Packers parlaying that into a potential 2nd round pick in the future.

 

 

I think the bigger problem was that the Packers tried to plug in Hundley, then Kizer into the QB position on a team where the QB had to be nearly flawless in order to win games and just put too much on them. Couple that with a banged up OL when Hundley came in and a porous defense and I don't think many backup's had much of a chance.

 

 

Boyle looks like he could still develop into something, but I think the backup QB position is a secondary concern. If Rodgers goes down for an extended period of time, they're done anyway. Now if they can shore up an already solid OL even more and get another weapon for him, a quick slot, or a TE like Fant who can be a reliable security blanket for a young QB AND they can get a defense that isn't just terrible...maybe one of these backup's can keep them afloat for a short stretch if Arod misses a couple weeks.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I don't think it's even close to being fair to say that Kizer isn't that guy. Not if you're talking about a backup. The guy was likely going to be a 1st round draft pick had he played another year for ND. He went to Cleveleand and looks awful, but so did everyone before the current regime took over. And last year he struggled in short stints, but so did everyone else. Even Rodgers struggled last year....relative expectations.

 

He's got as much talent as anyone they've had in a long time.

 

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this one, but I'd like to see the guy actually be able to stick around and learn an offense and actually develop before getting rid of him.

 

I don't know. To me it seems like they simply replaced Hundley with a younger, more contractually-controllable version of Hundley. Maybe there is something there with Kizer that can be unlocked, but right now based on his time with the Browns and the albeit very small sample we saw of him in the preseason and regular season, he's an athletically gifted QB who looks like he's in way over his head in the mental part of the game. He's still very young, though, so that may improve. It didn't with Hundley, though.

[HiAndTight]

 

There is no way McCarthy had the creativity needed in oder to find an effective use for Hill. That sucks, but it is what it is. McCarthy didn't see value in hanging on to a 27-year-old rookie as his developmental QB.

 

Speaking of backup QBs, it's time to finally grab a decent one. Enough of the Hundleys and Kizers of the world. Go out and get a guy that stands a chance of moving the offense if Rodgers goes down.

 

I agree, McCarthy likely wouldn't have even had Hill active on gamedays had he kept a 3rd QB that year, much less having him on the punt block team, playing QB in a almost wildcat type scheme, playing TE, RB, Gunner and everything else that he does. Of course there's probably only a couple Coaches who would have done that. Again though, do you think you do that with a guy you believe is a viable starting QB if someone goes down?

 

 

Doesn't diminish the "what could have been's" when watching him play for the Saints though.

 

 

Incidentally, on that 4th down fake punt on their own 30 down 14-0 vs the Eagles, it was a duo of LB'ers from Kimberly and Wisc Rapids who were his lead blockers. AJ Klein and Vince Biegal. Payton seems to be one of those very rare guys who doesn't get stale. Of course that's not what Saints fans were saying when they had three straight 7 win seasons just a few years ago.

[HiAndTight]

I don't think it's even close to being fair to say that Kizer isn't that guy. Not if you're talking about a backup. The guy was likely going to be a 1st round draft pick had he played another year for ND. He went to Cleveleand and looks awful, but so did everyone before the current regime took over. And last year he struggled in short stints, but so did everyone else. Even Rodgers struggled last year....relative expectations.

 

He's got as much talent as anyone they've had in a long time.

 

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this one, but I'd like to see the guy actually be able to stick around and learn an offense and actually develop before getting rid of him.

 

I don't know. To me it seems like they simply replaced Hundley with a younger, more contractually-controllable version of Hundley. Maybe there is something there with Kizer that can be unlocked, but right now based on his time with the Browns and the albeit very small sample we saw of him in the preseason and regular season, he's an athletically gifted QB who looks like he's in way over his head in the mental part of the game. He's still very young, though, so that may improve. It didn't with Hundley, though.

 

 

He does absolutely look like he's in way over his head. But given the complexities of playing the position and given that he doesn't get first string reps, AND that he's had 4 different offensive systems in 4 years, I think that's to be expected. I think the NFL ruins too many talented QB's a number of ways.

 

If he were given a chance to sit for a couple years behind Rodgers and work with a good QB coach like Rodgers had with Clement and McCarthy, I think he'd be a very capable NFL QB. He's certainly not there yet, but I don't think anyone they draft is going to be at this point given that they'd likely be drafting that QB in the middle rounds.

 

We're certainly not going to be looking for the heir apparent to Arod at this point given that he's made no secret of his desire to play into his 40's(or at least through the age of 40 more recently). I wouldn't be looking to use a top pick on a QB for another 2-3 years at least. So until then you're just looking for a backup. I still believe Kizer can be that guy.

 

Though I certainly understand why people would disagree with that opinion given his performacne to date.