Game 1: Packers "@" Eagles - Friday, Sept 6 7:15 PM - São Paulo, Brazil!

[BrewerFan]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Zarr said:

Well, that didn't happen. What's the point of your thought exercise. The Packers grabbed three turnovers. They won the turnover battle. This isn't an excuse. Games are never perfect. Packers didn't play well. But acting as if there are zero positives to take away is just a hum bug take.

Right. And if there isn't an AWFUL call on Jaire on 3rd down, the Packers are off the field with...I don't know, 6 minutes left.

It was a close game vs one of the most talented teams in the league week 1 in Brazil. 

I get game threads are negative, but that's usually in the moment. 

A BIG difference as the season goes on is you'll see Cooper out there more on defense...but we played a team a year removed from the SB with Barkley, Brown, Smith, an elite OL and we lost by a possession. 

The Love injury hurts, but yeah, I don't get the negativity either. 

 

[adambr2]

12 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Don't we already know #2 is true? 

The backup is a guy we signed like 10 days ago. They preferred him to a guy they drafted last year in the 5th round. They don't really have a backup QB. Other teams have backups like Garopollo or Justin Fields; it has never been a route the Packers have taken. I understand the math of why, but they have never taken that position seriously. 

 

Jimmy G is pretty much a quality backup in name only. He couldn't even keep the job from a 4th round rookie QB last year. I'd definitely rather have Fields, but no way were the Bears going to trade him here. 

Someone like Gardner Minchew would have been awesome to have right now but of course he got to compete for (and win) a starting job this year so I'm sure that opportunity was more appealing. 

Taylor Heinecke was I thought a reasonable option that would have made a lot of sense. I don't get Malik. Every time I've ever seen him he's looked terrible and he's not someone with the tools to come run a traditional offense. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

5 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

No, we don't know #2 is true.

Jimmy G was taken in the 2nd rd by the Pats and then traded and Fields/Wilson is clearly an aberration. 

That has zilch to do with the fact that the Packers backup QB is a schlub they signed late August and the other guy they drafted last year didn't make the team. This is the same team that in prior years in the same situation sent out Scott Tolzien and Brett Hundley. 

Why are you even bringing up where Jimmy G was drafted? Point is that that right now, the Rams grabbed him as a legitimate backup. The Packers have never done anything like that. 

 

 

 

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

3 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Jimmy G is pretty much a quality backup in name only. He couldn't even keep the job from a 4th round rookie QB last year. I'd definitely rather have Fields, but no way were the Bears going to trade him here. 

Someone like Gardner Minchew would have been awesome to have right now but of course he got to compete for (and win) a starting job this year so I'm sure that opportunity was more appealing. 

Taylor Heinecke was I thought a reasonable option that would have made a lot of sense. I don't get Malik. Every time I've ever seen him he's looked terrible and he's not someone with the tools to come run a traditional offense. 

Sorry but I'd MUCH rather have a QB that started a Super Bowl and numerous playoff games than Malik Willis right now. Even if he does completely suck. This is going to be the same dumpster fire it was in 2013 and 2018. I am fully expecting that getting a first down will be pulling teeth next weekend. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

When the Packers signed Malik I honestly thought it was just so the defense had a mobile QB to play against in practice. He is terrible and I will be shocked if they win 2 games. 

[BrewerFan]

4 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

That has zilch to do with the fact that the Packers backup QB is a schlub they signed late August and the other guy they drafted last year didn't make the team. This is the same team that in prior years in the same situation sent out Scott Tolzien and Brett Hundley. 

Why are you even bringing up where Jimmy G was drafted? Point is that that right now, the Rams grabbed him as a legitimate backup. The Packers have never done anything like that. 

 

 

 

 

He said we "grossly neglect our Backup QB spot."

Our backup QB has Love for years, then Love took over and we drafted a guy in the 5th rd who looked REALLY good in camp as a rookie. We added a QB this past draft, then when they didn't have a good camp, we went out and traded for a guy who'd just been a 3rd rd pick. 

 

Why am I even bringing up where Jimmy G was drafted? Gee...could it be to illustrate the balance a team needs with a YOUNG QB(Jimmy G was brought in-in a Love-type situation) and how much draft capital it makes sense to invest with a 25-year-old QB vs a 38-year-old QB? That didn't make sense to you that the draft capital was relevant.

