Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 04:35

Drj820 wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022 19:51

Yoop wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022 19:31

thanks, that slipped my mind, I think we've let others go early in the past for the same reason, great PR, why keep a player around who wont make this team, but could make another if given time to prove himself.

I still think the NFL as a whole screws themselves by not grooming more QB, if I was in charge every team would get a free roster spot just to do that, most important position in the game, yet your penalized for grooming them, that seems so cart before the horse thinking,

Most of the nfl knows if a guy needs 3+ years to be “groomed” it is very rare that he would every be anything more than “not awful” at the position, and organizations know they need better than that to win Super Bowls. It’s a waste of time and resources to keep everyone with a pulse around in hopes they can become a star Qb In 4 years time

I just brought a list of about 20 QB's that took over 5 years to become a top 10 QB, many of the bust are the result of shattered confidence because they where forced into prime time to early, look at Foles, average, then got hot, won a SB, it is almost impossible to see a star coming, specially at that position, so no I don't agree that most teams can tell exactly how good a QB can be , was it a waste of resources to groom Rodgers for 3 years? was Thompson even at that point convinced he had a star in Rodgers, obviously not, he used a high pick on Brohm and a late one on another as insurance, it's why I defend Love when people say he's a bust, he may end up being one, most are, but there is no way anyone can be sure of that at this point

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 04:35

Drj820 wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022 19:51

Yoop wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022 19:31

thanks, that slipped my mind, I think we've let others go early in the past for the same reason, great PR, why keep a player around who wont make this team, but could make another if given time to prove himself.

I still think the NFL as a whole screws themselves by not grooming more QB, if I was in charge every team would get a free roster spot just to do that, most important position in the game, yet your penalized for grooming them, that seems so cart before the horse thinking,

Most of the nfl knows if a guy needs 3+ years to be “groomed” it is very rare that he would every be anything more than “not awful” at the position, and organizations know they need better than that to win Super Bowls. It’s a waste of time and resources to keep everyone with a pulse around in hopes they can become a star Qb In 4 years time

I just brought a list of about 20 QB's that took over 5 years to become a top 10 QB, many of the bust are the result of shattered confidence because they where forced into prime time to early, look at Foles, average, then got hot, won a SB, it is almost impossible to see a star coming, specially at that position, so no I don't agree that most teams can tell exactly how good a QB can be , was it a waste of resources to groom Rodgers for 3 years? was Thompson even at that point convinced he had a star in Rodgers, obviously not, he used a high pick on Brohm and a late one on another as insurance, it's why I defend Love when people say he's a bust, he may end up being one, most are, but there is no way anyone can be sure of that at this point

The situation is a lot different for deep backups like Benkert, than for QBs who are getting groomed to start like Love. I do agree one should give a talented guy time to develop. Some take a frustratingly long time to become NFL -ready, some never do, even if you put resources into that development.

Where the NFL has a REAL problem is that there is currently no way to get enough reps for QBs 3 or 4 to develop. They get a volume of snaps only at voluntary spring activities, and even then only if the vet QBs skip the voluntary stuff.

During camp and the season, most reps at practice, especially the team period ones, go to the starter with the first backup taking up almost all the rest. A QB like Benkert can basically only develop in the classroom, perhaps physically in the weight room and mechanically throwing to practice squad guys. But as far as team drills, there won't be enough to develop things like anticipation, blitz awareness and reading coverages. It's like trying to learn to drive rally from the backseat (if rally cars had a back seat ).

Thus once Benkert mastered his knowledge of the system, and it became obvious he won't be QB 1 or 2, it doesn't really matter for the Packers where Benkert goes and trains. He said this himself. In an emergency, the Packers can call him up any time. Meanwhile they can give someone else a tryout in the lottery ticket case they find a deep buried gem.

I think the young QB 3 -types (also late bloomers at other positions, and position switch cases) suffer the most from there being no farm- or developmental league. Live reps even vs lesser competition, and starter's practice reps with pro coaching would be WAY superior when compared with the scraps of reps they get as deep NFL backups.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 06:01

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 04:35

Drj820 wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022 19:51

Most of the nfl knows if a guy needs 3+ years to be “groomed” it is very rare that he would every be anything more than “not awful” at the position, and organizations know they need better than that to win Super Bowls. It’s a waste of time and resources to keep everyone with a pulse around in hopes they can become a star Qb In 4 years time

I just brought a list of about 20 QB's that took over 5 years to become a top 10 QB, many of the bust are the result of shattered confidence because they where forced into prime time to early, look at Foles, average, then got hot, won a SB, it is almost impossible to see a star coming, specially at that position, so no I don't agree that most teams can tell exactly how good a QB can be , was it a waste of resources to groom Rodgers for 3 years? was Thompson even at that point convinced he had a star in Rodgers, obviously not, he used a high pick on Brohm and a late one on another as insurance, it's why I defend Love when people say he's a bust, he may end up being one, most are, but there is no way anyone can be sure of that at this point

The situation is a lot different for deep backups like Benkert, than for QBs who are getting groomed to start like Love. I do agree one should give a talented guy time to develop. Some take a frustratingly long time to become NFL -ready, some never do, even if you put resources into that development.

