CWood21 Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 2 minutes ago, packfanfb said: I think this is very short sided. You think if Love went down for a game or two there'd be no difference between a guy like Heinecke (who beat us before with a crappy Wash team) and Clifford/Pratt? There's no reasonable debate there. I think there's a marginally better chance of him keeping the Packers afloat. Enough to justify trading pick(s) for him? Not really. It'd be pretty presumptuous to assume that the Falcons are releasing him since the savings are minimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 4 minutes ago, squire12 said: Correct. There aren't 32 quality starting QBs. So any team with a decent #2 QB is holding onto them. So you are looking at the 3rd QB for teams and it isn't that pretty across the league I'm not sure there's a QB3 on anyone'e roster that is currently keeping any team afloat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 2 minutes ago, squire12 said: We haven't seen Pratt or Clifford with a full first team at OL and skill players either. We also haven't seen them against a first string defense with a game plan. So that goes both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 1 minute ago, packfanfb said: I think this is very short sided. You think if Love went down for a game or two there'd be no difference between a guy like Heinecke (who beat us before with a crappy Wash team) and Clifford/Pratt? There's no reasonable debate there. I could agree with this if those other guys had been in GB's camp. It is very debatable whether Heinecke with zero experience in the GB offense would be a better situation than Clifford or Pratt. Practice is no longer about learning the offense, it's about game planning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 Just now, Mazrimiv said: I could agree with this if those other guys had been in GB's camp. It is very debatable whether Heinecke with zero experience in the GB offense would be a better situation than Clifford or Pratt. Practice is no longer about learning the offense, it's about game planning. I'm less concerned about them learning the playbook versus being able to process the game in live action. Pratt has talent but the game is likely still way too fast for him. Clifford regressed this year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 3 minutes ago, packfanfb said: We also haven't seen them against a first string defense with a game plan. So that goes both ways. If Heinicke was something of substance he probably would have stuck in Houston or Carolina or Washington. It's not like those 3 franchises have stellar QB situations and depth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 1 minute ago, packfanfb said: I'm less concerned about them learning the playbook versus being able to process the game in live action. Pratt has talent but the game is likely still way too fast for him. Clifford regressed this year. Heineke won't be processing in live action worth a damn if he doesn't know the offense. You are being every bit as short-sighted about this as you claim others to be. We are talking about Heineke here, not Mahomes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 3 minutes ago, squire12 said: If Heinicke was something of substance he probably would have stuck in Houston or Carolina or Washington. It's not like those 3 franchises have stellar QB situations and depth. Why should he stick? He's not long term starter. He's the definition of a journeyman vet backup. Exactly what we need. You keep Pratt as the No. 3 and the hope is that a year of development gets him ready to be the No. 2 next year. We wouldn't be having this conversation if Clifford took that step but he hasn't. That's the problem here. Pratt being the No. 2 was never a realistic answer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 Just now, Mazrimiv said: Heineke won't be processing in live action worth a damn if he doesn't know the offense. You are being every bit as short-sighted about this as you claim others to be. We are talking about Heineke here, not Mahomes. If you can't see the value of having a vet like Heinecke over what we currently have, then let's just call this one a draw and move on. We are just talking past each other at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 3 minutes ago, packfanfb said: Why should he stick? He's not long term starter. He's the definition of a journeyman vet backup. Exactly what we need. You keep Pratt as the No. 3 and the hope is that a year of development gets him ready to be the No. 2 next year. We wouldn't be having this conversation if Clifford took that step but he hasn't. That's the problem here. Pratt being the No. 2 was never a realistic answer. But he hasn't even been a decent backup worth keeping as a #2 option in 3 different spots. What leads you to think he magically could be now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 2 minutes ago, packfanfb said: If you can't see the value of having a vet like Heinecke over what we currently have, then let's just call this one a draw and move on. We are just talking past each other at this point. I can agree that we don't see the same thing when it comes to how much value a QB like Heinecke would bring to GB for this season. Knowing the offense matters. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 4 minutes ago, squire12 said: But he hasn't even been a decent backup worth keeping as a #2 option in 3 different spots. What leads you to think he magically could be now? I disagree with your first sentence so not sure I can answer the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted August 25 Author Share Posted August 25 55 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Probably not. At the end of the day, if Love goes down the Packers are screwed. There's no backup QB out there that's going to be available that's keeping this team afloat. Ryan Tannehill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted August 25 Author Share Posted August 25 20 minutes ago, squire12 said: If Heinicke was something of substance he probably would have stuck in Houston or Carolina or Washington. It's not like those 3 franchises have stellar QB situations and depth. OK, this is not correct. Those 3 teams drafted quarterbacks in the top 2 of the past two drafts. They weren't /aren't thinking playoffs when they released Heinicke. I'm not the biggest fan of this guy but he could keep us afloat for a couple of games, which is what you are looking for in a backup QB. Tannehill is the dream, but he's waiting for a starting gig for sure. Which may be a big mistake on his part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.