"The Packers have never done anything like that."

No...they just draft and have 3 straight franchise QBs and THAT provides an impetus for you to be angry...

I don't know dude, you've already given up on the season anyway...after ONE loss vs Philly, so...sure, they neglected the backup QB. They made no effort there...

[OldSchoolSnapper]

6 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

He said we "grossly neglect our Backup QB spot."

Our backup QB has Love for years, then Love took over and we drafted a guy in the 5th rd who looked REALLY good in camp as a rookie. We added a QB this past draft, then when they didn't have a good camp, we went out and traded for a guy who'd just been a 3rd rd pick. 

 

Why am I even bringing up where Jimmy G was drafted? Gee...could it be to illustrate the balance a team needs with a YOUNG QB(Jimmy G was brought in-in a Love-type situation) and how much draft capital it makes sense to invest with a 25-year-old QB vs a 38-year-old QB? That didn't make sense to you that the draft capital was relevant.

"The Packers have never done anything like that."

No...they just draft and have 3 straight franchise QBs and THAT provides an impetus for you to be angry...

I don't know dude, you've already given up on the season anyway...after ONE loss vs Philly, so...sure, they neglected the backup QB. They made no effort there...

False equivalency. Love and Rodgers were not drafted to be backup QBs. 

There is a big difference between that (and Love really wasn't much of a backup QB and really never could have been counted on to do anything if Rodgers had been hurt) and signing a veteran QB whose sole purpose is a break glass insurance policy. 

Matt Flynn round 2 was a legitimate backup QB. Ryan Tannehill is a backup QB. Carson Wentz is a backup QB. 

The Packers have never really gone that route where they have a veteran backup in camp. Flynn was the only one and it was after 6 weeks of everyone screaming at TT to do the obvious. 

[BrewerFan]

1 minute ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

False equivalency. Love and Rodgers were not drafted to be backup QBs. 

There is a big difference between that (and Love really wasn't much of a backup QB and really never could have been counted on to do anything if Rodgers had been hurt) and signing a veteran QB whose sole purpose is a break glass insurance policy. 

Matt Flynn round 2 was a legitimate backup QB. Ryan Tannehill is a backup QB. Carson Wentz is a backup QB. 

LOL...they weren't drafted to start. Every QB you draft, you're drafting them HOPING they'll become a starter. So that's not at all a false equivalency, using Justin Fields and Russell Wilson, two QBs that fell into the Steelers laps because they didn't have ONE good one is a false equivalency. 

Quote

Matt Flynn round 2 was a legitimate backup QB.

Matt Flynn was a 7th rd pick, not a 2nd.

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

2 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

LOL...they weren't drafted to start. Every QB you draft, you're drafting them HOPING they'll become a starter. So that's not at all a false equivalency, using Justin Fields and Russell Wilson, two QBs that fell into the Steelers laps because they didn't have ONE good one is a false equivalency. 

Matt Flynn was a 7th rd pick, not a 2nd.

 

I'm aware. I'm referring to his 2nd trip to the Packers. 

And I don't know what you're LOLing. Rodgers and Love were not drafted to be backup QBs. They were drafted with the intention of sitting for years, learning and becoming franchise QBs. If the starters has been hurt in their first seasons, they would not have provided any value at all to hold the line.

There's a significant difference between a "backup QB" like that and one like the Chiefs bringing in Wentz even if you want to be a douche about it. The latter is someone that can hold the fort and maybe go .500 when your starter is out 3-6 weeks. We don't have that. 

[BrewerFan]

20 hours ago, HarryDoyle said:

To try and be positive, to play as sloppy as we did tonight and still only lose by 5 I guess is encouraging. But MLF needs to reconsider not playing his starters in the preseason. It could've made the difference tonight.  And oh that O-line. They gotta step their game up.

I agree...particularly with the defense. I get Cooper couldn't play, he was hurt. It's pretty obvious he needs to be the other nickel, but, you need to tackle and get acclimated to tackling. 

 

The offense...all the drops/catchable passes that were not converted, I don't know if pre-season helps, but a few series shouldn't hurt. 

