Packers Huddle

Drj820 wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 08:18

there would be nothing funnier in the whole big wide world to me than trubinsky coming to GB and us turning him into a winner. Bears fans wanted to believe in him for so long, and then they gave up. Proving it was Nagy that ruined him as Lafluer resurrects him would just be amazing.

That would be the only reason why I would want him.

That would be so, so funny to see Truby and Amos as All Pro's.

texas wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 03:41

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 03:05

texas wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 00:14

I like Carr. I don't know if I'm the one who started the talk of him, but he's a guy I'd like in case Rodgers doesn't return. I've considered him underrated for years.

Here's another name: Trubisky.

In hindsight, Trubisky was probably a top 15 QB in Chicago, because he took that sorry-ass team to the playoffs multiple times. It was just last season that Chicago won most of the games he started and lost most of the games he didn't start. The narrative was that they won in spite of him due to their talented HC, but now we can see that it was more likely that they won in spite of their moron HC due to their underrated QB.

It has been described to me that Trubisky was never used appropriately in Chicago. He's a mobile threat. He's clearly better than Justin Fields (who I am saying will go down as Geno Smith at best and Dwayne Haskins at worst). It would be doubly awesome to win with him after those idiots to the south kicked him to the curb.

I would actually be in favor of bringing him in regardless of whether Rodgers retires or not, but I suspect with this abysmal offseason for QBs, he will get a chance to go somewhere where he will have a chance to start.

What would Trubisky give you that Mariota wouldn't? Maybe Mitch could run better. Not much else. I never saw the Biscuit throw well to the entire route tree. Mariota can, even if he has issues in other areas. I'd take Mariota every time over Mitch.

I don't know where you got Mariota from. Seems kind of random. But to answer your question, Mariota sucks and Trubisky might not. We moreso know what we have in Mariota (and we know it's not great), whereas with Trubisky, we don't actually know because he wasn't used like he should be and because Nagy never really gave him a fair shake since the day Nagy arrived (and when he did play, he generally won).

But I wouldn't be opposed to giving Mariota a shot either. Trubisky first though.

If you don't like the player, fine. But I see that Guty and MLF have confidence in Mariota. He got a shot in PS when Aaron held out. And his name pops up when talk of Aaron leads to what the Pack might to at QB.

Yeah, he's under-achieved, for sure. But the raw talent is there. And MLF has a proven history of getting QBs to step up to new levels of performance.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 08:48

texas wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 03:41

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 03:05

What would Trubisky give you that Mariota wouldn't? Maybe Mitch could run better. Not much else. I never saw the Biscuit throw well to the entire route tree. Mariota can, even if he has issues in other areas. I'd take Mariota every time over Mitch.

I don't know where you got Mariota from. Seems kind of random. But to answer your question, Mariota sucks and Trubisky might not. We moreso know what we have in Mariota (and we know it's not great), whereas with Trubisky, we don't actually know because he wasn't used like he should be and because Nagy never really gave him a fair shake since the day Nagy arrived (and when he did play, he generally won).

But I wouldn't be opposed to giving Mariota a shot either. Trubisky first though.

If you don't like the player, fine. But I see that Guty and MLF have confidence in Mariota. He got a shot in PS when Aaron held out. And his name pops up when talk of Aaron leads to what the Pack might to at QB.

Yeah, he's under-achieved, for sure. But the raw talent is there. And MLF has a proven history of getting QBs to step up to new levels of performance.

Mariota gotta shot in PS when Aaron held out? What am i missing about that, not ringing a bell for me.

I would say though that Mariotas biggest problem is health. Even as the backup for the Raiders when he comes in for 3 plays a game he has ended up on IR for them. I think he can be coached to be adequate, but not sure he can be relied on to be available.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 08:48

texas wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 03:41

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 03:05

What would Trubisky give you that Mariota wouldn't? Maybe Mitch could run better. Not much else. I never saw the Biscuit throw well to the entire route tree. Mariota can, even if he has issues in other areas. I'd take Mariota every time over Mitch.

