Packers cut Brian Brohm· Page 5

Grabacr
Member

15 years ago

#41

i think its for the best. cut the dead weight and try again next draft!

wpr
Preferred Member

15 years ago

#42

My local news station said the Raiders cut ties with Jeff Garcia.

POUNCE!!!

"blueleopard" wrote:

That's been predicted all pre-season, apparently he's not been getting on with JaMarcus Russell. Still he'd be an incredible back-up, A-Rod doesn't need anything from Garcia so there shouldn't be the personality clash there was in Oakland, and Garcia can still play. When McNabb went down a couple of years back Garcia basically took Philly to the playoffs.

"wpr" wrote:

A lot of people have suggested that GB pick up one veteran or another as the back up to Aaron Rodgers. I am a little concerned with that. If GB does sign another QB and moves him into the #2 slot pushing Flynn to the 3, it will hinder Flynn's growth in this system The #1 takes all most all the the snaps in practice. The 2 takes what little there is left. The 3 plays the opposition team of the week. While it may be good to face the GB #1 defense, it doesn't help him learn the intricacies of the GB offense and he would not get a lot of reps until next year's training camp.

"masseyattack" wrote:

Sorry, but I couldn't give less of a damn about Flynn's development. He already proved he's the backup. He beat Brian Brohm--something that wasn't supposed to happen.

Then he goes and gets himself injured.

This is a business. If you can't do your job, you're going to be replaced. I'd rather have a steady guy like Garcia take us to the playoffs should Rodgers go down, rather than pull my hair out losing games because of Flynn's inexperience.

He won't get reps until next year's training camp anyway--so why is that an issue?

"blueleopard" wrote:

Kinda harsh aren't you? I was merely saying that neither the 2nd nor 3rd string QBs are likely to get into a game. If Rodgers is injured I doubt that GB will have a very successful season regardless of who they put out there.

Jeff Garcia let's see-
He is a journeyman player who's best years are behind him.
He has been with 6 teams in 11 years.
He is 39 years old.
If I remember correctly this is not the 1st year he has had trouble with teammates in the locker room.

IF Flynn were the #2, and I am not saying on Monday he will be, he WOULD get about 20% of the reps with the 1st team. He would continue to develop as a GB QB. I would think that would be a good thing as I do not see Garcia being in GB again next year and we would have the same problem that we have right now. A backup QB who has very little experience and GB would be looking for yet another retread (old broken down) QB to fill in for a season while their young QBs grow. Keeping Fynn
as the not needed and little used #2 is better for the team long term.

Dulak
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#43

Wasnt expecting this one - its too bad. Although flynn better get better and start practicing more.

dfosterf
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#44

...and you thought 'ol dfosterf was kiddin'.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

15 years ago

#45

TT and Mike McCarthy are being some harsh motherfuckers this year. No softness, no favoritism, no pandering to maudlin fan sentiment. I think they taste blood and are dead serious. Perform or you're out. There is a new sheriff in town, and I like it.

See dfosterf's sig.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

15 years ago

#46

I predicted many months ago that Brian Brohm would ultimately have success, just not with the Packers. So far the latter half of my prediction has come true. We'll see if the first half does.

olds70supreme
Member

15 years ago

#47

I can see both sides, but I am leaning towards the argument that you probably don't need 3 quarterbacks going into the season, unless Flynn's injury gets worse or is more serious. Think about it - If Rodgers and Flynn go down during the season than serious thoughts of a Superbowl are out the window. Also, it seems to me that there are enough qb's available to where if the Packers did have Rodgers or Flynn go down, they could pick someone up during the season.

This brings up an interesting question though: If a 3rd string qb is in fact considered to be taking up a roster spot from a more valuable player, than who is that player? Is a 3rd string FB really more important than a 3rd string QB? Not where I am sitting, since the FB would likely see little playing time and would have less of an impact than the QB would. If that extra roster spot helps us keep a defensive lineman, linebacker, or secondary position than I would think it would be worth it. It seems that the secondary and LB positions all have (or had) bubble players who could have made the team and very likely would have contributed on the field.

blank

Stevetarded
Registered

15 years ago

#48

My local news station said the Raiders cut ties with Jeff Garcia.

POUNCE!!!

"blueleopard" wrote:

"wpr" wrote:

"masseyattack" wrote:

Sorry, but I couldn't give less of a damn about Flynn's development. He already proved he's the backup. He beat Brian Brohm--something that wasn't supposed to happen.

Then he goes and gets himself injured.

This is a business. If you can't do your job, you're going to be replaced. I'd rather have a steady guy like Garcia take us to the playoffs should Rodgers go down, rather than pull my hair out losing games because of Flynn's inexperience.

He won't get reps until next year's training camp anyway--so why is that an issue?

"blueleopard" wrote:

He gets himself injured?? Thats a tad unfair don't you think when he got blasted by a 250+lb man coming around the end basically untouched? I don't really think he had anything to do with it.

Obviously the coaches think he can do his job. He showed them enough that even though he was healthy enough to play they didn't feel like they needed to see anything out of him in the last game.

I don't think we need a stellar back up. It would be difficult to find any available QB out there that could put the team on their shoulders like Rodgers can. With Flynn we have somebody who has familiarity with our WRs and our playbook. Without Rodgers we are going to need a solid D and run game to win no matter who the back up is. If we have those things IMO we can win with Flynn in there anyways.

blank

jdspacker4
Registered

15 years ago

#49

SURVEY SAYS CUT JUSTIN HARRELL TOO!!!!!!!!!

GO PACK GO!!!!

wpr
Preferred Member

15 years ago

#50

"olds70supreme" wrote:

If Rodgers and Flynn both are injured I think GB's chances of making it to the SB are gone no matter who the 3rd string QB is.
I can not think of a single team that has made it to the SB with a 3rd stringer running the team. Maybe you can.

Even if you had a stud like A Peterson in the backfield I doubt it would happen the other teams would cram 8-9 men in the box and dare you to try and pass.

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

Mucky Tundra (5m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (26m) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (34m) : 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 (46m) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (1h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (1h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (2h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (4h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (4h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (4h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (4h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (4h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (4h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (4h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (4h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (4h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (4h) : 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 (4h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (4h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (4h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (4h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (4h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (4h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (5h) : Packers will get in

beast (5h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (5h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (5h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (8h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (8h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (8h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (18h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (18h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

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