Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 21:08

paco wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 20:58

I didn't get a feeling that we wanted him back wish him well, he did a good job for us.

He wasn’t an FA, we cut him. So guessing we didn’t want him a ton, at least not as his current salary. We really didn’t even save much on cap, like 4m I believe.

Amazing we cut a capable starting OLmen and still have Lewis on the roster and Crosby taking over 4m in cap space

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 21:05

Raptorman wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 20:43

Captain_Ben wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 14:44

I'm certainly no Kaep apologist but isn't 65% setting the bar pretty high? There are a lot of great QB's with a career completion % under that.

Name the last QB to win a Super Bowl with a career percentage below60%.

59%,,,,,,,,,,,60% ya gonna say a guy can't do something based on 1 ( ONE ) percentage point?

Well since you won't, I will. Trent Dilfer. Everyone keeps talking about how it's a QB-driven league. Well, it's a QB-driven league because of passing. And if a passer can't complete more than 60% these days, he isn't long for the NFL.

Let's look at some other QBs with stats like Kaeps.

Drew Lock
Sam Darnold
Paxton Lynch
Marcus Mariota
Blake Bortles
EJ Manuel

All first-round picks. Should they not all get a chance to play as well? Which one would sign to take over for Rodgers?

72/30. Say what you will, but he should have gotten a shot.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 22:54

Amazing we cut a capable starting OLmen and still have Lewis on the roster and Crosby taking over 4m in cap space

I don't what Lewis is on but definitely don't get keeping Crosby at that number.

Raptorman wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 00:12

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 21:05

Raptorman wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 20:43

Name the last QB to win a Super Bowl with a career percentage below60%.

59%,,,,,,,,,,,60% ya gonna say a guy can't do something based on 1 ( ONE ) percentage point?

Well since you won't, I will. Trent Dilfer. Everyone keeps talking about how it's a QB-driven league. Well, it's a QB-driven league because of passing. And if a passer can't complete more than 60% these days, he isn't long for the NFL.

Let's look at some other QBs with stats like Kaeps.

Drew Lock
Sam Darnold
Paxton Lynch
Marcus Mariota
Blake Bortles
EJ Manuel

All first-round picks. Should they not all get a chance to play as well? Which one would sign to take over for Rodgers?

thing is Kaep wasn't even auditioned for backup duty, and as you can see from this list there are 15 sub 60% QB's that started at least one game of the 62 that started or did backup duty last year, how and why did you set the ceiling so high for Kaep to be able to play in this league, if winning a SB is the criteria then 61 on the list didn't qualify either

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-qb-index-r ... nfl-season

bud fox wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 02:52

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 22:54

Amazing we cut a capable starting OLmen and still have Lewis on the roster and Crosby taking over 4m in cap space

I don't what Lewis is on but definitely don't get keeping Crosby at that number.

until your sure you can replace there production however meager that my be why cut them? it's like taking a flame thrower to the bridge you havn't yet crossed, theres a draft coming up, then OTA's and minni camps and TC where competition will weed out this stuff.

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 06:43

Raptorman wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 00:12

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 21:05

59%,,,,,,,,,,,60% ya gonna say a guy can't do something based on 1 ( ONE ) percentage point?

Well since you won't, I will. Trent Dilfer. Everyone keeps talking about how it's a QB-driven league. Well, it's a QB-driven league because of passing. And if a passer can't complete more than 60% these days, he isn't long for the NFL.

Let's look at some other QBs with stats like Kaeps.

Drew Lock
Sam Darnold
Paxton Lynch
Marcus Mariota
Blake Bortles
EJ Manuel

All first-round picks. Should they not all get a chance to play as well? Which one would sign to take over for Rodgers?

thing is Kaep wasn't even auditioned for backup duty, and as you can see from this list there are 15 sub 60% QB's that started at least one game of the 62 that started or did backup duty last year, how and why did you set the ceiling so high for Kaep to be able to play in this league, if winning a SB is the criteria then 61 on the list didn't qualify either

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-qb-index-r ... nfl-season

A question every GM has asked themselves concerning Kaepernick: is the public headache that comes with signing him as a backup worth the very likely significant fan pushback when I can roster any one of 60+ other backup level players without any sort of public fuss?

If he was a viable starting upgrade, he would've been signed. He'd be worth the headache in the same way teams were willing to take on the Deshaun Watson headache. Kaep isn't in the same conversation as a Watson, though. He has clearly been deemed not worth the headache relative to what he offers a new team in talent upgrade.

APB wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 06:53

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 06:43

Raptorman wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 00:12

Well since you won't, I will. Trent Dilfer. Everyone keeps talking about how it's a QB-driven league. Well, it's a QB-driven league because of passing. And if a passer can't complete more than 60% these days, he isn't long for the NFL.