The OL didn't look good, but I do think the Eagles have a great front. Jordan Davis, Jevon Carter(I don't personally think that play was dirty at all...though I was in the minority on Twitter) and Graham are pretty good. We shut down Huff and Sweat.

 

I feel the same about the RBs as I did in the off-season. I'd rather we stuck with Jones and then have Wilson be the #2, but...I'm hoping to be proven wrong there and that we'll be able to run the ball vs most fronts. That Jordan Morgan will take over the job like Jenkins and Tom early in their careers.

[BrewerFan]

3 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I'm aware. I'm referring to his 2nd trip to the Packers. 

And I don't know what you're LOLing. Rodgers and Love were not drafted to be backup QBs. They were drafted with the intention of sitting for years, learning and becoming franchise QBs. If the starters has been hurt in their first seasons, they would not have provided any value at all to hold the line.

There's a significant difference between a "backup QB" like that and one like the Chiefs bringing in Wentz even if you want to be a douche about it. The latter is someone that can hold the fort and maybe go .500 when your starter is out 3-6 weeks. We don't have that. 

Ok...so draft a QB, but not one early, because then you're drafting them to be a "starter," draft one later, and then you won't have neglected the backup position, right? That's the needle we're trying to thread here? I've never heard that it doesn't count when you expect too much out of your backup QBs...but sure. 

Despite the time Love and Rodgers were...quite literally backups, it doesn't count because we expected them to be more. Got it. 

Does this even matter? Didn't you declare the season over due to the defense already anyway? 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

10 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

Ok...so draft a QB, but not one early, because then you're drafting them to be a "starter," draft one later, and then you won't have neglected the backup position, right? That's the needle we're trying to thread here? I've never heard that it doesn't count when you expect too much out of your backup QBs...but sure. 

Despite the time Love and Rodgers were...quite literally backups, it doesn't count because we expected them to be more. Got it. 

Does this even matter? Didn't you declare the season over due to the defense already anyway? 

This really isn't the wild crazy concept you're trying super hard to make it.  

Someone like Wentz is a backup that (you hope) can come in and immediately be mediocre, at least MAYBE give you a chance to compete for a handful of weeks.  You give him an entire camp and he knows the offense at a minimum. 

If your backup is rookie Jordan Love, he's going to get eaten alive. Or someone like Brett Hundley who you've "developed" but has never actually played a meaningful game. 

I didn't say anything about when to draft anybody. 

It's simply the difference between having a known or unknown commodity backing up your star. Some teams have veteran backup QBs, usually a guy with a not great ceiling but at least a floor that won't leave you completely uncompetitive. The Packers have almost never gone that route despite being absolutely destroyed by Rodgers being hurt multiple times. 

Behind their 25 year old star, they have Malik and Clifford. I'd say they botched that. Why are they "developing" another young guy? Love is 25. This is the exact situation they should have planned for - needing to replace him for a few weeks. If he tears an ACL who cares, they'd be dead anyway. 

The situation they are in today isn't a parallel at all to drafting Rodgers/Love to replace an aging star. They have no reason to be doing that. The journeyman vet is the backup they should have. Not this garbage we're about to to suffer through. 

 

 

 

 

[BrewerFan]

8 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Why are they "developing" another young guy? Love is 25. This is the exact situation they should have planned for - needing to replace him for a few weeks. If he tears an ACL who cares, they'd be dead anyway. 

I don't know, because that's what they did when they were their MOST successful, they recouped more draft compensation and they always had good backup QBs ready and available...and that is what Gute said he wanted to "get back to," this past year. 

Why would you want to draft and develop a young player who can be a good backup when you can go year to year with an older veteran? You're right, that makes more sense. 

11 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I didn't say anything about when to draft anybody. 

No, you just said when it's early, they're not "drafted" to be backups, they're drafted to be starters, so that doesn't...count I guess. 

 

Ok...I don't care. I'm going to wait now and see how the games ACTUALLY play out rather than...declaring the season over. You...can do the opposite. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

16 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

I don't know, because that's what they did when they were their MOST successful, they recouped more draft compensation and they always had good backup QBs ready and available...and that is what Gute said he wanted to "get back to," this past year. 

