Scott Tolzien looks sharp so far in Packers camp· Page 2

nerdmann
Premier Member Topic Starter

9 years ago

I don't know that we'll be "fine" he's got a good arm and decent mobility. I just question his decision making. If only we could have fused him and Flynn together. Then we'd have the best back up QB ever!

Originally Posted by: FLORIDA PACKER88

I'd take him over Seneca Wallace, Graham Harrell and probably Flynn too.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

musccy
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#12

The Packers have invested 2 years in Tolzien who even we can see has made big strides. Of all the positions on the team, QB didn't rank near the top of "need."

We can only guess where Ted ranked him but 31 other teams let him slide to the 5th round.

Both of us like him, the pick, and the possible reward he provides, so I agree it was a tremendous value pick, much like Aaron Rodgers a decade ago.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#13

Originally Posted by: musccy

Packers invested three years in Graham Harrell. Golden Graham. Not a big deal. Tolzien didn't win for us. We NEEDED someone who could. Hundley has upside Scott doesn't.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

musccy
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#14

Packers invested three years in Graham Harrell. Golden Graham. Not a big deal. Tolzien didn't win for us. We NEEDED someone who could. Hundley has upside Scott doesn't.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Tolzien is a much better player than Graham, though...I feel that's easy to see.

We're nitpicking over something we ultimately both agree on...it's a good thing to have Hundley on the roster.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#15

Tolzien is a much better player than Graham, though...I feel that's easy to see.

We're nitpicking over something we ultimately both agree on...it's a good thing to have Hundley on the roster.

Originally Posted by: musccy

This was never about Hundley...it was about BPA or need drafting. I think we agree that we draft the BPA according to our need. We don't just draft the BPA.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

musccy
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#16

This was never about Hundley...it was about BPA or need drafting. I think we agree that we draft the BPA according to our need. We don't just draft the BPA.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

For a quick summary, yeah, I'd agree. Ted can say they're strictly bpa, but 2 corners in 2 picks this draft and all defense in 2012 I believe (?) show they're not literally bpa.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

9 years ago

#17

This was never about Hundley...it was about BPA or need drafting. I think we agree that we draft the BPA according to our need. We don't just draft the BPA.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I'm not sure what this has to do with Scott Tolzien, but oh well. The Packers draft the best player available by THEIR chart. Recall in 2009 where Michael Crabtree and B.J. Raji were both available -- at what was it ninth overall? -- and the Packers took Raji. I think I even read that Thompson had Crabtree a slight edge over Raji. The Packers followed their chart or board whichever you want to call it and took the best player available because the DL was thin, and WR was not.

As for the topic here, because I like topics ... Tolzien looks like a different dude back there. The thing I didn't care much for about him was the deer in headlights look on the field. That has diminished or been marginalized down enough where he actually is looking somewhat confident back there.

Porforis
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#18

As for the topic here, because I like topics ... Tolzien looks like a different dude back there. The thing I didn't care much for about him was the deer in headlights look on the field. That has diminished or been marginalized down enough where he actually is looking somewhat confident back there.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Absolutely. He's always had the arm strength, his two issues were consistency and not panicking in the pocket (which might be related to consistency issues). He was a lot more consistent throwing the ball and seemed to be a lot more poised in the pocket with bodies coming towards him from multiple angles.

Too bad we have ARod, I'd be excited to see this kid start in another year or two if he keeps growing. But he'll end up going to another team, or just waste his career away on our bench (which I could live with too, but if the kid can start, let him start)

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

9 years ago

#19

Too bad we have ARod, I'd be excited to see this kid start in another year or two if he keeps growing.

Originally Posted by: Porforis

I would love to see the reaction of the fan bases of about two dozen NFL teams after reading this. 😂

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#20

I have no idea why I even entered this topic? I thought I was debating BPA vs. NEED in another thread. Sorry.

musccy and I talk to each other when it's deader at night...I must've clicked into this topic thinking I was in a different one.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (1h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (1h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (1h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (1h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (1h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (1h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (1h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (1h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (2h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (3h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (3h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (3h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (3h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (3h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (3h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (4h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (4h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (5h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (5h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (5h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (5h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (5h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (6h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (6h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (7h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (7h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (7h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (7h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (7h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (7h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (7h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (7h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (7h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (7h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (7h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (8h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (8h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (8h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (8h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (8h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (8h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (8h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (8h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (8h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (8h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (8h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (8h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (8h) : Packers will get in

beast (8h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS