My guess is I’m not going to convince you of anything.
If the packers roster continues to gel and they can show they can compete for a superbowl then the calculus changes. At that point i think a proven veteran is more valuable than a rookie as a backup. But i think Jordan love is a pretty big unknown at this point and nobody expected Green Bay to contend this year. If love had struggled and you think his backup had potential why not give him a shot? You said yourself that if a starter goes down the season is shot so the backup is only there to be servicable for a few games if qb1 is sidelined for a game or 2.
Again, the comment by Chuck Weak was directed at the Vikings' inability to find a backup. I think most people would agree that Mullins is a serviceable backup. Nobody wants to hold two starters on their team. However, if your starter goes down and your backup, your season is over. That's just the way it is. I am not even convinced had Mullens been healthy; you guys would have made the playoffs. Because they beat the Bears or Broncos with Mullens.
So it is your opinion that it is best practice to have a rookie QB who has never thrown an NFL pass as a backup? Unlike the Vikings, who signed a seasoned veteran at #2. That is all I am asking.
(Hypothetical, if the Vikings in the upcoming draft actually get their head out of their ass and move on a 1st round QB, they should dump Mullins and put a rookie late-round pick at #2? That's smart business, right?)
It might not be best practice if you expect your team to be a serious contender. In that case you want a guy who can win a game or 3 if qb1 gets sidelined while he’s going through concussion protocol or some other short term injury. But i guess i don’t see the advantage of a stop gap qb on a lost season. How is evaluating a rookie qb a bad thing. Favre got his opportunity because of injury.
Edit: to answer your hypothetical, assuming cousins returns to the vikings, the rookie should sit and learn. So i guess, yeah, having a rookie backup is how you find your future qb
anthony wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 5:19 pm
Also, Matt Flynn was a rookie backing up aaron rodgers in rodgers first year starting, and brett favre was in his second season in the league backing up don majkowski….
Well, that's pretty cavalier. Don't you think? Matt Flynn would have been a disaster. I think the argument made was the Vikings' inability to find a backup quarterback. They had a decent backup who got hurt as well. Most teams' seasons are over when their starter goes down. The 2017 Packers went 7-9 when Rodgers went down. That's the norm. That was the 2023 Vikings.
So we're clear: it's cool to throw a rookie QB on the roster as the backup, right? And that is sage advice for the rest of the NFL? Are you going to convince me had Love gone down, Clifford was the answer?
My guess is I’m not going to convince you of anything.
If the packers roster continues to gel and they can show they can compete for a superbowl then the calculus changes. At that point i think a proven veteran is more valuable than a rookie as a backup. But i think Jordan love is a pretty big unknown at this point and nobody expected Green Bay to contend this year. If love had struggled and you think his backup had potential why not give him a shot? You said yourself that if a starter goes down the season is shot so the backup is only there to be servicable for a few games if qb1 is sidelined for a game or 2.
You aren't going to convince the "Quarterback Whisperer" of anything. He knows more about QB play than Johnny Unitas, Broadway Joe and Dan Marino combined. Can't believe he's not a GM for some team!
There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but Calebs' stupidity will remain!
TRUMPHUMPERS ™ ARE TRAITORS!
Proud member of the RFP!
Never trust a former president who wears Jim Bakker’s haircut and Tammy Faye’s makeup.
My guess is I’m not going to convince you of anything.
If the packers roster continues to gel and they can show they can compete for a superbowl then the calculus changes. At that point i think a proven veteran is more valuable than a rookie as a backup. But i think Jordan love is a pretty big unknown at this point and nobody expected Green Bay to contend this year. If love had struggled and you think his backup had potential why not give him a shot? You said yourself that if a starter goes down the season is shot so the backup is only there to be servicable for a few games if qb1 is sidelined for a game or 2.
Again, the comment by Chuck Weak was directed at the Vikings' inability to find a backup. I think most people would agree that Mullins is a serviceable backup. Nobody wants to hold two starters on their team. However, if your starter goes down and your backup, your season is over. That's just the way it is. I am not even convinced had Mullens been healthy; you guys would have made the playoffs. Because they beat the Bears or Broncos with Mullens.
So it is your opinion that it is best practice to have a rookie QB who has never thrown an NFL pass as a backup? Unlike the Vikings, who signed a seasoned veteran at #2. That is all I am asking.
(Hypothetical, if the Vikings in the upcoming draft actually get their head out of their ass and move on a 1st round QB, they should dump Mullins and put a rookie late-round pick at #2? That's smart business, right?)
It might not be best practice if you expect your team to be a serious contender. In that case you want a guy who can win a game or 3 if qb1 gets sidelined while he’s going through concussion protocol or some other short term injury. But i guess i don’t see the advantage of a stop gap qb on a lost season. How is evaluating a rookie qb a bad thing. Favre got his opportunity because of injury.
Edit: to answer your hypothetical, assuming cousins returns to the vikings, the rookie should sit and learn. So i guess, yeah, having a rookie backup is how you find your future qb
Ok. I think there's quite a difference between a first-round talent being your number 2 holding a clipboard and a fifth-round pick. We're glossing over that. I guess you think the Packers thought they would suck this year and said "fuck it." I don't think so, but whatever.
So now that the Packers are the juggernaut that some of their fans claim they are, and they have a young hall-of-fame talent for the future (as some here claim), you're good with the Packers rolling with Clifford next year as the exigency plan?
"Pickett"
"Sir yes sir"
"1800, Engineers, You go out and find mines"
Again, the comment by Chuck Weak was directed at the Vikings' inability to find a backup. I think most people would agree that Mullins is a serviceable backup. Nobody wants to hold two starters on their team. However, if your starter goes down and your backup, your season is over. That's just the way it is. I am not even convinced had Mullens been healthy; you guys would have made the playoffs. Because they beat the Bears or Broncos with Mullens.
So it is your opinion that it is best practice to have a rookie QB who has never thrown an NFL pass as a backup? Unlike the Vikings, who signed a seasoned veteran at #2. That is all I am asking.
(Hypothetical, if the Vikings in the upcoming draft actually get their head out of their ass and move on a 1st round QB, they should dump Mullins and put a rookie late-round pick at #2? That's smart business, right?)
It might not be best practice if you expect your team to be a serious contender. In that case you want a guy who can win a game or 3 if qb1 gets sidelined while he’s going through concussion protocol or some other short term injury. But i guess i don’t see the advantage of a stop gap qb on a lost season. How is evaluating a rookie qb a bad thing. Favre got his opportunity because of injury.
Edit: to answer your hypothetical, assuming cousins returns to the vikings, the rookie should sit and learn. So i guess, yeah, having a rookie backup is how you find your future qb
Ok. I think there's quite a difference between a first-round talent being your number 2 holding a clipboard and a fifth-round pick. We're glossing over that. I guess you think the Packers thought they would suck this year and said "fuck it." I don't think so, but whatever.
So now that the Packers are the juggernaut that some of their fans claim they are, and they have a young hall-of-fame talent for the future (as some here claim), you're good with the Packers rolling with Clifford next year as the exigency plan?
Is it also possible the packers thought Clifford is good enough? That maybe He’s a quick learner, a good teammate and leader and has adequate physical abilities? I’m not a qualified NFL personnel evaluator but his preseason performance seemed ok at least. If the packers think he’s good enough to be on the team, then yeah. I’m good with it. What’s a journeyman starter going to bring besides mediocrity?
Why does it bother you so much that a fan base gets excited about their team? Every fan base does it. That’s kind of the whole point of being a fan. It’s a distraction from real life.
Is it also possible the packers thought Clifford is good enough? That maybe He’s a quick learner, a good teammate and leader and has adequate physical abilities? I’m not a qualified NFL personnel evaluator but his preseason performance seemed ok at least. If the packers think he’s good enough to be on the team, then yeah. I’m good with it. What’s a journeyman starter going to bring besides mediocrity?
Why does it bother you so much that a fan base gets excited about their team? Every fan base does it. That’s kind of the whole point of being a fan. It’s a distraction from real life.
I didn't say or imply any of that in your second paragraph. I don't care that Packer fans are excited about their team. A comment was made about the Vikings' inability to find a backup, which they had. Then the old olive & mustard role into 2023 with an unproven twenty-two-year-old fifth-round pick as their exigency if Love were to have an unfortunate injury. I think that's kind of stupid, don't you think?
"Pickett"
"Sir yes sir"
"1800, Engineers, You go out and find mines"
The Vikes had a backup but he was hurt so they traded for another back up who sucked. Then the backup came back and didn't do shit. So the team with 3 backups tanked in hope of drafting another QB in the " hope" he's better than the other backups. But wait! The " Quarterback Whisperer" says you shouldn't keep the new QB on the bench to learn so just let it rip with the new guy. Then when he sucks repeat the cycle.
Then there are some first round mocks where they don't even draft a QB. Meanwhile their rival has a backup that played like 10 snaps all year and looked better only throwing 1 pass than their 3 sucky backups.
There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but Calebs' stupidity will remain!
TRUMPHUMPERS ™ ARE TRAITORS!
Proud member of the RFP!
Never trust a former president who wears Jim Bakker’s haircut and Tammy Faye’s makeup.
What's the goal of every NFL team? To win the Superb Owl. Name a backup QB besides Jeff Hostetler that won one. The answer is none. You hope the he can "weather the storm" for when the starter comes back. When the starter is out for the season You are pretty much screwed. Sure you can sign Joe Flacco and maybe get into the off's but history shows it doesn't end well.
So you roll with a cheap rookie and spend somewhere else and build your team or plod along like the Vikes and Saints with Jameis Winston and Nick Mullens.
This all stems from Viking fans on their knees praying the Packers sign Love to a 50 million a year contract and then he sucks after he signs it. Just so they can prove their take is correct and they are smarter than any Packer fan. Signing young unproven players is always a crapshoot. And a Vet QB that is a back up is usually a back up for a reason. Not good enough to lead a team to a title. I'll take my chances with a young guy if he shows me something.
