Vince Young Trying Out for Packers?

[Pushn40]

I don't think this signing hurts the Pack at all, but am not expecting much either. Taking a wait and see approach to this!

 

[GiantsPackersChamps2011]

I definitely like the move.

Packers sign QB Vince Young to 1-year deal | The Pigskin Report

Keep BJ Coleman as No.3 QB and give him one more year to develop

 

[#1BostonFan]

I'd say he would be a good back up considering Rogers will be getting hit a lot more this year.

 

[Jonny Valtimore]

It'll make preseason a bit more fun to watch I guess.

 

[packfancjh]

I'd say he would be a good back up considering Rogers will be getting hit a lot more this year.

losing Bulaga doesn't guarantee that Rodgers will get hit more. Keeping Sitton on the left side allows MM to use TE's and rb's to help the LT out because Sitton is able to handle one on ones much better than Lang could. I also think Bakhtiari is better suited for LT than Bulaga as his measurables are arguably better than Bulaga and he played it in college as early as last year. Bulaga hasn't played there in almost 4 years so he would have been rusty going back there. I think we'll be fine but time will tell. Young will be a nice addition though for sure.

 

[GiantsPackersChamps2011]

losing Bulaga doesn't guarantee that Rodgers will get hit more. Keeping Sitton on the left side allows MM to use TE's and rb's to help the LT out because Sitton is able to handle one on ones much better than Lang could. I also think Bakhtiari is better suited for LT than Bulaga as his measurables are arguably better than Bulaga and he played it in college as early as last year. Bulaga hasn't played there in almost 4 years so he would have been rusty going back there. I think we'll be fine but time will tell. Young will be a nice addition though for sure.

I agree about Sitton and moving TE's to the left side. Although Bulaga would be far better suited than Bakhtiari to play LT. Bak still has to make his own adjustments to the NFL, he doesn't have great size, he struggled as a pass blocker at Colorado. I do think he can be a future LT and even start this year at RT but don't think he is better suited for LT than Bulaga at this point.

 

[alldaybaby55]

What are you talking about? Rodgers and Flynn also looked very poor in preseason and only showed their mettle when they had to go into a live-battle regular season game. We never once relied on Doug Pederson, he could have been a complete and utter failure but he never had to start a game, so we'll never know (my vote: failure). Rodgers almost won that Dallas game for us after we were down due to a bumbling starter, and that was with a broken foot; until then, no one thought we had anything in Rodgers, in fact there was a bit of a "schism" even after that game when our starter (can't recall his name) retired/unretired and we moved on, remember that ruckus? And Flynn nearly beat the best team in the NFL on the road, reestablishing the team's confidence and helping propel them to the Super Bowl. The next year, he won a regular season game, breaking all-time Packer records.

We already know these veteran cast-offs are no good, they've actually proven this on the field. The team's philosophy and real-world results show that developing in-house youngsters is the way to go, period. I hear the same story every single year, ever since Pederson dropped off his clip board. It's tiresome, and you'd think after all this time fans would have learned something, but I guess not...

Look, I'm not going to go search for pre-season stats, and it wouldn't really matter anyway. All I know is that I felt confident with Rodgers and Flynn when they were the backups. I did not, and would still not, feel confident with Harrell and Coleman. It's really that simple. Clearly, I saw something I liked with the former two, and haven't seen it with the latter. And given the fact that Young is now a Packer, CLEARLY there was something that the people whose opinions matter didn't see either.

Here's the thing....you keep saying that the veteran cast-offs have proven they're no good. To a point, I agree with that, because otherwise, they'd be starters. But CLEARLY, that's not why most of these guys have jobs. They're insurance policies, and Young is now a cheap insurance policy. Draft & develop is a great thing, i support it, and all that jazz. But if the guy you're trying to develop ISN'T CUTTING IT, then you bring in someone else.

This is not a bad signing, no matter how much you seem to want it to be. If he doesn't cut it, he gets cut, no loss for the Packers.

 

[The Derski]

He wont get any PT anyway. Im not sure I would even want him for backup.

 

[eliandco]

Packers QB school could turn Young back into a good QB.

 

[Doctor Krieger]

At least we have a QB that can prepare the defense for the zone-read now! haha

 

[Blaise Winter]

At least we have a QB that can prepare the defense for the zone-read now! haha

This is the main purpose of the signing. We'll see how everything sits after final cuts. If he's on the team, they really feel that one of the 2 in-house projects (or both) isn't cutting it. Until that point, the team has given no indication that they feel this way.

allday - I've broken down preseason stats for Rodgers/Flynn vs. Harrell before, and I don't feel like going through the process again. The numbers are similar across the board. The reaction of the fans is identical. If the team keeps Harrell, it means they believe in him and you should, too; if not, it means they'll need some new youngsters to groom. Signing cast-offs is simply not the way to build your QB corps, despite the fact that fans (not top organizations, fans) want a name they recognize.

