If Brian Hoyer was offered to start for Packers, he'd sign. He wants to play. He's said it several times when with just think Texans. Backup Brett Hundley or Tom Brady. Sorry, I'm going Brady.

I'm siding that this was a new opportunity that wasn't there earlier to improve the backup QB position, not the starting QB.

---

If they had confidence in Hundley, they wouldn't be trying to desperately to hide him.

---

This revelation makes McCarthy’s rant about the Kaepernick question when he said they had invested 3 and 2 years respectively in their backup quarterbacks, and they didn’t need to go outside the organization to sign another quarterback look even worse.

Hoyer not being in GB is the critical indicator that speaks of GB’s confidence in Hundley over Hoyer, making it to be something else is pure silliness.

Your agenda of hate blinds your ability to argue rationally; football is not as monosyllabic as your argument portends to make it!

1. GM decides personnel…Fire good! NO! GMs and Coaches COLLABORATE. Ted and MM had several discussions on Hundley’s capability as a back-up for 2 years now and it was discussed again when Rodgers went down.

2. Hundley starts…Food good! NO! Everyone who knows better, knows if Hoyer is better than Hundley he’d start, PERIOD. Only a moron [Hoyer and his agent are not] thinks Ted might agree that Hoyer starts no matter how much he might suck in practice. It is something that NEVER would be demanded or agreed to, NEVER. Well, it might be demanded by Kaepernick looking to file a collusion lawsuit.

3. 3 year deal…Cavewoman go’o’o’d. Really? So Hoyer is guaranteed to get paid for the next 3 years in NE? He took this 3 year deal instead of starting? First, WTF. Second, ahhh, no! Let me educate you on how this “3 year deal” is probably structured: a 100K, maybe 200K bonus, this and next year at or very near minimum and 3-4-5 maybe 100 Mil in year 3 that Hoyer will never see and maybe some incentives if he ends up successfully starting. It’s a 1 year deal near the min, if its longer its is 100% on NE's terms, so, it is not a 3 year deal.

4. Hoyer clearly knew his best opportunity to play was in GB. So he could play out a 1 year deal and seek a deal elsewhere next year.

5. GB may not even wanted him as a back-up or Hoyer didnt think he could master GB's offense or he or his family didn't want to come a culturally monosyllabic, provincial, frozen tundra located in the travel sphincter of the world.

Yeah, I didn't believe it either. Most people didn't. It only made Mikey look foolish.

---

This makes me wonder who they would of cut to make room. Would they of kept 3 QBs? If so McCarthy might not look as bad, but if he cut one of the QBs then yeah you hit the nail.

But maybe Francois would of be released for a QB... of course, still have to make room for OLB Biegel.

---

Of course it only makes McCarthy look bad if we assume that the rumors they were trying to bring in Hoyer are actually true. Unless they can be officially corroborated, it's nothing more than speculation.

---

Why would the rumor be false? The rumor wasn't used to jack up Hoyer's price at least publicly. It being false should only be alleged had it been used prior to the deal with the Pats. It wasn't.

I have little doubt the report is true for it makes no sense otherwise. Further, it makes me believe Ted isn't calling the shots anymore because that would be a very un Ted thing to do. I'm not even sure Ted is aware Aaron is hurt. Our biggest star and one of the NFLs brightest is down and what have we heard from Ted?

---

The team was a Super Bowl contender because it had Aaron Rodgers. Average QB play is not going to be enough to put us back into Super Bowl contention. Why send draft picks away for a team that is injured and has no chance? If Packers traded for lets say AJ McCarron or someone, then the argument would be what a stupid mistake.

Now if you're saying "did i say trade for QB? no, what about someone on defense" ... the debate on that is why would the Packers trade parts of the future for the defense now when Rodgers is hurt, but didn't while healthy?

It truly is a no-win situation.

---

Hoyer was a FA and required no picks. Pats picked him up for nothing other than the contract they gave him. Players released after the deadline are subject to waivers...ones before aren't. Hoyer was released before.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that SF releasing Hoyer was a stipulation to the Jimmy G trade. Belichick covers all his bases. Trading away his only backup looked a little odd but then here comes Hoyer.

The issue is not about whether Hoyer was good enough. It's about the fact MM said his room was set and then we hear Packers tried bringing in a FA especially after going ballistic on CK7 mention. It was a lie that MM was good with his QB room. Just more dreaded coach speak.

---