There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but Calebs' stupidity will remain!
TRUMPHUMPERS ™ ARE TRAITORS!
Proud member of the RFP!
Never trust a former president who wears Jim Bakker’s haircut and Tammy Faye’s makeup.
Is it also possible the packers thought Clifford is good enough? That maybe He’s a quick learner, a good teammate and leader and has adequate physical abilities? I’m not a qualified NFL personnel evaluator but his preseason performance seemed ok at least. If the packers think he’s good enough to be on the team, then yeah. I’m good with it. What’s a journeyman starter going to bring besides mediocrity?
Why does it bother you so much that a fan base gets excited about their team? Every fan base does it. That’s kind of the whole point of being a fan. It’s a distraction from real life.
I didn't say or imply any of that in your second paragraph. I don't care that Packer fans are excited about their team. A comment was made about the Vikings' inability to find a backup, which they had. Then the old olive & mustard role into 2023 with an unproven twenty-two-year-old fifth-round pick as their exigency if Love were to have an unfortunate injury. I think that's kind of stupid, don't you think?
No, i don’t think it’s stupid. Pretty much everyone agrees that if your starting qb is seriously injured the season is most likely shot anyway.
anthony wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 5:19 pm
Also, Matt Flynn was a rookie backing up aaron rodgers in rodgers first year starting, and brett favre was in his second season in the league backing up don majkowski….
And who was the backup to Favre? It was mostly rookie after rookie.
Detmer
Brunnell
A couple years of a washed up Jim McMahon
Aaron Brooks
Matt Hasselbeck
Then after all those guys were gone they handed the clipboard to Doug Pederson
“It... is... GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!” “No, he missed it! Are you kidding me? He missed it right.”
Gork wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 7:05 am
What's the goal of every NFL team? To win the Superb Owl. Name a backup QB besides Jeff Hostetler that won one. The answer is none. You hope the he can "weather the storm" for when the starter comes back. When the starter is out for the season You are pretty much screwed. Sure you can sign Joe Flacco and maybe get into the off's but history shows it doesn't end well.
So you roll with a cheap rookie and spend somewhere else and build your team or plod along like the Vikes and Saints with Jameis Winston and Nick Mullens.
This all stems from Viking fans on their knees praying the Packers sign Love to a 50 million a year contract and then he sucks after he signs it. Just so they can prove their take is correct and they are smarter than any Packer fan. Signing young unproven players is always a crapshoot. And a Vet QB that is a back up is usually a back up for a reason. Not good enough to lead a team to a title. I'll take my chances with a young guy if he shows me something.
Gork wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 7:05 am
What's the goal of every NFL team? To win the Superb Owl. Name a backup QB besides Jeff Hostetler that won one. The answer is none. You hope the he can "weather the storm" for when the starter comes back. When the starter is out for the season You are pretty much screwed. Sure you can sign Joe Flacco and maybe get into the off's but history shows it doesn't end well.
So you roll with a cheap rookie and spend somewhere else and build your team or plod along like the Vikes and Saints with Jameis Winston and Nick Mullens.
This all stems from Viking fans on their knees praying the Packers sign Love to a 50 million a year contract and then he sucks after he signs it. Just so they can prove their take is correct and they are smarter than any Packer fan. Signing young unproven players is always a crapshoot. And a Vet QB that is a back up is usually a back up for a reason. Not good enough to lead a team to a title. I'll take my chances with a young guy if he shows me something.
You should check facts before you type. Backup QB that won SB:
Tom Brady
Nick Foles
Jim Plunkett
Doug Williams
Kurt warner
Trent dilfer
PackIsBack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:58 pm
How many of them played for the Vikings?
Those " back ups" started a lot of games. Come to think of it, Brent Favor was a back up. Aaron Rogers was a back up and Bart Starr was a " back up. Only Favor played for the Vikings.
There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but Calebs' stupidity will remain!
TRUMPHUMPERS ™ ARE TRAITORS!
Proud member of the RFP!
Never trust a former president who wears Jim Bakker’s haircut and Tammy Faye’s makeup.
[quote=Gork post_id=2702408 time=1706660249 user_id=3481]
[quote=PackIsBack post_id=2702336 time=1706655510 user_id=3886]
How many of them played for the Vikings?
[/quote]
Those " back ups" started a lot of games. Come to think of it, Brent Favor was a back up. Aaron Rogers was a back up and Bart Starr was a " back up. Only Favor played for the Vikings.
[/quote]
Doubling down on your misinformation? Hostetler started a lot of games as well. All the players I listed started the year as backups and ended as sb winners.
PackIsBack wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:02 am
Not Kurt Warner unless you are counting preseason as starting the year as a backup. Trent Green went down before he took a regular season snap.
That is true. I left him in there because he was obviously not the intended starter. I'm not going to research who started preseason games. I mean dilfer could have been #1 at some point in time in preseason, dont know or care. He didn't start opener. The others were backups for sure.
™ ARE TRAITORS! 
“It... is... GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!” “No, he missed it! Are you kidding me? He missed it right.” 