Why would you want to draft and develop a young player who can be a good backup when you can go year to year with an older veteran? You're right, that makes more sense. 

No, you just said when it's early, they're not "drafted" to be backups, they're drafted to be starters, so that doesn't...count I guess. 

 

Ok...I don't care. I'm going to wait now and see how the games ACTUALLY play out rather than...declaring the season over. You...can do the opposite. 

Again, I don't know what is so ridiculous about this. 

The Packers drafted Jordan Love fully intending that he would start and be a franchise QB. 

The Chiefs know they aren't getting that out of Carson Wentz. But if Mahomes has a concussion they have a guy that can win 2 games. 

I would much rather have that behind Love than another project. 

The situation they are in today is not in any way analogous to where they were when they drafted Love or Rodgers. Stop with the straw man crap. 

[BrewerFan]

26 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Again, I don't know what is so ridiculous about this. 

The Packers drafted Jordan Love fully intending that he would start and be a franchise QB. 

The Chiefs know they aren't getting that out of Carson Wentz. But if Mahomes has a concussion they have a guy that can win 2 games. 

I would much rather have that behind Love than another project. 

The situation they are in today is not in any way analogous to where they were when they drafted Love or Rodgers. Stop with the straw man crap. 

You asked;

1 hour ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Why are they "developing" another young guy? Love is 25.

I tried to explain...anyone who knows anything about the Packers knows how they drafted and developed their own backup QBs for years.

So that's WHY they would "develop" a QB.

 

And sure, you can say it doesn't "count" when you have a 1st rd pick as your backup all you want, it just doesn't make sense. I don't care if they drafted him to eventually take over. That'd be even MORE telling that they're not just "neglecting" the backup position.

 

Tyson Bagent went 2-2 last year...but you've already determined the Packers can't win and it doesn't really matter anyway as you've given up on the season even BEFORE you knew Love was going to miss time because...after 1 week, the defense wasn't to your liking. So what's the point here? I trust if they think Ryan Tannehill will make them better, they'll bring him in. Otherwise, we'll see what Willis and Clifford can do. 

I don't know what more you want out of this discussion, but it's all I've got left to give. 

[Brian]

Just seen this but not sure if it is true. 

The Green Bay Packers Will Sign QB Ryan Tannehill

 

The Green Bay Packers Will Sign QB Ryan Tannehill alamedad Jordan Love was injured in his first game of the season, and while Love’s severity isn’t confirmed, the Packers ...

 

[SeaBass]

13 minutes ago, Brian said:

Just seen this but not sure if it is true. 

The Green Bay Packers Will Sign QB Ryan Tannehill

 

The Green Bay Packers Will Sign QB Ryan Tannehill alamedad Jordan Love was injured in his first game of the season, and while Love’s severity isn’t confirmed, the Packers ...

 

 

I'm not trying to be harsh but did you read the article? This is clearly a clickbait headline that the actual article doesn't even try to back up with a source. Pure speculation.

[Brian]

8 hours ago, SeaBass said:

I'm not trying to be harsh but did you read the article? This is clearly a clickbait headline that the actual article doesn't even try to back up with a source. Pure speculation.

That is why I said  "Not sure if it is true."  Everything is pure speculation until a deal is done. There are actually 3 names total I have seen already. But the Packers do need a backup even if they stick with Sean Clifford. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

10 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

You asked;

I tried to explain...anyone who knows anything about the Packers knows how they drafted and developed their own backup QBs for years.

So that's WHY they would "develop" a QB.

 

And sure, you can say it doesn't "count" when you have a 1st rd pick as your backup all you want, it just doesn't make sense. I don't care if they drafted him to eventually take over. That'd be even MORE telling that they're not just "neglecting" the backup position.

 

Tyson Bagent went 2-2 last year...but you've already determined the Packers can't win and it doesn't really matter anyway as you've given up on the season even BEFORE you knew Love was going to miss time because...after 1 week, the defense wasn't to your liking. So what's the point here? I trust if they think Ryan Tannehill will make them better, they'll bring him in. Otherwise, we'll see what Willis and Clifford can do. 

I don't know what more you want out of this discussion, but it's all I've got left to give. 

