Do you sell the Hundley stock while it is high?

[St Vince]

Is this thread a joke?  High stock for Hundley?  I'm sitting here watching Taysom Hill kill it, he looks 100000 times better than Hundley.

[Beast]

I still think if the Packers were going to sell Hundley, it'd be best to do it while the owners/GM is high...

I think that's the only way they'd get something decent for him before the season.

[AlexGreen#20]

12 minutes ago, Cheech said:

MM and the rest of the league know very well that he can stare down one side of the field and then take a sack.

If he can't get the ball out of his hand he might not find another employment opportunity.

Better to take a sack than throw a pick. I call it the Kizer/Hundley conundrum

[Cheech]

9 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Better to take a sack than throw a pick. I call it the Kizer/Hundley conundrum

Because every pass under pressure results in a pick.  

If 12 goes down again the Packers are screwed no matter who they throw out there.  Id rather see a QB back there who can make all of the throws and get the ball out under pressure.  Call it entertainment value.

Hundley's eyes still drop when he's feeling pressure.  He's not better than last year.  He's the same guy.  

[palmy50]

I'll say this, I'm far more incline to give up on Hundley in Green Bay than I would be to give up on Hundley. That Mac/Hundley combo isn't a match made in my opinion. He sees ghosts but I truly do like Hundley given system played.

It's both a strength and curse but no chance Mac will do what needs done for Hundley to truly get the most of his abilities. He probably shouldn't either. Sometimes the fit is just less than ideal and the talent level is not enough to fill the gap at the highest level of play. 

[ChaRisMa]

2 hours ago, palmy50 said:

I'll say this, I'm far more incline to give up on Hundley in Green Bay than I would be to give up on Hundley. That Mac/Hundley combo isn't a match made in my opinion. He sees ghosts but I truly do like Hundley given system played.

It's both a strength and curse but no chance Mac will do what needs done for Hundley to truly get the most of his abilities. He probably shouldn't either. Sometimes the fit is just less than ideal and the talent level is not enough to fill the gap at the highest level of play. 

I was thinking that even though Kizer made the same bad throws for INTs against Oakland that he made in Cleveland, at least he’s a 2nd year QB in a new system and not a 4th year QB in an offense he operated for over half a season who still isn’t effective.

Theres reason to have hope for Kizer. Hundley is probably at his ceiling, and it’s Seneca Wallace.

[Shanedorf]

1 minute ago, ChaRisMa said:

I was thinking that even though Kizer made the same bad throws for INTs against Oakland that he made in Cleveland, at least he’s a 2nd year QB in a new system and not a 4th year QB in an offense he operated for over half a season who still isn’t effective.

Theres reason to have hope for Kizer. Hundley is probably at his ceiling, and it’s Seneca Wallace.

Good point, but it begs the question:

Is Kizer also a poor fit in MM's offense as Palmy noted about Hundley ?

[Leader]

2 hours ago, palmy50 said:

I'll say this, I'm far more incline to give up on Hundley in Green Bay than I would be to give up on Hundley.........

Which is all I need to know.
My interest in Hundley doesnt extend to his potential success someplace else. Thats a variable - an understandable part of the equation to figuring or projecting his potential overall talent - thats unknown and of no consequence to the GBPs - or I as a fan.  MM sure isnt going anywhere before this Hundley/Kizer issue is decided.

I would have preferred Kizer look sharper in the OAK game and noted at least one pass attempt that was pure stare down that should have been intercepted. Not good - but oh well at this stage. Hopefully thats a trait that can be coached out of him before it becomes a career defining habit.

Right or wrong - I've moved on from Hundley. I think I've seen enough to move past him with the GBPs and it all comes down to a numbers game for me. Is Hundley sticking around worth the body thats gone if he's kept? Can the GBPs survive if Kizer has to come in to regular season action this year? Well - not the OAK version. That might not be pretty but he's shown glimpses of talent that I at least think Hundley doesnt have and I'd be willing to roll those dice.

[ChaRisMa]

36 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Good point, but it begs the question:

Is Kizer also a poor fit in MM's offense as Palmy noted about Hundley ?

I think UCLA ran the right scheme for Hundley. He ran the ball there 150 times a year himself. 

Hes has pocket awareness issues since he started at UCLA. It’s just not clicking for him.

Kizers story reads pretty similar though. Except instead of pocket awareness he’s always been lousy taking care of the ball.

I motion that Tim Boyle be considered for the #2 reps.

[squire12]

3 hours ago, ChaRisMa said:

I think UCLA ran the right scheme for Hundley. He ran the ball there 150 times a year himself. 

Hes has pocket awareness issues since he started at UCLA. It’s just not clicking for him.

Kizers story reads pretty similar though. Except instead of pocket awareness he’s always been lousy taking care of the ball.

I motion that Tim Boyle be considered for the #2 reps.

Seconded

 

How do we get this passed up the chain of command to those that make these decisions?  If only we had a @stockholder in our midsts

[Cheech]

4 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

Good point, but it begs the question:

Is Kizer also a poor fit in MM's offense as Palmy noted about Hundley ?

I think every QB in the league besides 12 would look bad in MM's offense.  

[packfanfb]