quote:

Originally posted by ammo:
And now you know why we say "The Bears Suck!" And when Cutler repeats Grossman's performance we can say "The Bears Still Suck!!"

quote:

Originally posted by BearBite:
Well I will suggest it. The Packers could have cut their 2nd & 3rd guys, sign Grossman for vet min and a warm body street FA for #3 and they WOULD be better off than they are now at the position. Hey they have a low draft pick #2 who can barely do more than hand-off and a high draft pick #3 who can't beat out the other guy. They might even save money on the deal.

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:
Hilarious.

Both Brohm & Flynn have 10x more upside than Grossman does. Of course if Grossman went to MM's QB school, then even he might be a decent QB.

quote:

Originally posted by BearBite:
Well I will suggest it. The Packers could have cut their 2nd & 3rd guys, sign Grossman for vet min and a warm body street FA for #3 and they WOULD be better off than they are now at the position. Hey they have a low draft pick #2 who can barely do more than hand-off and a high draft pick #3 who can't beat out the other guy. They might even save money on the deal.

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:
Both Brohm & Flynn have 10x more upside than Grossman does.

quote:

Originally posted by BearBite:
Make jokes and smack all you want, Grossman is a better QB RIGHT NOW than either of those newbies and probably will be for a while even with the alleged (and somewhat doutful) MM "QB genius" because there is no substitute for experience especially at QB.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepChicago:

Lay off the rock.

quote:

Originally posted by pakrbakr:
..You are truly clueless.

quote:

Originally posted by BearBite:
My statement wasn't about "upside" or what QBs do in the future. If you have your "franchise" QB (and virtually all GB fans insist they do) then your #2 is about who can come in to replace the #1 for short and/or extended play NOW. Its not about schooling and grooming the backups to start because even if you do and they are good they are just goona leave and play somewhere else when their rookie contract is up. GB fans should be familar with that from the Favre years.

Most coaches when faced with the choice for a #2 between a vet with a winning record in the league as a starter (including a winning some playoff games) and a couple of raw new guys with next to zero NFL experience who have show very little when they did play are gonna choose the first guy 90 some % of they time (Al Davis doesn't count). Make jokes and smack all you want, Grossman is a better QB RIGHT NOW than either of those newbies and probably will be for a while even with the alleged (and somewhat doutful) MM "QB genius" because there is no substitute for experience especially at QB.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:
It's exactly that "NOW" mentality that makes schistcompfs like you entertaining.

Good to see the TOS about name calling and personal attacks is being observed.

The GB QB's you're referring to didn't "just goona leave", they were traded (in the cases of Brunell and Hasselbeck) for better (or more) picks than the rounds they were drafted in (and while they were in Green Bay provided inexpensive depth behind an ironman QB). Net positive ROI anyway you cut it (event though not all of the picks panned out).

They were traded to get that ROI because they would have left if they didn't. Chicken....meet...egg.

Using your logic, Green Bay never should've entered '92 with "a couple of raw new guys" (Magua and Detmer) with "next to zero NFL experience" and instead should've found some scrap heap veteran (which is what Grossman is regardless of the record he amassed while being carried by your once formidable defense) to step in when Majkowski went down against the Bengals.

And you're so right, Green Bay would've been so much better off with a veteran instead of taking a chance on that "newbie" with "upside". It doesn't surprise me that you think that way, because demonstrated mediocrity (as long as it's veteran) is the way puscatores like you prefer to go rather than than take a chance on talented young "unproven" players. Wolf took a chance, and the end result was we owned you for the better part of a decade.

Different scenario. Majik was far from a franchise QB. Its pretty clear that Wolf traded for Favre because he didn't see Majkowski as the long term answer. Of course in that situation you go for young talent. Apple...meet...orange

Your premise also begs the question as to how said young players are supposed to get the necessary experience if they're never given the opportunity because Linus the (insert team name) fan needs a backup QB security blanky.

Ask some of those QBs behind Favre for all those years.

You funny.

quote:

Originally posted by BearBite:

Good to see the TOS about name calling and personal attacks is being observed.

"Whaaaah" said the big tough Bear troll. Coach is being mean to me.

They were traded to get that ROI because they would have left if they didn't. Chicken....meet...egg.

Would have if they hadn't been traded to prevent that from happening. You can't possibly be that stupid, can you?

Different scenario. Majik was far from a franchise QB. Its pretty clear that Wolf traded for Favre because he didn't see Majkowski as the long term answer. Of course in that situation you go for young talent. Apple...meet...orange

It isn't (well it is in the sense that no two scenarios are exactly alike). According to you, Rodgers isn't a franchise QB (Packer fans just think he is). Regardless of whether he is or not (because it's irrelevant), we found two prospects worthy of drafting/developing (one of which could've gone high in the 1st round the year before, the other was the starting QB for the National Champion that plays in arguably the best overall (top to bottom) conference in college football....which I say as a Big Ten fan).

At the time of the draft, we had exactly one QB on the roster. If Flynn hadn't been available late, you may have seen a vet signed. If one (any) of them had been injured for an extended period you would've seen a vet signed.

For stopgap depth only. You don't waste a roster spot on a stopgap when you have a better prospect worth keeping. It's not rocket science, but to you I'm pretty sure it seems like it.

Ask some of those QBs behind Favre for all those years.

No need to.

That's what training camp and the preseason are for (and also how Brunell and Hasselbeck were able to be showcased enough to be trade worthy).

Try again, troll.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:
It isn't (well it is in the sense that no two scenarios are exactly alike).
If its different they why bring it up?

According to you, Rodgers isn't a franchise QB (Packer fans just think he is)[/b].

WRONG. I didn't say that. In fact I was going on the assumption that AR IS the franchise guy. After all there are about a zillion posts on this forum stating it as fact. Are you claimimg he is not or just looking for a misdirection to cover your mistake in the last comment?

Regardless of whether he is or not (because it's irrelevant), we found two prospects worthy of drafting/developing (one of which could've gone high in the 1st round the year before, the other was the starting QB for the National Champion that plays in arguably the best overall (top to bottom) conference in college football....which I say as a Big Ten fan).

At the time of the draft, we had exactly one QB on the roster. If Flynn hadn't been available late, you may have seen a vet signed. If one (any) of them had been injured for an extended period you would've seen a vet signed.

For stopgap depth only. You don't waste a roster spot on a stopgap when you have a better prospect worth keeping.

Long way to go on a wrong premise. Hope you didn't get tired. Misdrection is much more effective when others don't actually realize you are doing it.

That's what training camp and the preseason are for (and also how Brunell and Hasselbeck were able to be showcased enough to be trade worthy).

So teams should draft backup QBs (any other position for that matter) every year to coach up and trade for more draft picks? Sounds more like a 20/20 hindsight theory to explain what just happened to occur with a couple of guys in the past. How'd Aaron Brooks turn out? Where is Nall starting now?