You disagree with me.. how dare you.. :lol: (*edit.. to make sure it is clear.. disagree with me often.. I make plenty of misreads)
What I am saying is just this.. we have the pieces in place to make a deep run into the playoffs.. but it all hinges on Arod...
My opinion.. is you minimize the risk of ruining your season on the loss of one single player.. regardless of position. By relying on completely unproven players behind your starter is a huge risk.. by signing a veteran a couple weeks/months ago that could have minimized your dependency on rookies would be a fair move to the rest of your ball club.
To hammer home the point, that move a couple weeks ago may not have been a former QB.. if I was pretty confident that relationship was beyond repair I would have moved on acquiring another option for the club.
In my business I design everything with a failsafe redundancy option.. two rookies behind a first time starter doesn't equal that in my book. Again.. just my opinion.. but the dragging out the summer drama has put us in a bit of a bind here.. but again.. what is in the best interest of the club needs to prevail.
And RP.. I have faith in the leadership of this club.. however this is a risk that doesn't have much room for error. Name another club out there with only 3 QB's on the roster going through camp?
As a fan of this club, I see nothing wrong with questioning the soundness of this QB strategy we are deploying.
"zombieslayer" wrote:
Good argument.
My counter:
We got rid of Brett Favre, so, the new strategy is building for the future rather than try to win it all now. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's my understanding of what we're doing.
I don't think anyone who's sober can tell me with a straight face that Aaron Rodgers is a better QB than Brett Favre. But, TT/MM's lines of reasoning are Rodgers has upside, Favre has downside, and instead of having the Sherman strategy of damning our future for a shot to win it all now, we are planning to be good for a very long time.
Now, if you're planning to be good for a long time, you want 2 good QBs. You have Aaron Rodgers, your starter, and you train Brian Brohm to be his backup. If you put a Vet in there, the Vet becomes #2, we lose Flynn completely (who may be a long-term project), and Brohm never sees the field. Do you really want to sacrifice our long-term QB development for a win now approach?
"pack93z" wrote: