rawaction

Similar, or less than half? Yes, less than 1/2 of Kolb's 6 starts (1 of which he left in the 1st quarter). Don't get the point of arguing semantics though. Kolb had 7 starts, but he played a lot more than that because he kept coming into games early (not taking knees) with the starter going out with injuries. He threw well over 300 passes against several opponents. More than half of Flynn's attempts came from 2 games against Detroit. There's a pretty significant difference between the experience level of each QB going into the offseason when they were eventually traded/likely traded. It's significant in comparison, but not in the grand scheme of things. 1/2 season isn't that much more significant than 2 games. Admittedly, you can make a determination whether a guy can play in 7-8 games vs. 2 games. But all things considered, I don't think the risk is any higher with trading for Flynn than it was with Kolb. Kolb's handful of games showed a lot of mediocrity. Flynn's 2 starts were both pretty good. Flynn comes from GB who was able to go from a HOF QB in Favre to Rodgers with no letdown.

Yeah, there's a huge difference between what Cassel was able to do for the Patriots and what Flynn did in one game. It would be incredibly risky to make that acquisition, and I would hate for my team to do it. But it only takes one, and NFL teams without settled QB situations do stupid stuff. Then again, Wannstedt isn't out there coaching anybody either. Yeah, but if you're talking about a team like Cleveland who has Holmgren running things, I think there's probably a better chance they'd take a gamble than a lot of other teams since he'd be running the same sytem. You're also talking about a Cleveland team that has spent draft picks on Colt McCoy, Brady Quinn, Charlie Frye and Tim Couch in the last 12 years. I know it's a new regime in charge, but do they really want to go with another rookie QB? Even with Flynn's inexperience, he does have 4 years of NFL coaching under his belt.

Similar, or less than half? Yes, less than 1/2 of Kolb's 6 starts (1 of which he left in the 1st quarter). Don't get the point of arguing semantics though.

Yeah, there's a huge difference between what Cassel was able to do for the Patriots and what Flynn did in one game. It would be incredibly risky to make that acquisition, and I would hate for my team to do it. But it only takes one, and NFL teams without settled QB situations do stupid stuff. Then again, Wannstedt isn't out there coaching anybody either. Flynn also started last year when Rodgers had a concussion. He almost led GB to a win over New England. He's thrown for well over 800 yards in 2 starts with like a 9-1 TD/INT ratio. Plus, he's shown signs in preseason. He basically has similar experience to Kevin Kolb before this year and somebody traded for him and gave him a ton of money.

I have two problems with him, I associate his father with some crappy offenses and he's been involved in a Chargers team that keeps getting less and less talented the longer he's been there. The Chargers have been in the worst division in football over the past half decade or so and they've let some very mediocre opponents get to the playoffs ahead of them, and 6 or 7 years ago they were one of the most talented teams out there. This scout thinks the Licht dude from the Patriots is a good candidate. http://blog.therazzreport.com/?p=270

Isn't that exactly what happened with Matt Cassel? He was franchised, signed to a one year, deal, traded, and extended all in one offseason. Exactly what happened. This is not a new situation. Not sure why people can't grasp the situation.

I've read some good things about the Chargers guy, Raye.

Eh, maybe it was a pseudo-choke job. Some people picked the Giants in this one. Despite the records it was going to be a good game. Between beating the Pats in the Super Bowl and now this, the Giants seem to be the team that pulls off this kind of win. The Giants are a tough matchup for most teams because they can get after the passer better than anyone in the league with the front 4 (although they didn't really put much pressure on yesterday). Plus, the Giants are good enough offensively to put up points and typically can run the ball to control the clock when they need to. The NFL is still pretty simple. Most games are still decided by being able to pressure the opposing QB (helps to do without leaving huge holes in coverage) and protecting the ball on offense.

Eh, they played well until the last 5 minutes of the Penn St. game. Minnesota was just an odd game. The Gophers definitely wanted it more and got to every loose ball. IU also inexplicably couldn't knock down shots at home. The game in Columbus was going to be a loss either way, wish it wasn't as bad as it was, but they also smothered IU defensively which we weren't prepared to deal with. I think they get back on track.

It's not about franchising Flynn for the sake of keeping him. With as bad as our defense is, it's a gamble that should be made to get some extra picks instead of just holding out for the conditional 3rd or 4th round pick the following year. I've done a complete 180 on who the Packers should franchise. I thought Finley should have received the tag, but there are five gigantic black spots on our defense right now. We need as many draft picks as possible to shore that up and trading Flynn to a team that actually needs a QB probably makes the most sense. It's a gamble but some team will trade for Flynn, whether it be Seattle, Washington, Cleveland, etc. OK, hey what do I know? I sure wouldn't want to be stuck with the bill if the suitors don't come calling. I think that's a longshot. Arizona gave up a high 2nd for Kolb. The Raiders traded a 1st for Palmer who was at home for 9 months. He's only 26 and the 2 games he's started in his career he's gone for 800 yards and 9 TDs. I don't think there's any chance the Packers are stuck with him at the franchise dollar amount.

Didn't really think of that. RE: Cassel and Kolb's struggles. And Flynn has less experience than both. But teams do still go crazy over QBs. Hell, teams still drafted Tebow, Locker, Gabbert, and Ponder in the 1st round and they were clearly not 1st round talents.