Where the NFL has a REAL problem is that there is currently no way to get enough reps for QBs 3 or 4 to develop. They get a volume of snaps only at voluntary spring activities, and even then only if the vet QBs skip the voluntary stuff.

During camp and the season, most reps at practice, especially the team period ones, go to the starter with the first backup taking up almost all the rest. A QB like Benkert can basically only develop in the classroom, perhaps physically in the weight room and mechanically throwing to practice squad guys. But as far as team drills, there won't be enough to develop things like anticipation, blitz awareness and reading coverages. It's like trying to learn to drive rally from the backseat (if rally cars had a back seat ).

Thus once Benkert mastered his knowledge of the system, and it became obvious he won't be QB 1 or 2, it doesn't really matter for the Packers where Benkert goes and trains. He said this himself. In an emergency, the Packers can call him up any time. Meanwhile they can give someone else a tryout in the lottery ticket case they find a deep buried gem.

I think the young QB 3 -types (also late bloomers at other positions, and position switch cases) suffer the most from there being no farm- or developmental league. Live reps even vs lesser competition, and starter's practice reps with pro coaching would be WAY superior when compared with the scraps of reps they get as deep NFL backups.

I think often it comes down to the relationship with the teacher, and schemes used, we often ( with almost any position, not just QB) see a player will struggle through his whole rookie contract, go to a new team and blossom almost immediately, as though someone flipped a switch, imo that has as much to do with personal relationship to teacher as it does anything else.

we have heard this from players before, this coach or that one will give credit to a coach for resercting there career.

agree, the nfl needs a better farm system, problem is paying for it, the USFL went bankrupt, same with every other one, and basically it doesn't seem like the league acually cares, it's not as though these owners don't have the profits to support a couple more roster spots to groom QB's, And Sal there is this thing called osmosis, simply being around those that are your betters will and does rub off, obviously action under live fire is best, but ya still learn how to load the gun, so to speak, ya learn and and create muscle memory grooving in better tech skills, basically if you only get to play with the biggies a little each season, adding in a couple more seasons of it can't be a bad thing.

I also blame the players union, just look how convoluted the pay scale is, obviously the best players in the league want all the money, that doesn't mean ya have to give it to them, put a cap on player contracts accordingly, and use the money for not only less talented players and there welfare and the surplus could go to grooming QB's, greed is ruining the sport.

think about it, these big player contract demands do basically only one thing, prove personal value, but in reality they don't, and typically only last a very short time, supply economics insures the cost will increase, create a larger supply and they decrease, having more quality QB's seems like a smart way to do it,

just rambling

It is unfortunate they can't make a farm system work.

Teams have 90 man rosters already. So you could easily get 50 players on a current team to play some farm system games in mid-March to late April.

I know football is more expensive than baseball. But finding stadiums where the local fans actually care about their teams (like a Packers farm team is in Wisconsin and Vikings farm team is in Mankato or Sioux Falls), making the league very low cost (cheap stadiums, cheap tickets, cheap salaries because the players are already being paid to be on a 90 man roster anyway). Shoot. shorten the game to 10 minute quarters. Also make sure any weather related areas play in a college dome.

I just feel like it could work better than the USFL. You need some consistency and comraderie that the USFL just can't have. You also need pride or a reason to root for your farm team and using current bottom 50 players would do that. It would at least attract the die-hard fans which would work in a 10,000 seat stadium.

With the reduction of TC and preseason, something needs to be done for development. But it hasn't ever worked before for a reason. So I'm not getting my hopes up.

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 04:35

Drj820 wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022 19:51

Yoop wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022 19:31

thanks, that slipped my mind, I think we've let others go early in the past for the same reason, great PR, why keep a player around who wont make this team, but could make another if given time to prove himself.

