Do you sell the Hundley stock while it is high?

[Brit Pack]

1 hour ago, malak1 said:

Too many serviceable quarterbacks is a rock and a hard place to you? Lol, you’re in for a rude awakening when Rodgers is gone.

The rock and the hard place my friend is that if Hundley does play well and if you want to keep him after this season you got to pay up when we probably had no intention of doing so, couple that with you just traded for a backup QB on a cheap contract for the next three seasons. If Hundley had shown some level of competence last season we surely wouldn't have made that trade for Kizer. 

[Kenrik]

46 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

The rock and the hard place my friend is that if Hundley does play well and if you want to keep him after this season you got to pay up when we probably had no intention of doing so, couple that with you just traded for a backup QB on a cheap contract for the next three seasons. If Hundley had shown some level of competence last season we surely wouldn't have made that trade for Kizer. 

Even if Hundley plays well I doubt we re-sign him with Rodgers contract. Hes not the future but if he plays well and demands some kind of contract then GB gets compensated. I see that as a much better place than him sucking and walking.

[Brit Pack]

1 minute ago, Kenrik said:

Even if Hundley plays well I doubt we re-sign him with Rodgers contract. Hes not the future but if he plays well and demands some kind of contract then GB gets compensated. I see that as a much better place than him sucking and walking.

For sure but the potential ironic situation that I'm talking about is the point at which Hundley leaves us is the point where he actually puts it all together and becomes a viable player. Which would mightly suck. And what would suck even more is that Kizer never figures it out. Or if suddenly we feel really comfortable with Hundley do we end up paying to keep him and ditch Kizer, or end up going forward with three QBs?

The better Hundley plays the harder I feel it is for Green Bay to walk away from him. They have already invested some years and if he his developing well they would hate to see him go. Which in turn causes the dilemma. 

I really like Kizer, he comes across smarter than Hundley and has a more live arm but what I saw last season and not to such a bad extent in the first preseason game is that he mightly struggles in the red zone. He moves a team down well enough but he had a crazy number of ints in the red zone last year and had quite a few tries the other night to get the ball in the end zone and didn't look comfortable.

[ReadyToThump]

Hundley has some of the worst pocket presence I've ever seen out of an NFL qb. 

[Brit Pack]

4 minutes ago, ReadyToThump said:

Hundley has some of the worst pocket presence I've ever seen out of an NFL qb. 

I know this is being over the top, it was only one preseason game but he made a couple of throws I didn't expect him to make. He oozed a lot more composure. He made some reads, he wasn't looking to pull the ball down and run. To be frank I'm not a Hundley fan, I hate QBs that chew gum but I just get the vibe that his curve is pointed up and he will build as a player.

[Beast]

10 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

I know this is being over the top, it was only one preseason game but he made a couple of throws I didn't expect him to make. He oozed a lot more composure. He made some reads, he wasn't looking to pull the ball down and run. To be frank I'm not a Hundley fan, I hate QBs that chew gum but I just get the vibe that his curve is pointed up and he will build as a player.

Hundley can throw well, when he can completely ignore the pass rush... but after getting a good lick or two from a defender, he hasn't been able to completely ignore the pass rush for a number of plays afterwards and he struggles for a while after which basically kills the drive. And from ball security reasons, you don't want a guy that has to completely ignore the pass rush.

So basically Hundley can't multitask, either he's focused on the pass rush and can't throw, or he's focused down the field and can't be aware of pass rushers (and therefore going to get hit). It's one of the other with Hundley... I don't think you can coach that out of him... not unless you allow some form of hitting him in practice.

[malak1]

6 hours ago, Brit Pack said:

The rock and the hard place my friend is that if Hundley does play well and if you want to keep him after this season you got to pay up when we probably had no intention of doing so, couple that with you just traded for a backup QB on a cheap contract for the next three seasons. If Hundley had shown some level of competence last season we surely wouldn't have made that trade for Kizer. 

The Packers are a smart organization. No chance they pay up for Hundley.

[Brit Pack]

6 hours ago, Beast said:

Hundley can throw well, when he can completely ignore the pass rush... but after getting a good lick or two from a defender, he hasn't been able to completely ignore the pass rush for a number of plays afterwards and he struggles for a while after which basically kills the drive. And from ball security reasons, you don't want a guy that has to completely ignore the pass rush.

So basically Hundley can't multitask, either he's focused on the pass rush and can't throw, or he's focused down the field and can't be aware of pass rushers (and therefore going to get hit). It's one of the other with Hundley... I don't think you can coach that out of him... not unless you allow some form of hitting him in practice.

So you don't believe in player development then? You don't feel that the QB position is one of the toughest to play not just in American Football but in all of sports. That within a nine game sample size the future of a player and his potential has been determined? Or that players do suck when they first play like Jared Goff or Steve Young and it takes a while for a player to figure it all out. That it takes time to learn the position and only game time reps can do that for you. It is funny we are much more forgiving of a wide receiver when it comes to development then we are of a QB. Look how many seasons it has taken Adams to flourish, or even guys like Jordy or Donald Driver. They didn't all hit the ground running.