I don't know where you got Mariota from. Seems kind of random. But to answer your question, Mariota sucks and Trubisky might not. We moreso know what we have in Mariota (and we know it's not great), whereas with Trubisky, we don't actually know because he wasn't used like he should be and because Nagy never really gave him a fair shake since the day Nagy arrived (and when he did play, he generally won).

But I wouldn't be opposed to giving Mariota a shot either. Trubisky first though.

If you don't like the player, fine. But I see that Guty and MLF have confidence in Mariota. He got a shot in PS when Aaron held out. And his name pops up when talk of Aaron leads to what the Pack might to at QB.

Yeah, he's under-achieved, for sure. But the raw talent is there. And MLF has a proven history of getting QBs to step up to new levels of performance.

How do you figure Gutey has confidence in Mariota? I get MLF as they have history. But there's no attachment to Gutey I'm aware of.

All there is, is a rumor about Mariota and the Packers. Neither have said a thing. All speculation.

I have to think my criteria for judging QBs is based on what Shanahan and McVay have done with Jimmy G and Goff. They've taken both of them to the Super Bowl. So my thinking is that since MLF is coming from the same system and also seems to be somewhat near their level, we only need a QB at the level of Jimmy G or Goff.

This reasoning might be bad, and I might be way wrong, but under that reasoning, Mariota could be sufficient. I would rather try Trubisky first though. I actually think Trubisky and Carr are above guys like Bortles or Mariota or Dalton. But none of those are at the level of Rodgers, Stafford, Wilson, etc.

Another possible name that would be worth exploring is Deshaun Watson, although it seems like he might have an ego which would preclude him from listening to MLF and running his system, which is sort of the whole point of the exercise to come up with suitable replacements for Rodgers.

Also, I have always liked Matt Ryan, and ATL has been talking about moving on from him. There's history there. The only issue would be if he would take a below-market contract. Oh yeah and he also isn't mobile.

I would really like to just roll with Love, and maybe with an offseason preparing to be the starter (which he supposedly was doing last offseason) and an offense tailored to him, maybe he plays better. But he just looked so bad that I think we're justified largely ignoring him as we come up with names.

Touristy is intriguing. I have always liked Carr. Both would be a lot better than Live.

Guys, a vet QB isn't happening unless they are a 100% backup. Let it go. And don't even bring up Watson. Not a chance.

I honestly don’t think it’s such a guarantee love gets the chance to sink or swim. He’s been trying out for two years now. If the org thinks he sucks, I doubt they fall on the sword for a year with him.

If they don’t attempt to bring anyone in it’s because they think he has a chance to be competent. likely scenario is the packers trade Rodgers to Denver and get back Drew Locke on his rookie deal and let him compete for the job. Rumors were that gutey loved lock in college, they could easily still think that fangio just couldn’t develop him.

paco wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 16:44

Guys, a vet QB isn't happening unless they are a 100% backup. Let it go. And don't even bring up Watson. Not a chance.

You are 100% correct. Packers can't afford a veteran. And Love, after a few rough games in September, is likely to be better.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 16:59

I honestly don’t think it’s such a guarantee love gets the chance to sink or swim. He’s been trying out for two years now. If the org thinks he sucks, I doubt they fall on the sword for a year with him.

If they don’t attempt to bring anyone in it’s because they think he has a chance to be competent. likely scenario is the packers trade Rodgers to Denver and get back Drew Locke on his rookie deal and let him compete for the job. Rumors were that gutey loved lock in college, they could easily still think that fangio just couldn’t develop him.

Some washed up vet would be the kind of thing a loser franchise like Detroit do.

Personally I'm happy to roll with Love and if he sinks then we'll be well placed to draft a QB in '23.

Gute and MLF aren't getting fired after one bad season.

British wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 17:14

Drj820 wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 16:59

I honestly don’t think it’s such a guarantee love gets the chance to sink or swim. He’s been trying out for two years now. If the org thinks he sucks, I doubt they fall on the sword for a year with him.

