Brohm Sucks· Page 10 · PACKERSHOME

ILikeThePackers39
Registered

15 years ago

To clarify: I'm in complete agreement that our 3rd string QB isn't an issue - and if it becomes one, well, we're screwed anyway.

My focus was more on the 2nd QB, and as 93z's list shows, I don't see anyone out there that I think is much better than Flynn, if at all.

We can hope that somehow a TJack or the like shakes out once rosters get cut, but anyone that would be more comfortable with, say, Brooks Bollinger @ backup QB over Flynn, well, you're crazy.

blank

yooperfan
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#92

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:

I just don't understand where the thinking that the queens will release T-Jack comes from, I just don't see it, but as Foster pointed out Zigi is prone to doing weird shit also, not to mention Childress ( the mental midget of the North).

buckeyepackfan
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#93

I am amazed that this thread is in it's 7th page. TT's whole philosophy from day one was to build the team through the draft.

Which he has basically done, picking up a FA here and there. He drafted a qb in the 2nd rnd and 7th rnd.

Although they have pretty much switched rolls, The Packers have what they drafted.

A decent looking back-up qb, and a project qb who is taking al little more time to develope.

There are no guarantees, but looking toward this year, it is what most would have wanted.
A solid starter, a decent back-up, and a 3rd guy who isn't ready for the big time, but has time to learn.

I just don't understand the thinking of some.

Hopefully, Flynn and Brohm will become good trade bait when their rookie contracts expire. That would mean AR has stayed healthy and has kept getting better as the starter.

Any team out there is going to be in dire straights if they have to depend on their 3rd string qb.

Watching last weeks game Brohm had his good moments and he had his bad. Maybe by this time next year, he will be having mostly good moments. Some guys you just have to give a little more time to develope.

I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!

Pack93z
Select Member

15 years ago

#94

"yooperfan" wrote:

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:

Why TJ would be released or more probable traded, the only logical notion would be to eliminate a possible locker room issue with a portion of the current Viking players in TJ's corner over Brett.. IE the receivers.

Shipping him off the roster eliminates that possibility, but like you I don't see that happening unless that have confidence in Booty growing into the starter in the next year to two.

And ILTP39, I agree.. IMO there is only two routes to go in replacing Brohm.. a better option as a imediate second stringer or a better prospect as a third.. other than that.. status quo IMO.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

Greg C.
Registered

15 years ago

#95

Although they have pretty much switched rolls, The Packers have what they drafted.

A decent looking back-up qb, and a project qb who is taking al little more time to develope.

There are no guarantees, but looking toward this year, it is what most would have wanted.
A solid starter, a decent back-up, and a 3rd guy who isn't ready for the big time, but has time to learn.

"buckeyepackfan" wrote:

That's exactly the way I look at it. Except I will add that if the 7th round pick was the one who was struggling, he may have been cut or traded already. That's what's frustrating. There's a feeling that we're kind of stuck with Brohm because he was drafted so high. I think Thompson will hang onto him for one more year.

blank

ILikeThePackers39
Registered

15 years ago

#96

"yooperfan" wrote:

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:

I doubt they will, though at this point I would imagine that he'd be happier anywhere but there. From all the random dreck I've heard, the idea is that they'd keep Sage (just paid him a lot of money) and Booty (QB of the future), and that would leave T-Jack as the odd man out. I think I read on PFT that they don't have plans to do anything at this point, but if they did I've heard it opined that T-Jack would be the guy that gets cut free.

But hell if I know, man. I do know I'd rather have Flynn as my backup than Sage.

blank

Pack93z
Select Member

15 years ago

#97

But hell if I know, man. I do know I'd rather have Flynn as my backup than Sage.

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:

IDK.. maybe I like Sage better than the average person.. seems like a solid backup, has carried the Texans to a win a time or two.. owns a respectable QB rating (Career) or 81.3...

I think you could do worse..

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

ILikeThePackers39
Registered

15 years ago

#98

But hell if I know, man. I do know I'd rather have Flynn as my backup than Sage.

"pack93z" wrote:

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:

It's the mental hiccups (like his attempt to imitate a helicopter propeller last year) that drive me mad. He seems prone to those, and I'd rather have someone less inclined to do something stupid as my backup QB. Flynn seems more level-headed. Admittedly, though, it's a pretty tough choice, but if asked to choose, I'd go with Flynn.

blank

dfosterf
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#99

But hell if I know, man. I do know I'd rather have Flynn as my backup than Sage.

"pack93z" wrote:

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:

See?

Remember when we were in a froth about Crabtree and his holdout and it's effects on getting Raji into camp?

Now some are wondering why we are discussing this, having gone on for x pages-what not...

I understand their point of view, but I just figured out why we do it...

We pre-argue.

Ahead of the curve thing. This is what I have been driving at.

I'm taking Rodgers , Flynn and Sage in this scenario...including factoring in Brohm potential vs. Sage as a journeyman.

I prefer Rodgers, Flynn and TJack...but that is not even close (for me)---between arguing about Brohm vs. TJack or Brohm vs. Sage

Rodgers goes down. Flynn steps in. Flynn can't move the team (I think he could, but hear me out) Now what? Brohm or TJack? Brohm or Rosenfels? This is the reason I am "pre-arguing" this whole thing, and if it goes another 8 pages, I personally do not mind, your result may vary.

Rockmolder
Honored Member

15 years ago

#100

I'm still dissapointed about not getting Mark Brunell.

Anyway, my strategy would be like this. Starer, just the best QB on your roster, obviously. Back-up, old 'proven' guy. Maybe no amazing player, but someone who can move the team when asked to and then a 3rd stringer who's a young guy you can groom.

In that scenario, Rodgers - Sage - Flynn would be better. Biggest problem here, though, is that Sage hasn't been that dependable back-up in his career. He's been an erratic player who couldn't grasp a starting spot. Shaun Hill (not totally proven, but still), Mark Brunell, Charlie Batch, Byron Leftwich. You get my drift.

I'm not too unhappy with the guys we have now. As long as Rodgers doesn't go down and Brohm isn't trusted into the back-up role, I'm happy. Your 3rd stringer can usually suck. I asume that we're still trying to groom him.

What'd piss me off is something like Indianapolis is doing and the Patriots have done. Taking a huge gamble on some guy who hasn't played a snap for quite some time, and when he has, he's been very unimpressive.

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) : Lions shopping Jameson Williams?

packerfanoutwest (9h) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.

Zero2Cool (9h) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat

wpr (10h) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.

wpr (10h) : now 3

Zero2Cool (11h) : Who? What?

beast (19h) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?

Martha Careful (21-Apr) : meh

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast

wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.

wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!

dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am

wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days

beast (18-Apr) : 6 days

wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep

dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire

dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that

dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.

dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move

dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what

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

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24