Thread: ESPN Matt Williamson"NFC North: 2012 backup quarterback"

I agree completely and in comparison to what other QB's of his stature got in the way to contract his cost is not out of line. Maybe the best comparative would be Detroit who has Shaun Hill as their backup. The Lions just re-signed him to a two year deal worth $5.5 mil/$2.75 mil per year. So a one year deal with Campbell is in that ballpark. Just for giggles and grins here's what the rating is for the Packers and Lions.

While Detroit is similarly protected against a huge drop off in talent should Stafford go down the Packers are in a similar situation to where we stood a year ago. Protecting Aaron Rodgers has got to be high on their list. Without him their season would likely collapse the same as the Bears did last year.

Packers: Backup QB plan

June, 5, 2012 Jun 5
11:40
AM ET

By Matt Williamson | ESPN.com




Assessing the Green Bay Packers' backup QB situation if Aaron Rodgers is injured and misses time.

Green Bay has Graham Harrell and B.J. Coleman behind Rodgers. That is a far cry from having Matt Flynn and frankly, they should be keeping their eyes open for another option before training camp starts. Of course, neither of these guys is anywhere near Rodgers’ class, but the drop-off in Green Bay is about as drastic as with any team in the league. While I am not a fan of Harrell, who has yet to start an NFL game and has underwhelming tools, I do applaud the late-round draft choice of Coleman. Coleman very well could develop into a high-end No. 2 quarterback. Even though he's making a very difficult transition to the NFL from a small college, Coleman certainly could pass Harrell on Green Bay’s depth chart. But for now, the cupboard behind the league’s best player is quite bare. Clearly the best thing Green Bay does is throw the football. That would be compromised a great deal without Rodgers. The Packers have more weapons than they know what to do with, but just one quarterback.

Confidence rating (out of 100) if Rodgers is out for an extended period: 10.

Tags:Green Bay Packers, Matt Flynn, Aaron Rodgers, Graham Harrell, 2012 backup quarterback, 2012 backup quarterback NFC



Lions: Backup QB plan

June, 5, 2012 Jun 5
11:20
AM ET

By Matt Williamson | ESPN.com



Assessing the Detroit Lions' backup QB situation if Matthew Stafford is injured and misses time.

Shaun Hill is one of the best backup quarterbacks in the NFL and Detroit obviously is very aware of Stafford’s injury history. Even though Stafford just completed the first 16-game season of his career, having a strong backup quarterback is imperative for this up-and-coming organization, and it does. Hill is nowhere near as physically gifted as Stafford, but his teammates respond to him and he consistently moves the offense. In Hill’s 26 starts, his team has won half of those games. He doesn’t possess a big arm, but he's aggressive and will not hesitate to go downfield, especially with the Lions’ receiving corps. Detroit’s fantastic passing attack would remain formidable with Hill behind center, but surely the Lions would increase the percentage in which they run the football.

Confidence rating (out of 100) if Stafford is out for an extended period: 70.

Granted, at the beginning of last season no one could have known Flynn would turn out as good as he did. But is Harrell really his equal? I can't judge that because I've never seen him play. But if it turns out that he is and two years in a row a backup seemingly comes out of nowhere and plays good enough to earn a shot at a starting spot elsewhere I'd say that's a hell of a good program for developing QB's they've got going up there.

You have to admit that entrusting the backup role to a player with little or no game experience carries a certain amount of risk. Whether his take on Harrell is correct or not the situation behind Rodgers is riskier than the backup situations in Detroit or Chicago. I think that was the authors main point. Maybe he should have just left out his personal opinion of Harrell. Just the fact that he no game experience makes it riskier.

Originally Posted by Evernight

I don't see how they can even make that claim. "A far cry?" We're in the exact same situation we were in last season at the backup QB position. We have a relatively unproven unknown quantity in Graham Harrell (same as Matt Flynn the past few seasons) who has been in our system learning in McCarthy's QB school for two full seasons and has shown improvement in both of those. Flynn had yet to start an NFL game before last season or even see the field much and look what he was able to do. If McCarthy didn't feel Harrell was ready to take the #2 spot we would have gone out and signed a vet backup. I trust McCarthy 1,000x more than a hack BSPN writer.

I agree that you should trust McCarthy more than ANY hack writer, but you have to admit that Harrell is more "unproven" than Flynn was last year. At least Flynn got some gametime action prior to last year. Let's not forget that 3rd string guys get less reps than 2nd, which get waaaaaaaaay less than 1st also.

Further, while I'll give credit to McCarthy's "QB school", you have to admit that NO ONE hits on every unproven QB they run through their system, not even Bill Walsh.

Respectfully, I think it's reasonable to be a bit apprehensive of the QB position should Rodgers go down.

Originally Posted by Evernight

I don't see how they can even make that claim. "A far cry?" We're in the exact same situation we were in last season at the backup QB position.

I don't wish bad on anyone (even injury to Rodgers), but nowadays no QB is an ironman. Odds are probably decent that he'll go down like every other QB eventually does. Without Rogers the wheels come off in Green Bay. Season could be over. But then again, if anyone has a track record of having great backups - it's Green Bay. I'll admit that.

Originally Posted by Evernight

Sure it's risky, but think about it. How far is a backup QB going to actually take you? With the majority of teams in the league the drop-off from starter to backup is significant. If the drop-off isn't significant, the starter is either so horrible that they're about equal to the backup or the team is lucky enough to have a stellar backup. Sure you may win a few extra games with that backup, but in reality once that starter goes down for a significant period of time you can pretty well write off the rest of the season. Backups don't generally see enough action to be prepared to face the teams they'll see come playoff time (assuming they're able to take the team that far). So yes it would be great to have a proven good backup QB, but at the end of the day I much prefer how we've done it under Ted Thompson in drafting quarterbacks and grooming our own talent. It has worked exceptionally well since the day he took over the team and the reward has thus far far outweighed the risk.

We've been debating that very question for a couple of days as it relates to signing Campbell. I think in the case of Cutler vs Campbell the drop off isn't anywhere near as severe as it would be if McCown was the #2.

I think the key isn't just some degree of talent but has the guys actually played and run an offense in game time in the NFL. Campbell has done a lot of that so he's experienced enough to take over with some drop off but not anywhere near what we experienced last year.

The other factor to consider if what happens if you don't lose your starter for the entire season and if you make the playoffs he's ready to return? With Hanie we obviously had no chance of that although before he played I think we all believed he was up to the task at least as far as beating AFC West teams was concerned. I don't think you can take the risk of having an unprepared #2 guy. We proved that last year when a playoff season went down the tubes.

There was a time when teams carried decent backups QB's and as far as this being a passing oriented QB dependent game these days I don't believe it's wise to leave the backup position in the hands of an inexperienced player.

Not spending enough to insure the position is pretty costly. The additional monies made by making the playoffs would more than pay the difference between the salaries or the inexperienced and the experienced QB not to mention the disappointment of the fans.

Originally Posted by Evernight

Honestly, I'm not apprehensive about the backup QB position at all. It's been this way even since the Favre days.

And that's why you're not worried while the rest of us would be crappin' our pants. You folks have been downright spoiled for a couple decades now and can probably plan on continued security for the better part of the next decade. Then, there's the Bears. But, we don't need to go into that history again. lol I personally think you should be nervous about the backup QB situation, but understand why you're not. I just hope Rodgers stays healthy so when we sweep the Pack they don't have any excuses.