If they don’t attempt to bring anyone in it’s because they think he has a chance to be competent. likely scenario is the packers trade Rodgers to Denver and get back Drew Locke on his rookie deal and let him compete for the job. Rumors were that gutey loved lock in college, they could easily still think that fangio just couldn’t develop him.

Some washed up vet would be the kind of thing a loser franchise like Detroit do.

Personally I'm happy to roll with Love and if he sinks then we'll be well placed to draft a QB in '23.

Gute and MLF aren't getting fired after one bad season.

I’d wait till ‘24 to target a QB, give Love 2 years on rookie contract before giving up.

With the special players we got here, and picks we could have if Gute keeps drafting like he has. Love might just have to play a slightly better version of Garrapolo ball for us to be competitive. Anything over that, we could certainly make a few runs.

No they ain’t gonna trot out no Dalton or Glennon but we’re not talking that. Lock or Mariota should be off the table as well. But I could see an established vet starter like Wilson or Carr. Reason? What is the chance one of the draft picks you get back for Rodgers being as good as Wilson? Low. This years QB draft is balls. Nexts years 1 st round pick from Denver is basically a projected bottom of the round pick which you would need to package with other picks to move to prime QB selection range or use the 2023 packers pick assuming we tank a season.

I’m no cap guru but it always seems possible to kick the can. Why couldn’t cap be managed by an extension for the new QB that places all but minimum money beyond 2022?

lake shark wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 17:59

No they ain’t gonna trot out no Dalton or Glennon but we’re not talking that. Lock or Mariota should be off the table as well. But I could see an established vet starter like Wilson or Carr. Reason? What is the chance one of the draft picks you get back for Rodgers being as good as Wilson? Low. This years QB draft is balls. Nexts years 1 st round pick from Denver is basically a projected bottom of the round pick which you would need to package with other picks to move to prime QB selection range or use the 2023 packers pick assuming we tank a season.

I’m no cap guru but it always seems possible to kick the can. Why couldn’t cap be managed by an extension for the new QB that places all but minimum money beyond 2022?

We ain't signing Russell Wilson. He looked pretty washed and we can't afford him. Also, don't think Seattle have any interest in rebuilding. Carroll is ancient and won't want to start from scratch. Unlike us they don't have a 1st round QB being groomed for last two years.

It's also just not the Packers way of doing things. Gute comes from the Ted tree. Just doesn't feel like the kind of move he or the Packers would do. The draft is where you get Superbowl winning QBs. 14 of the last 17 winning QBs have been drafted by the winning team.

I can see them bring in a Trubisky type to back up Love and offer some vet advice but I don't want them overpaying for Russell Wilson.

British wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 18:15

lake shark wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 17:59

No they ain’t gonna trot out no Dalton or Glennon but we’re not talking that. Lock or Mariota should be off the table as well. But I could see an established vet starter like Wilson or Carr. Reason? What is the chance one of the draft picks you get back for Rodgers being as good as Wilson? Low. This years QB draft is balls. Nexts years 1 st round pick from Denver is basically a projected bottom of the round pick which you would need to package with other picks to move to prime QB selection range or use the 2023 packers pick assuming we tank a season.

I’m no cap guru but it always seems possible to kick the can. Why couldn’t cap be managed by an extension for the new QB that places all but minimum money beyond 2022?

We ain't signing Russell Wilson. He looked pretty washed and we can't afford him. Also, don't think Seattle have any interest in rebuilding. Carroll is ancient and won't want to start from scratch. Unlike us they don't have a 1st round QB being groomed for last two years.

It's also just not the Packers way of doing things. Gute comes from the Ted tree. Just doesn't feel like the kind of move he or the Packers would do. The draft is where you get Superbowl winning QBs. 14 of the last 17 winning QBs have been drafted by the winning team.

I can see them bring in a Trubisky type to back up Love and offer some vet advice but I don't want them overpaying for Russell Wilson.