I still think the NFL as a whole screws themselves by not grooming more QB, if I was in charge every team would get a free roster spot just to do that, most important position in the game, yet your penalized for grooming them, that seems so cart before the horse thinking,

Most of the nfl knows if a guy needs 3+ years to be “groomed” it is very rare that he would every be anything more than “not awful” at the position, and organizations know they need better than that to win Super Bowls. It’s a waste of time and resources to keep everyone with a pulse around in hopes they can become a star Qb In 4 years time

I just brought a list of about 20 QB's that took over 5 years to become a top 10 QB, many of the bust are the result of shattered confidence because they where forced into prime time to early, look at Foles, average, then got hot, won a SB, it is almost impossible to see a star coming, specially at that position, so no I don't agree that most teams can tell exactly how good a QB can be , was it a waste of resources to groom Rodgers for 3 years? was Thompson even at that point convinced he had a star in Rodgers, obviously not, he used a high pick on Brohm and a late one on another as insurance, it's why I defend Love when people say he's a bust, he may end up being one, most are, but there is no way anyone can be sure of that at this point

i must have missed the list of guys that sat 3+ years and became top 10 QBs as starters. I know Rodgers is one, I think Steve Young, kurt warner. These are not only outliers, they also were a picture of how the game worked 20+ years ago. Guys come in much more ready to play these days. Anyways, I would love to be pointed to where I can view this list of 20 players who sat for 3+ years and became top 10 QBs, thanks.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 08:08

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 04:35

Drj820 wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022 19:51

Most of the nfl knows if a guy needs 3+ years to be “groomed” it is very rare that he would every be anything more than “not awful” at the position, and organizations know they need better than that to win Super Bowls. It’s a waste of time and resources to keep everyone with a pulse around in hopes they can become a star Qb In 4 years time

I just brought a list of about 20 QB's that took over 5 years to become a top 10 QB, many of the bust are the result of shattered confidence because they where forced into prime time to early, look at Foles, average, then got hot, won a SB, it is almost impossible to see a star coming, specially at that position, so no I don't agree that most teams can tell exactly how good a QB can be , was it a waste of resources to groom Rodgers for 3 years? was Thompson even at that point convinced he had a star in Rodgers, obviously not, he used a high pick on Brohm and a late one on another as insurance, it's why I defend Love when people say he's a bust, he may end up being one, most are, but there is no way anyone can be sure of that at this point

i must have missed the list of guys that sat 3+ years and became top 10 QBs as starters. I know Rodgers is one, I think Steve Young, kurt warner. These are not only outliers, they also were a picture of how the game worked 20+ years ago. Guys come in much more ready to play these days. Anyways, I would love to be pointed to where I can view this list of 20 players who sat for 3+ years and became top 10 QBs, thanks.

I chopped it from my book marks, and not sure how I worded my goggle search to find it, just take my word for it, you know I'd never lie about anything this important (kidding) I'll try later today when I have a little more free time, at the moment I'am strangling my ex wife

go pak go wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 07:33

It is unfortunate they can't make a farm system work.

Teams have 90 man rosters already. So you could easily get 50 players on a current team to play some farm system games in mid-March to late April.

I know football is more expensive than baseball. But finding stadiums where the local fans actually care about their teams (like a Packers farm team is in Wisconsin and Vikings farm team is in Mankato or Sioux Falls), making the league very low cost (cheap stadiums, cheap tickets, cheap salaries because the players are already being paid to be on a 90 man roster anyway). Shoot. shorten the game to 10 minute quarters. Also make sure any weather related areas play in a college dome.

I just feel like it could work better than the USFL. You need some consistency and comraderie that the USFL just can't have. You also need pride or a reason to root for your farm team and using current bottom 50 players would do that. It would at least attract the die-hard fans which would work in a 10,000 seat stadium.

With the reduction of TC and preseason, something needs to be done for development. But it hasn't ever worked before for a reason. So I'm not getting my hopes up.

you are basically talking about a league of games exactly like preseason games after the first quarter. Although I would probably watch due to the guys actually being a part of the Packers org with a chance to play if a position group gets decimated by injuries...the fact is, most of these guys are just bodies. And bodies grow on trees. Bodies are needed, but these bodies are never expected to "develop" into a starter for the most part unless they are like rookies. And the guys that are expected to develop into something, they get reps on scout team in regular practice.

Point being, these arent guys that just need more reps to become every down players in the league. These are guys that either have the talent and dont work hard enough, or work crazy hard but lack the measurables. Either way, the guys identified as having a future of helping the team are getting prepared to do that in the current system, so all the effort to pull off a development league is just not worth it to the org. The ROI is just not there.

Here is how I would do a farm system.

Have 32 teams. I know it's a lot of teams but one team for each NFL team. I like this most because you will have the best chance at attracting the die hard fans. And that's who you are targeting. If you split it down to 16 teams, the only way I could see this work is you have a "partnership" with a team in the opposite conference. Maybe partner them with like a North and South team so you have flexibility with the weather.

