Pack93z
12 years ago
Why in the hell would the Packers sign Vince Young? I like him as a player more than most, but one thing he is not, he is not built for a timing based, accuracy required offense.

I could see add him as a project, but as a replacement for the primary backup to Rodgers.. makes no sense as it is an ill fit in the short term.

Basically.. I don't know that you can make him an accurate passer period.. let alone expect it to happen in the course of a week.

Young belongs in truly balanced offense that likes to play a primary vertical passing game where the passing windows could be expanded.. but for our type of offense, he simply lacks the accuracy to fit in speaking short term. Not to mention that he really hasn't proven to be a student of the game.. IE.. showing he can break down a defense and read through the progressions of a play making solid decisions.

Unless we are looking at veteran QB's with a displayed accuracy and understanding of defenses / our brand of offense.. I don't see it as a positive move in any sense.

In my opinion, we are married to Harrell for this season, at least the first half of it as the primary backup. I just don't see bringing anyone else in and expecting more than Harrell will provide. In other words, the complexity of this offense, especially with it being heavy passing based, does not lend itself well to just adding a QB and expecting him to be ready in a couple of weeks.. let alone what 2?

I firmly believe that we will see more from Harrell this weekend as the first half he will have improved talent around him.. especially in protection. I think out of the 4 games this preseason.. this is the one that will be more of a litmus test.

Lets review come Friday.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Porforis
12 years ago

Why in the hell would the Packers sign Vince Young? I like him as a player more than most, but one thing he is not, he is not built for a timing based, accuracy required offense.

I could see add him as a project, but as a replacement for the primary backup to Rodgers.. makes no sense as it is an ill fit in the short term.

Basically.. I don't know that you can make him an accurate passer period.. let alone expect it to happen in the course of a week.

Young belongs in truly balanced offense that likes to play a primary vertical passing game where the passing windows could be expanded.. but for our type of offense, he simply lacks the accuracy to fit in speaking short term. Not to mention that he really hasn't proven to be a student of the game.. IE.. showing he can break down a defense and read through the progressions of a play making solid decisions.

Unless we are looking at veteran QB's with a displayed accuracy and understanding of defenses / our brand of offense.. I don't see it as a positive move in any sense.

In my opinion, we are married to Harrell for this season, at least the first half of it as the primary backup. I just don't see bringing anyone else in and expecting more than Harrell will provide. In other words, the complexity of this offense, especially with it being heavy passing based, does not lend itself well to just adding a QB and expecting him to be ready in a couple of weeks.. let alone what 2?

I firmly believe that we will see more from Harrell this weekend as the first half he will have improved talent around him.. especially in protection. I think out of the 4 games this preseason.. this is the one that will be more of a litmus test.

Lets review come Friday.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 



I disagree on the count of not being able to bring in anybody better than Harrell because the offense is too complex to pick up in time to be useful. In an emergency situation which will hopefully never happen, such as ARod and Harrell going down (And something happening to Coleman), whoever they'd bring in would work with a simplified version of the playbook. Same thing would happen if they brought in a veteran not used to the Packers system, and if he's much more consistent and reliable than Harrell, I'd say it'd be worth it even if it meant limiting our play options on offense. The best playbook in the universe can't help you if your QB has an inconsistent noodle arm.
Pack93z
12 years ago
I will still contend that he can make most of the throws.. no he is not in Rodgers league.. but few are.

I could mention again the shoddy protection he has been afforded... or him having to move and throw a large percentage of his passes on the move. But we apparently expect everyone to throw on the run like Rodgers.

I will just agree to disagree that he can't make the throws.. we seen him make those throws last preseason.

Not hitting the panic button am I.

And I do not disagree that you could alter the playbook to simple it down for any QB.. that is not the point of a backup though.. to change our offense to the point to fit them. It is to have someone ready to go and running your offense with as little change as possible.. but without Rodgers there is going to be a drop off to almost any other QB.

I have confidence in Harrell until he shows me he can't do it from a clean pocket or at least being afforded a couple beats in the pocket. Wait.. we seen that against the Chargers with the no huddle and him having a bit of time. šŸ¤”
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
PackerTraxx
12 years ago
Personally, it would be nice to see one series with all the ones. Then 1 or 2 series of Harrell with the ones. Let Harrell play through the first series of the second half. Then have Coleman finish it out. JMHO
Why is Jerry Kramer not in the Hall of Fame?
DakotaT
12 years ago
I have no confindence in noodle arm Harrell, or noodle arm Flynn for that matter as a starting quarterback in this league. I've resolved my thinking to that if Rodgers goes down, then that's the season. It would be nice to have a decent backup to attempt to win a few games in Rodger's absence. But we have some pretty hard headed managers on our team, and in our fan base (93Z) who feel Harrell is good enough. I hope we don't need to find out.
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
12 years ago

But we have some pretty hard headed managers on our team, and in our fan base (93Z) who feel Harrell is good enough. I hope we don't need to find out.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



I can agree with you on both parts.. me being hard headed and hoping we don't need to test QB #2 regardless of his name.

I happen to agree as well that if Rodgers goes down.. we are more than likely finished thinking Superbowl regardless.


And no I can't say that I have complete confidence in Harrell.. but I really don't think he has been given much in the terms of opportunity to show it.

Normally I would go into a rant about the inabilities of the offensive line coaching of this team.. notably getting guys ready to play in a timely fashion.. but I tire of it. We are saddled with that boat anchor I fear.


"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
PackerTraxx
12 years ago
I don't think Harrell has the arm either, but I would still like to see him with the ones. Montana didn't have a strong arm either but made up for it with other attributes. I don't think Harrell has enough of those either but I think we should find out. As I have said in other posts, my belief is that before the season is out Coleman will move past Harrell. If Rodgers goes down I agree we're finished for the SB if it's for an extended time or for the playoffs. The same is true for any other team though.
Why is Jerry Kramer not in the Hall of Fame?
Zero2Cool
12 years ago
Remember when I said to keep in mind Rodgers preseason performances when bashing Harrell?

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/more.php?m=49&post_id=10611 


I still say he should be cut so Colt McCoy and be added. šŸ™‚
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
12 years ago
That is the point.. and most of that work extends past the QB themselves.

Stand on the fact the Harrell is fine.. in fact I will say he is going to look much improved this week.

ā€œItā€™s preseason. Youā€™re trying to work on things,ā€ said Rodgers, the NFLā€™s all-time leader in passer rating who set an NFL record for single-season passer rating last year. ā€œSometimes youā€™re going to have real good results and sometimes itā€™s not going to look as good. But thankfully those stats donā€™t count, donā€™t carry over. Iā€™m not trying to be the top-rated passer in the preseason anymore."


"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
dfosterf
12 years ago
Colt McCoy vs. Harrell. I'm taking Colt.

Fan Shout
beast (11h) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (11h) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (21h) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (21h) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (23h) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! šŸ˜
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Nah, you see Lions OC leaving to be HC of Bears is directly related to Packers.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ohhhhhhh Zero is in TROUBLE
packerfanoutwest (21-Jan) : Zero, per your orders, check Bearshome, not packershome
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Then he'll land with another team and flourish.
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Ben going to Bears. He'll be out in 3 years.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jan) : what's so funny?
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

22-Jan / Random Babble / packerfanoutwest

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright Ā© 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.comā„¢. All Rights Reserved.