 

[eliandco]

Rodgers and Flynn got better every year. Harrell showed flashes of good QB play. but then follows it up with a rotten egg. I don't think he earned the trust. and he should have by now.

 

[eliandco]

Vince young is actually a great QB prospect. Has a very good win% as a starter. And I could see a few "read option" plays of our own sprinkled into the book this season with Vince on the sidelines... good move IMO.

Imagine Vince coming in and doing a few designed "read option" runs through the game. Then in the clutch when everyone is expecting a run, he bombs it down the sideline to Jordy. He has a cannon, and can throw the ball....

Regardless. If Rodgers were to go down. I would feel much better about Vince Young coming in than I would Grahm Harrell. That's definite. We might have to tweak the playbook to run heavy. but I think we could do that with our new RBs. Get a read option of our own. I didn't "quote" the read option in that sentence because with vince its a real read option. With Rodgers as an option at QB. The read option should be scratched from the playbook. Its a trick play at that point.

 

[Jedster]

This is the main purpose of the signing. We'll see how everything sits after final cuts. If he's on the team, they really feel that one of the 2 in-house projects (or both) isn't cutting it. Until that point, the team has given no indication that they feel this way.

allday - I've broken down preseason stats for Rodgers/Flynn vs. Harrell before, and I don't feel like going through the process again. The numbers are similar across the board. The reaction of the fans is identical. If the team keeps Harrell, it means they believe in him and you should, too; if not, it means they'll need some new youngsters to groom. Signing cast-offs is simply not the way to build your QB corps, despite the fact that fans (not top organizations, fans) want a name they recognize.

I agree that signing "cast-offs" is not a way to build up the QB roster, but.....don't be fooled.....he signed him for a REASON, and you can read into it what you want....but IMO I feel that they have frustrations with Harrell and Coleman, and bringing Young in will either light a fire under one of both of them or they will disappear by attrition.....

TT knows what he is doing....and I trust that....besides I don't think he relies much on what the fans think.....

 

[Blaise Winter]

TT knows what he is doing.

Exactly. See: how he's handled the QB situation since he arrived in GB, despite constant howls from the cheap seats.

And for Young to stick around through camp they had to give him a one-year, it doesn't mean he'll be here come week 1. That story will play out over the next month or so.

 

[RobToxin]

I think this gives them a good tackling dummy to simulate them having to face guys like Kapernick, Wilson, RG3, etc.

 

[Jedster]

I think this gives them a good tackling dummy to simulate them having to face guys like Kapernick, Wilson, RG3, etc.

The option, or variations of it usually start off hot in the NFL, and then teams figure it out.....it can be successful initially, but you can't live on that alone......also it raises the chances of getting your QB hurt....so they are going to have to work on their other skills if they are going to last in this league. Like I have always said, it only takes one hit to screw up your season.......

At the college level, you see a lot of teams have two QBs,,,,,one is usually the prototypical drop-back passer, and the other one an option-type. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not.

 

[RobToxin]

The option, or variations of it usually start off hot in the NFL, and then teams figure it out.....it can be successful initially, but you can't live on that alone......also it raises the chances of getting your QB hurt....so they are going to have to work on their other skills if they are going to last in this league. Like I have always said, it only takes one hit to screw up your season.......

At the college level, you see a lot of teams have two QBs,,,,,one is usually the prototypical drop-back passer, and the other one an option-type. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not.

See: RG3.

 

[alldaybaby55]

This is the main purpose of the signing. We'll see how everything sits after final cuts. If he's on the team, they really feel that one of the 2 in-house projects (or both) isn't cutting it. Until that point, the team has given no indication that they feel this way.

allday - I've broken down preseason stats for Rodgers/Flynn vs. Harrell before, and I don't feel like going through the process again. The numbers are similar across the board. The reaction of the fans is identical. If the team keeps Harrell, it means they believe in him and you should, too; if not, it means they'll need some new youngsters to groom. Signing cast-offs is simply not the way to build your QB corps, despite the fact that fans (not top organizations, fans) want a name they recognize.

See that I actually agree with...Young is CLEARLY not a long-term solution. I'd bet some good $$ they draft a QB next year. As a matter of fact, I would draft a QB EVERY year.

I know what the reaction of the fans was. My reactions were NOT the same. I've been right...so I'll trust my gut here too.

 

[Blaise Winter]

You're one of the few (former ESPN posters) who ends up being right consistently, so I'll trust this is the case. If they go with Young, this surely indicates that their young guys didn't develop like they expected; if not, I'm going to trust that they believe in the back-ups, which means I'm on board as well. Neither Rodgers nor Flynn looked impressive or really any different than Harrell during their first couple years; it took live bullets to prove their worth (though I was already on board with Rodgers after seeing him throw shoulder-to-shoulder with Favre in camp).