Funny thing is I don't want to defend Hundley cos I don't even like him but I get more frustrated at the fact that through his limited playing time people have already determined his potential.

[OneTwoSixFive]

8 hours ago, Leader said:

Lets make sure we're comparing our  apples and oranges properly here.....

Lets frame the discussion in terms of time of service with the GBPs: If the 4th year apple shows he's "noticeably better" than the not even a 1st year orange - that wouldnt be all too surprising now would it? You'd almost expect....demand really.....that the 4th year apple play better. It would be logical that he would. After all, he's slept in this bed for four years already. 

No. Its up to the coaches to make determinations on talents such as arm strength, decision making etc given that preseason results can seriously skew ones perception of how a player will perform in the regular season - and in that regard - our 3rd year apple was woeful (IMO) whereas the 1st year orange in the other system had his struggles - of the rookie orange variety.

Clearly I'm biased. I'm hoping the apples days are numbered. I've seen the regular season version and it has worms in it. 

If we keep three - at this stage at least - its the orange @ back up and Boyle on the PS.

The Packers no.1  QB is a lock (obviously).

The no.2 QB should be the one that has shown the best play. Upside comes into the equation just a little bit - ie, if it's close, an improving younger guy may win out through upside, but the Packers should not get too far away from the bottom line.......... best backup is no.2.

The no.3 QB should be a developmental guy with upside....if he has sufficient talent, he may need to be on the final 53 (so he isn't poached) or he may be exposed to the PS, and the Packers take the chance that he is stolen away (like Tysom). Ideally, he keeps improving until he rises to QB2, and maybe, eventually, QB1.

I get that Hundley has worn out his welcome with many, but if he is the best backup, so be it. You don't pick a guy playing worse (than him) just because he (Hundley) was bad last year. To paraphrase what I said earlier, if he is clearly the best, you keep him, if it is a really close competition you can do what you want, bring into the equation each QBs upside, arm, learning curve, coachability, rate of improvement, whatever you like, to help you make a final decision. To me, the key decision is whether Boyle is kept on the 53, or is exposed on the PS, to perhaps be poached by another team. He may even become the no.2 by the end of the preseason. It's too early in camp for me to back any of the three horses running for that spot. I'm just hoping the next three games allow us to clearly rank the contenders.

[Leader]

2 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

The Packers no.1  QB is a lock (obviously).

The no.2 QB should be the one that has shown the best play. Upside comes into the equation just a little bit - ie, if it's close, an improving younger guy may win out through upside, but the Packers should not get too far away from the bottom line.......... best backup is no.2.

The no.3 QB should be a developmental guy with upside....if he has sufficient talent, he may need to be on the final 53 (so he isn't poached) or he may be exposed to the PS, and the Packers take the chance that he is stolen away (like Tysom). Ideally, he keeps improving until he rises to QB2, and maybe, eventually, QB1.

I get that Hundley has worn out his welcome with many, but if he is the best backup, so be it. You don't pick a guy playing worse (than him) just because he (Hundley) was bad last year. To paraphrase what I said earlier, if he is clearly the best, you keep him, if it is a really close competition you can do what you want, bring into the equation each QBs upside, arm, learning curve, coachability, rate of improvement, whatever you like, to help you make a final decision. To me, the key decision is whether Boyle is kept on the 53, or is exposed on the PS, to perhaps be poached by another team. He may even become the no.2 by the end of the preseason. It's too early in camp for me to back any of the three horses running for that spot. I'm just hoping the next three games allow us to clearly rank the contenders.

Check, check and check. Now, for that last check.........

Cutting to the chase.............(and repeating).....clearly I'm biased. I admit it. I think I've seen enough of "regular season Hundley" to know where his ceiling is.. or sense it at least.....and its too low for me. I've got to keep tilting my head down and that gets bothersome after awhile. Plus, I think I've seen enough of "preseason Hundley" to know theres a world of difference between the two entities. Color me skeptical that the current version or whatever he achieves this PS wont (or wouldnt) revert back to RS version should he be forced into "when it counts" action for us. I think it would.

Hundley played scared IMO. When it counted - he played scared. Indecisive. Tentative. Frightened.
A rookie? I'll cut all kinds of slack. A third year guy? Ahhhhhhhhhhhh......he's gonna be put to a different measure. Chickens*** shouldnt be what he's putting on the field - and thats what I saw.  Purely personal. Highly subjective. Often....well, lets be kinder than that......sometimes wrong - personal opinion. Does he occasionally throw a pretty pass? Yes he does. Could he improve on last years efforts? Most certainly. I'm a firm believer that improvement - even if only incremental - exists for every player. Not thru divine providence - but hard work. But - those traits mentioned above - will still be there IMO and I'd prefer they not take snaps for the GBPs anymore.