Let's look at some other QBs with stats like Kaeps.

Drew Lock
Sam Darnold
Paxton Lynch
Marcus Mariota
Blake Bortles
EJ Manuel

All first-round picks. Should they not all get a chance to play as well? Which one would sign to take over for Rodgers?

thing is Kaep wasn't even auditioned for backup duty, and as you can see from this list there are 15 sub 60% QB's that started at least one game of the 62 that started or did backup duty last year, how and why did you set the ceiling so high for Kaep to be able to play in this league, if winning a SB is the criteria then 61 on the list didn't qualify either

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-qb-index-r ... nfl-season

A question every GM has asked themselves concerning Kaepernick: is the public headache that comes with signing him as a backup worth the very likely significant fan pushback when I can roster any one of 60+ other backup level players without any sort of public fuss?

If he was a viable starting upgrade, he would've been signed. He'd be worth the headache in the same way teams were willing to take on the Deshaun Watson headache. Kaep isn't in the same conversation as a Watson, though. He has clearly been deemed not worth the headache relative to what he offers a new team in talent upgrade.

he has more experience, has a high football IQ and was a better alternative then those 15 on the list and even the half doz others that barely toped the 60% threshold Kaep usually had, NO, there has been a concerted effort to make sure Kaepernick never plays in the NFL again, they screwed him simply because they could, and there is a name for that.

and it's not the GM's it's the owners, you know the guys that do actually make these decisions, teams can absorb trivia, hell the league and owners just weathered another racial storm with there lack of tact with over looking far more qualified A A's as HC's and front office people, they sure as hell could weather the hiring of Kaep, quit inventing excuses.

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 06:48

bud fox wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 02:52

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 22:54

Amazing we cut a capable starting OLmen and still have Lewis on the roster and Crosby taking over 4m in cap space

I don't what Lewis is on but definitely don't get keeping Crosby at that number.

until your sure you can replace there production however meager that my be why cut them? it's like taking a flame thrower to the bridge you havn't yet crossed, theres a draft coming up, then OTA's and minni camps and TC where competition will weed out this stuff.

crosbys production would be pretty easy to replace. He cant consistently boot it out of the end zone on kickoffs and he cant really kick 50+ yarders unless conditions are perfect. He makes 4.7 million against the cap this year.

Someone who can boot it out of the end zone and is shaky beyond 50 can be found almost anywhere.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 07:58

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 06:48

bud fox wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 02:52

I don't what Lewis is on but definitely don't get keeping Crosby at that number.

until your sure you can replace there production however meager that my be why cut them? it's like taking a flame thrower to the bridge you havn't yet crossed, theres a draft coming up, then OTA's and minni camps and TC where competition will weed out this stuff.

crosbys production would be pretty easy to replace. He cant consistently boot it out of the end zone on kickoffs and he cant really kick 50+ yarders unless conditions are perfect. He makes 4.7 million against the cap this year.

Someone who can boot it out of the end zone and is shaky beyond 50 can be found almost anywhere.

never understood this desire to kick it out of the end zone which automatically puts the opponent on his 25, obviously the goal should be to pin them short of that, your over looking our poor coverage and using Crosby to scape goat.

and Crosby till all the hiking, holding issues last year had been accurate at all distances for several years prior.

lis, we need to find replacements prior to just cutting players, and he wont be as easy to replace as you think, sounds easy, and it just might be, but I'd rather bring a guy in, let them compete, and keep the most successful one.

There are also a number of vet kickers around the league. Aren't they getting paid the $3-5M/year too? If the coaches have confidence in them, then I'm good with Mason.

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 08:14

never understood this desire to kick it out of the end zone which automatically puts the opponent on his 25, obviously the goal should be to pin them short of that, your over looking our poor coverage and using Crosby to scape goat.

There are a lot of benefits to securing a touchback. I completely disagree the goal should be to pin them short of that given the risks. I will take the 25 every time.

lol

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 08:14

Drj820 wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 07:58

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 06:48

until your sure you can replace there production however meager that my be why cut them? it's like taking a flame thrower to the bridge you havn't yet crossed, theres a draft coming up, then OTA's and minni camps and TC where competition will weed out this stuff.

crosbys production would be pretty easy to replace. He cant consistently boot it out of the end zone on kickoffs and he cant really kick 50+ yarders unless conditions are perfect. He makes 4.7 million against the cap this year.