Truly can't comprehend how you can't grasp the difference between a 1st round draft pick at backup QB vs. a 35 year old veteran with meaningful game experience as an insurance policy so I will just drop it there. Not going anywhere, but it'll probably start to make more sense next weekend when the Packers get blown out and Willis has 140 yards and 3 picks. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

46 minutes ago, Brian said:

That is why I said  "Not sure if it is true."  Everything is pure speculation until a deal is done. There are actually 3 names total I have seen already. But the Packers do need a backup even if they stick with Sean Clifford. 

They won't add a real veteran to the roster unless maybe they get more news that Love is out 12 weeks instead of 3, and even then, they probably wouldn't, which is arguably the right call as they would be cooked anyway. The time to get an actual backup in place was sometime in May. Even when everyone and their mother knew Matt Flynn was the obvious guy to go get, they had to lose a bunch of games with Scott Tolzien before doing anything. 

[BrewerFan]

5 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Truly can't comprehend how you can't grasp the difference between a 1st round draft pick at backup QB vs. a 35 year old veteran with meaningful game experience as an insurance policy so I will just drop it there. Not going anywhere, but it'll probably start to make more sense next weekend when the Packers get blown out and Willis has 140 yards and 3 picks. 

Truly can't comprehend how spending a 1st rd pick on a guy who you WANT to be your future starter is ALSO neglecting your backup QB position in your world, but...yeah, I don't really give a **** anymore. 

I can't believe you're STILL on about this.

AGAIN, what's it matter? The season is over regardless of Love, right? Same crap as the last 14 years?

 

To be clear
-Drafting a a guy in the 1st=neglecting your backup QB because you're actually drafting him to be a starter(Even if he will be a backup in both Rodgers/Loves case for the next several years)....yeah, that makes a TON of sense.
-No reason to draft a young QB as we did under Wolf OR like the guy you KEEP yammering about in Flynn. A player we DRAFTED and played well as the backup. Sure. That's bad also. Make sure someone else drafts him and then sign him(I'm sure he'd know the system as well in that scenario). 

The ONLY scenario you have addressed backup QB is if you bring in an old, washed-up, and expensive veteran QB. Got it.

 

Jesus *****...this is exactly what the ignore feature is for. 

 

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

13 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

Truly can't comprehend how spending a 1st rd pick on a guy who you WANT to be your future starter is ALSO neglecting your backup QB position in your world, but...yeah, I don't really give a **** anymore. 

 

 

 

I've only explained it 50 times. Because that guy, 9/10 times isn't ready to step in and play in the situation the Packers are in today. A 10-year vet is. 

Oh no. Please don't ignore me. I'd really miss you.  

[Brian]

14 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

They won't add a real veteran to the roster unless maybe they get more news that Love is out 12 weeks instead of 3, and even then, they probably wouldn't, which is arguably the right call as they would be cooked anyway. The time to get an actual backup in place was sometime in May. Even when everyone and their mother knew Matt Flynn was the obvious guy to go get, they had to lose a bunch of games with Scott Tolzien before doing anything. 

I will be totally amazed if he is out for only 3 weeks. That is the absolute minimum that he would be out from what I have read. 

[BrewerFan]

49 minutes ago, Brian said:

I will be totally amazed if he is out for only 3 weeks. That is the absolute minimum that he would be out from what I have read. 

It's between a Grade 1 and a Grade 2 MCL. 

Timeline grade 1, 1-2 weeks. 
Grade 2 2-4 weeks

Both based on pain tolerance.
 

Week 4 is a month from that game Oct 6th. 

I'd expect him back for the Rams, Week 4 on the 6th. 

[adambr2]

2 hours ago, Brian said:

That is why I said  "Not sure if it is true."  Everything is pure speculation until a deal is done. There are actually 3 names total I have seen already. But the Packers do need a backup even if they stick with Sean Clifford. 

I think what he was saying is that "articles" like these come out of the woodwork every time there's anything to speculate on and doesn't amount to any real journalism. It's no different than us speculating on our own. Sure, we can speculate on Ryan Tannehill, but at the moment there's no more substance to that possibly happening than trading for Zach Wilson or signing Cam Newton.