Only play in small stadiums. This keeps the cost low and also provides an "intimate" setting for die-hard fans to get to know their players before they make it big.

Make the tickets cheap. $20 a ticket and kids are free.

Broadcast the games on NFL Network and NFL Gamepass. This gives the NFL Network more content during a low time and also doesn't put pressure on large views for network television (because you won't get it)

Each team is a roster of 50 players. You can "IR" someone at-will to replace the 50 man roster but that "IR'd" player still counts on your 90 man roster. Each player gets a small salary but largely the same as they are already an employee of the team. Say $50k to $100k for each player. This makes payroll burden rate still less than $5 million per team. But the bonus is also additional compensation for fringe roster guys and incentive to spend 2 - 3 months making that money.

Coaches in this league are comprised of coordinators and position coaches already on the team. This allows the position coaches to intimately work with lower end players and also gives play calling opportunities to those who don't normally get it. Here too, give the coaches a bump in pay. Lower level coaches especially don't make much so an extra $50k for a couple months of work is huge.

The season is 6 games and played on weekends. Season starts early March and roster is comprised of players on futures contracts and players already under contract with the NFL team. You play your division opponents once and the other 3 games are comprised of conference opponents. The playoffs is 3 rounds and single elimination. Division winners advance to the playoffs only. No game is ever on a neutral site; including championship game.

Now is it financially viable?

50 players at roughly $100k burden rate per player is $5 million. Add another $500k in coaches and personnel cost and another $500k in operations cost and you probably need to generate $6 to $10 million in revenue per team to break even. At-stadium revenue is peanuts. Probably looking at $250k of ticket revenue max when considering suites tickets are more expensive. So figure anywhere from $500k to $1MM in ticket and gameday revenue during the season. That means another $5 million of revenue needs to come from external sources for each team.

This is a tall ask when your audience is super small (I think you figure 5,000 fans or so at each game). There is opportunity for more taylor-made sponsorship deals but the reality is farm systems for football teams is always really, really hard because of the size of the roster. Perhaps a 36 man roster with the shorter game makes more sense to reduce your expenses. Yes players have to "play more" but if the game is shorter and the point is for providing opportunity to everyone, maybe a 36 man roster is more ideal. 17 defense, 17 offense and a punter and kicker. This way each position group essentially gets a "reserve" player.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 08:37

go pak go wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 07:33

It is unfortunate they can't make a farm system work.

Teams have 90 man rosters already. So you could easily get 50 players on a current team to play some farm system games in mid-March to late April.

I know football is more expensive than baseball. But finding stadiums where the local fans actually care about their teams (like a Packers farm team is in Wisconsin and Vikings farm team is in Mankato or Sioux Falls), making the league very low cost (cheap stadiums, cheap tickets, cheap salaries because the players are already being paid to be on a 90 man roster anyway). Shoot. shorten the game to 10 minute quarters. Also make sure any weather related areas play in a college dome.

I just feel like it could work better than the USFL. You need some consistency and comraderie that the USFL just can't have. You also need pride or a reason to root for your farm team and using current bottom 50 players would do that. It would at least attract the die-hard fans which would work in a 10,000 seat stadium.

With the reduction of TC and preseason, something needs to be done for development. But it hasn't ever worked before for a reason. So I'm not getting my hopes up.

you are basically talking about a league of games exactly like preseason games after the first quarter. Although I would probably watch due to the guys actually being a part of the Packers org with a chance to play if a position group gets decimated by injuries...the fact is, most of these guys are just bodies. And bodies grow on trees. Bodies are needed, but these bodies are never expected to "develop" into a starter for the most part unless they are like rookies. And the guys that are expected to develop into something, they get reps on scout team in regular practice.

Point being, these arent guys that just need more reps to become every down players in the league. These are guys that either have the talent and dont work hard enough, or work crazy hard but lack the measurables. Either way, the guys identified as having a future of helping the team are getting prepared to do that in the current system, so all the effort to pull off a development league is just not worth it to the org. The ROI is just not there.

I strongly disagree. The opportunity for bottom players is almost non-existent in the NFL. There are like 8 training camp practices with limited contact. Each practice is 90 to 120 minutes and then you have 3 preseason games where the players don't play together at all and are expected to work as a cohesive group with 1 to 2 quarters of playing time maximum per game.

This provides incredibly little opportunity of snaps for fringe guys. So yes. I strongly believe the league misses a lot of players because of this.