In truth - I'm not even watching the QB battles all too closely. Some things I actually leaves to the coaches. I'm just that kinda guy
This first game my eyes and ears were on the WRs & CBs. I'll re-watch it today and switch my focus to the origin of the passes rather than their destinations - but I've moved on from Hundley. I saw enough of the regular season version - remember the aches and pains it caused the viewing public - and have moved on. I'm figuring Kizer + Boyle gives us good protection and road forward. 

If Kizer fall flat and Hundley secures himself the backup role - oh well - not the roadmap I'd travel, but also not a problem for me personally cause - well, it is the coaches that matter after all.

[Cheech]

I liked Hundley last off-season.  I thought his first action after he was drafted showed a ton of promise. 

Then last season happened and we all know what happened to his stock.

Here's the thing that still bothers me.  MM refused to change the offense for Hundley.  Where were the RPO's and zone read plays?  Why not get Hundley in the pistol so he can make a quick read, hand it off, or run?  Hundley is going to struggle in a traditional offense.  He really struggled with play action. 

 MM never gave him a chance to do what he does best.  I hope his next team does, because there have been guys with a lot less talent to stick around as a backup for a long time.

[Mazrimiv]

6 minutes ago, Cheech said:

Here's the thing that still bothers me.  MM refused to change the offense for Hundley.  Where were the RPO's and zone read plays?  Why not get Hundley in the pistol so he can make a quick read, hand it off, or run?  Hundley is going to struggle in a traditional offense.  He really struggled with play action. 

 MM never gave him a chance to do what he does best.  I hope his next team does, because there have been guys with a lot less talent to stick around as a backup for a long time.

1

We are talking about the same guy who kept Capers at DC several years too long.  Adjusting on the fly isn't really MM's thing.

[Leader]

52 minutes ago, Cheech said:

I liked Hundley last off-offseason. 

Then last season happened and we all know what happened to his stock.

 

Yup.....and yup.

Pre-2017 I was one of those counseling "slow it down" with all the trade Hundley now for a high draft pick folk. My thinking was that being in the system for awhile - he had value to the GPS - and his rookie PS showed enough promise that we might want to hold on to it for two more years.

Then 2017 happened.....and I've changed my mind.

As for the "MM bears responsibility for not changing the playbook to fit Hundley's particulars......." - well, that sounds like Jeff Janis talk to me. Another guy - with years in the same system - with the same playbook - who's deficiencies executing that playbook were....."diffused" cause MM didnt change it up just for him. Sure theres differences between AR and Hundley - but the guy was 3 years in. He should be capable of executing the playbook by then IMO. 

[Patriotplayer90]

7 minutes ago, Leader said:

Yup.....and yup.

Pre-2017 I was one of those counseling "slow it down" with all the trade Hundley now for a high draft pick folk. My thinking was that being in the system for awhile - he had value to the GPS - and his rookie PS showed enough promise that we might want to hold on to it for two more years.

Then 2017 happened.....and I've changed my mind.

As for the "MM bears responsibility for not changing the playbook to fit Hundley's particulars......." - well, that sounds like Jeff Janis talk to me. Another guy - with years in the same system - with the same playbook - who's deficiencies executing that playbook were....."diffused" cause MM didnt change it up just for him. Sure theres differences between AR and Hundley - but the guy was 3 years in. He should be capable of executing the playbook by then IMO. 

Many of the great plays that Rodgers makes are off-script and are executed in incredibly small windows.  Every game, he makes plays that other QBs rarely make, if ever.  And he can just manipulate the defense in the way only an elite experienced QB can.. All of this, and the highest QB rating ever, yet we still barely reach the playoffs with him at QB.  I'm not sure what backup QB could have kept this sinking ship afloat.  Don't his backups have more INTs than TDs thrown?  If that happens in what is perceived to be a great offense, I'm thinking the QB is the one who actually makes it work, making a 5 star meal out of cafeteria ingredients.

[Leader]

3 minutes ago, Patriotplayer90 said:

Many of the great plays that Rodgers makes are off-script and are executed in incredibly small windows.  Every game, he makes plays that other QBs rarely make, if ever.  And he can just manipulate the defense in the way only an elite experienced QB can.. All of this, and the highest QB rating ever, yet we still barely reach the playoffs with him at QB.  I'm not sure what backup QB could have kept this sinking ship afloat.  Don't his backups have more INTs than TDs thrown?  If that happens in what is perceived to be a great offense, I'm thinking the QB is the one who actually makes it work, making a 5 star meal out of cafeteria ingredients.

Is there a drop off from AR? Certainly. Not in question - nor is it a consideration when forming my opinion about Hundley. I'm not expecting him (or just about anybody) to live up to AR status.