You’d trade Rodgers for Wilson- no rebuild for either team. I assume Seattle is on the hook for Wilson’s dead money similar to what GB is for Rodgers. GB slightly worse off due to the giant cap number.

lake shark wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 18:24

British wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 18:15

lake shark wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 17:59

No they ain’t gonna trot out no Dalton or Glennon but we’re not talking that. Lock or Mariota should be off the table as well. But I could see an established vet starter like Wilson or Carr. Reason? What is the chance one of the draft picks you get back for Rodgers being as good as Wilson? Low. This years QB draft is balls. Nexts years 1 st round pick from Denver is basically a projected bottom of the round pick which you would need to package with other picks to move to prime QB selection range or use the 2023 packers pick assuming we tank a season.

I’m no cap guru but it always seems possible to kick the can. Why couldn’t cap be managed by an extension for the new QB that places all but minimum money beyond 2022?

We ain't signing Russell Wilson. He looked pretty washed and we can't afford him. Also, don't think Seattle have any interest in rebuilding. Carroll is ancient and won't want to start from scratch. Unlike us they don't have a 1st round QB being groomed for last two years.

It's also just not the Packers way of doing things. Gute comes from the Ted tree. Just doesn't feel like the kind of move he or the Packers would do. The draft is where you get Superbowl winning QBs. 14 of the last 17 winning QBs have been drafted by the winning team.

I can see them bring in a Trubisky type to back up Love and offer some vet advice but I don't want them overpaying for Russell Wilson.

You’d trade Rodgers for Wilson- no rebuild for either team. I assume Seattle is on the hook for Wilson’s dead money similar to what GB is for Rodgers. GB slightly worse off due to the giant cap number.

Nah, give me the picks, see what we have in Love and if no good, draft his replacement.

lake shark wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 18:24

British wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 18:15

lake shark wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 17:59

No they ain’t gonna trot out no Dalton or Glennon but we’re not talking that. Lock or Mariota should be off the table as well. But I could see an established vet starter like Wilson or Carr. Reason? What is the chance one of the draft picks you get back for Rodgers being as good as Wilson? Low. This years QB draft is balls. Nexts years 1 st round pick from Denver is basically a projected bottom of the round pick which you would need to package with other picks to move to prime QB selection range or use the 2023 packers pick assuming we tank a season.

I’m no cap guru but it always seems possible to kick the can. Why couldn’t cap be managed by an extension for the new QB that places all but minimum money beyond 2022?

We ain't signing Russell Wilson. He looked pretty washed and we can't afford him. Also, don't think Seattle have any interest in rebuilding. Carroll is ancient and won't want to start from scratch. Unlike us they don't have a 1st round QB being groomed for last two years.

It's also just not the Packers way of doing things. Gute comes from the Ted tree. Just doesn't feel like the kind of move he or the Packers would do. The draft is where you get Superbowl winning QBs. 14 of the last 17 winning QBs have been drafted by the winning team.

I can see them bring in a Trubisky type to back up Love and offer some vet advice but I don't want them overpaying for Russell Wilson.

You’d trade Rodgers for Wilson- no rebuild for either team. I assume Seattle is on the hook for Wilson’s dead money similar to what GB is for Rodgers. GB slightly worse off due to the giant cap number.

Wilson $26M dead cap, Rodgers $26.8.

Rodgers for Wilson… In y’all’s dreams. Isn’t gonna happen.

Roll with Love. He’ll do fine. Probably not elite fine. But he’ll be good enough.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 00:30

Rodgers for Wilson… In y’all’s dreams. Isn’t gonna happen.

Roll with Love. He’ll do fine. Probably not elite fine. But he’ll be good enough.

So you're good with mediocre backup fine?

I honestly can't believe some of this QB discussion. Why not just bring in Jay Cutler? It makes as much sense as some of these players being mentioned.

williewasgreat wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 04:46

I honestly can't believe some of this QB discussion. Why not just bring in Jay Cutler? It makes as much sense as some of these players being mentioned.

Jay cutler? Now that’s a good idea,