Now I also will accept that college is essentially the development league and that makes sense. But there is football value in a development league. Spring leagues are tried all the time which means people think there is a demand for it, but striking that right business model of actually getting eyeballs and dollars into the league is something nobody has mastered other than the NFL and NCAA. Football leagues are really challenging because roster sizes are 3 to 4 times larger and therefore more expensive.

The ROI on actual football development for players and coaches would be there. But the risk of injury and lack of revenue compared to the sheer cost because of large amounts of personnel required is usually not there. And that is why spring football never succeeds.

NFL Europe, except not in Europe...

I used to be all for developmental leagues. The truth is they aren’t very profitable. A lot of teams report net losses in the G league and minor leagues.

The NFL is all about making money. I highly doubt most owners want to take a hit for providing a better product in the NFL. Right now you likely have a “if it ain’t broke” mentality with the NFL owners.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 11:10

I used to be all for developmental leagues. The truth is they aren’t very profitable. A lot of teams report net losses in the G league and minor leagues.

The NFL is all about making money. I highly doubt most owners want to take a hit for providing a better product in the NFL. Right now you likely have a “if it ain’t broke” mentality with the NFL owners.

That's a shame, though. There have to some ways, some already noted in this thread, to keep costs ultra-low and make this feasible. If the end product is a better product, owners are not going to shy away from doing this, but sadly, I agree, they aren't going to fund it if it cannot operate out of the red.

another issue is teams would basically have to field two completely separate teams within their 90 man rosters. There would be probably 50 guys on a 90 man roster that would NEVER play on this jv team, and then out of the other 40 you would need a full team, full of backups for the JV team at each position. This would really mess up how teams currently fill out their 90 man rosters.

I wouldn't say there is a need for 32 development league teams. Cut that in half at least and go with 16 teams. That's the bottom 30 of all the NFL team's rosters that would play on these teams, the guys not likely to make the 53.

It "worked" for 16 years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Europe

16 teams makes more sense from a cost standpoint. No question.

Where I think the NFL Europe got it wrong was there seemed to be no method of player affiliation to any specific team (but keep in mind I was young) and you ended up with a bunch of rando's in a foreign country.

As a fan, I will only be interested in a farm league if all my Packers are on the same team (so I have a team to actively root for).

If you have to drop it to 16 teams that is fine. I think doing a partnership with a North and South team across conferences makes sense. That way your March games are played in the south and April games are played in the North.

But keep your stadiums small and go to markets that don't get big events.

I have always wanted one, but understand the challenges and why one never succeeds. But I would love it as a fan.

[mention]go pak go[/mention] NFC team paired with an AFC team. Play in small college stadiums or even large HS stadiums. I think it would be pretty cool.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 11:26

I wouldn't say there is a need for 32 development league teams. Cut that in half at least and go with 16 teams. That's the bottom 30 of all the NFL team's rosters that would play on these teams, the guys not likely to make the 53.

It "worked" for 16 years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Europe

thanks for the link, American fans are over run with sports, it's to the point of saturation over load, nfl football goes 7.5 months full time, not to mention all the extras like the combine and the draft, ota's and minni camps, then BB, Hockey and the baseball season, plus if ya got some half grown rug rats your into every sport they compete in, so who has the time and money to support or attend a off shoot league.

maybe with every team now forced to play in Europe interest there will perk up enough for a league startup there, but I wouldn't expect the NFL to foot that bill, Europeans will have to do that.

We aren't talking about it being in Europe, we are talking about it being in the US.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 11:52

@go pak go NFC team paired with an AFC team. Play in small college stadiums or even large HS stadiums. I think it would be pretty cool.

Exactly. Any team the Packers, Vikings, Bears are affiliated with will crush it. If you partner an NFC North Team with an AFC South team (or Miami)...you will get the Wisconsin/Minnesota snowbirds in the South for your March games and then Wisconsin/Minnesota fans in the north in your nicer April games.

There are markets that it just won't work. Your California teams won't go because they hardly go to regular season games. There is too much going on in big markets. But your midwest teams would eat it up and the cost of playing there is a lot cheaper.

Like if the Vikings/Jaguars played the Packers/Dolphins in a South Dakota stadium (we have high school stadiums and two large college stadiums with one being a dome)...I guarantee you it would be a sell out. Again, keep the stadiums small but half the league would be really successful. I guarantee a game in some Wisconsin town would be sold out too as long as the day is nice.

Now a Lions/Texans team maybe wouldn't be as successful, but I still think if you have two games in a small stadium in a state once a year....your die-hards will show up.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 12:00

We aren't talking about it being in Europe, we are talking about it being in the US.

No he's meaning there's a rule where basically every team has to play in Europe within a handful of years in the regular season because of that "17th" game.