Someone who can boot it out of the end zone and is shaky beyond 50 can be found almost anywhere.

never understood this desire to kick it out of the end zone which automatically puts the opponent on his 25, obviously the goal should be to pin them short of that, your over looking our poor coverage and using Crosby to scape goat.

and Crosby till all the hiking, holding issues last year had been accurate at all distances for several years prior.

lis, we need to find replacements prior to just cutting players, and he wont be as easy to replace as you think, sounds easy, and it just might be, but I'd rather bring a guy in, let them compete, and keep the most successful one.

https://bf004.shinyapps.io/Kickoff2/

The mean starting field position for a non-onside kickoff is the 23.8 yardline since the current rules have been in place since 2018.

Is that 1.2 yard differential worth the potential downside and injury risk? I mean a really really good kick off, you get a holding penalty or tackle them at the 15. A really really bad kickoff, they have the ball in field goal range.

NCF wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 08:27

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 08:14

never understood this desire to kick it out of the end zone which automatically puts the opponent on his 25, obviously the goal should be to pin them short of that, your over looking our poor coverage and using Crosby to scape goat.

There are a lot of benefits to securing a touchback. I completely disagree the goal should be to pin them short of that given the risks. I will take the 25 every time.

when we have had speedy gunners and good coverage we often stopped returners even short of the 20,or 15, Crosby got good hang time and dropped the ball short of the goal line on purpose, thats why I added in what seemed like our goal was a couple years back, obviously if the coverage units suck as they have then the safe thing to do is kick it through the end zone.

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 08:38

NCF wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 08:27

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 08:14

never understood this desire to kick it out of the end zone which automatically puts the opponent on his 25, obviously the goal should be to pin them short of that, your over looking our poor coverage and using Crosby to scape goat.

There are a lot of benefits to securing a touchback. I completely disagree the goal should be to pin them short of that given the risks. I will take the 25 every time.

when we have had speedy gunners and good coverage we often stopped returners even short of the 20,or 15, Crosby got good hang time and dropped the ball short of the goal line on purpose, thats why I added in what seemed like our goal was a couple years back, obviously if the coverage units suck as they have then the safe thing to do is kick it through the end zone.

I agree with what you said. They used to do that. I disagree that it was worth it, though. Injuries on kick coverage and law of averages mean we are giving up a long return as often as we are stopping them short of the 25. The problem now, though, is that I no longer think Crosby is capable of consistently hitting TB's. That is a problem when the goal should be hitting the deep end zone consistently.

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 07:04

APB wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 06:53

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 06:43

thing is Kaep wasn't even auditioned for backup duty, and as you can see from this list there are 15 sub 60% QB's that started at least one game of the 62 that started or did backup duty last year, how and why did you set the ceiling so high for Kaep to be able to play in this league, if winning a SB is the criteria then 61 on the list didn't qualify either

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-qb-index-r ... nfl-season

A question every GM has asked themselves concerning Kaepernick: is the public headache that comes with signing him as a backup worth the very likely significant fan pushback when I can roster any one of 60+ other backup level players without any sort of public fuss?

If he was a viable starting upgrade, he would've been signed. He'd be worth the headache in the same way teams were willing to take on the Deshaun Watson headache. Kaep isn't in the same conversation as a Watson, though. He has clearly been deemed not worth the headache relative to what he offers a new team in talent upgrade.

he has more experience, has a high football IQ and was a better alternative then those 15 on the list and even the half doz others that barely toped the 60% threshold Kaep usually had, NO, there has been a concerted effort to make sure Kaepernick never plays in the NFL again, they screwed him simply because they could, and there is a name for that.

and it's not the GM's it's the owners, you know the guys that do actually make these decisions, teams can absorb trivia, hell the league and owners just weathered another racial storm with there lack of tact with over looking far more qualified A A's as HC's and front office people, they sure as hell could weather the hiring of Kaep, quit inventing excuses.

Your actions have consequences in your work. Sorry, it's true. Like it or not. And you have no idea if he has a better football IQ than any one of those 15. If you do, what's your source? He screwed himself. Tell us, how long would you last at work with a Nazi armband on your arm? You would be given a choice, take it off or go home. Sure it's your first amendment right. But try it, see what happens.

Guess what, the NFL is free to hire and fire who they want. If Kaep was a better QB maybe a team would have signed him. The fact is, he sucks as a QB. What part of that is so hard to understand? He's a sub .500 QB. He went 8-8 with the 10 best scoring defense in the NFL. And that was his best year at QB. But if you think for one moment 21 TD's is good year, yeah, give him a chance. That was his best year for TDS. 21. You would be gong &%$@ if Rodgers only threw 21 TD's on the year.

APB wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2022 08:44

along with running back Clyde Edwards-Helaire lol