I think they'll franchise Flynn to try and trade him. They'd get a pretty high comp pick if Finley leaves anyway. What? They'd franchise a backup QB for top-dollar money? What if he isn't traded? I don't think they're taking that risk. If they can train Flynn to be a decent QB, they can train up any number of others to fill that role. Green Bay knows how to develop QBs. They aren't pining for QB talent. They create it. I'm just repeating what's being speculated. I'm not sure how much of a risk it'd wind up being honestly. There's quite a few teams looking for a QB. I doubt a team would give up more than a 1st for him, but I think it's a possibility some teams would do that, especially since Barkley and Jones stayed in school. Exactly. You don't have a deep QB class this year. You don't have a Kevin Kolb going to the highest bidder. Flynn is the only potential prize for a team looking for a long-term QB option that misses out on RG3 (and Luck). It's not that big of a risk for GB. Worst case, the Packers can't trade him and negotiate a long-term deal with Flynn. Best case, they get a 1st round pick for him. It's a no brainer to me. I thought NE was taking a bigger risk in franchising Cassel a few years ago.

I think Bowe will be franchised. I don't see Marshall going anywhere as the Dolphins will be big players to trade up for RG3 or to trade for Matt Flynn. I also can't see Colston leaving NO. They do have Brees and Nicks ahead of him as priorities, but whichever one they can't workout a long term deal with will be franchised, and I think Colston will take a discount to stay with a team that's going to pass for 5000 yards again. Despite the stuff that went on in Philly, I think they want DeSean Jackson back. Andy Reid still loves the guy. I will concede Vincent Jackson as a possibility, but I think that's it of the big named WRs. I kind of agree that's a possibility, other than Colston, who I figure New Orleans let's go of, to try to add a little D. I doubt Buffalo keeps Stevie Johnson, who may not be elite, but he's definitely better than what we've got. Is Reggie Wayne too old at this point? What about Garcon? One or the other of them, maybe both, will be gone from Indy as well. I think both will be gone. Wayne is too old. Garcon would be Ok, but I don't think he makes the WR corps much better. Stevie Johnson, I don't know what to think about him. I think he leaves, but I don't know what he will get paid or if he's good enough to justify it either way.

Did they? It is listed as a home game for Purdue.

I think Finley's gone. I wouldn't be surprised to see them go after a Dwayne Allen in the 1st round. Matt Flynn will most likely be franchised. He's the #1 FA QB, and they aren't going to let him walk for nothing. This is a very similar situation to the Pats with Matt Cassel a few years ago. I fear that Miami or Washington will trade a 1st + for him, giving the Pack a pick in the top 10.

I think Bowe will be franchised. I don't see Marshall going anywhere as the Dolphins will be big players to trade up for RG3 or to trade for Matt Flynn. I also can't see Colston leaving NO. They do have Brees and Nicks ahead of him as priorities, but whichever one they can't workout a long term deal with will be franchised, and I think Colston will take a discount to stay with a team that's going to pass for 5000 yards again. Despite the stuff that went on in Philly, I think they want DeSean Jackson back. Andy Reid still loves the guy. I will concede Vincent Jackson as a possibility, but I think that's it of the big named WRs.

Well, they will win at Nebraska (Nebraska is really bad). So they just need to get 1 from @ Wisconsin/Michigan/Purdue. They should be able to win one of those games. I would say 4-3 is quite likely in that stretch, while 5-2 isn't out of the question, even assuming a loss @OSU today. Umm...probably out of the question. You really think Indiana is good enough to win 2/3 @Wisky, Michigan, Purdue? Those aren't impossible games, like today clearly was on paper. Wisconsin lost to Iowa at home. Purdue lost at home to a Butler team IU throttled. Michigan is the Raiders of college basketball. Consistently inconsistent. IU is definitely good enough to win 2 of 3 of those games, it's not likely but definitely not out of the question. They are all very good defensive teams, which scares me, but none of them can score consistently enough to make them unbeatable in any game.

Thoughts on the last page. - Blackmon is probably not an option. Unless he gets to the bottom of the top 10 (past the Jags pick), because so many teams will want him. I don't think the Rams will take him at #2, but I also don't think the Rams will even pick at #2. They will look to trade out of that pick to whoever wants RG3. If not, I think they take Matt Kalil and Minnesota trades out of 3 to a team that wants to jump Cleveland for RG3 (to try and get Reiff lower where he will be worth the pick). Plus, I don't think Blackmon is that much better than Floyd, Jeffery, or Kendall Wright to trade as much as Atlanta did last year.....and I'm afraid of Jeffery (not many 6'4", 235lb WRs around the league for a reason). - Cutler doesn't NEED a big target. I think it would make him more comfortable, but Roy Williams was 6'2", so size isn't the end-all, be-all. Roethlisberger doesn't have a WR over 6'. Rodgers only has Jordy Nelson. Brady only has TEs with height. The Eagles are perennially in the top 10 in passing and have never had 6' WRs (even before Jackson/Maclin). - Hakeem Nicks measured at 6' 1/2" at the combine. Not even 6-1. The Bears just need guys that can get open. Don't care how tall they are. I'd love to have a Calvin Johnson, Vincent Jackson, or Larry Fitzgerald with the great size/speed combo, but I'd settle for a "little" guy that can get open. There are a lot more of them running around the league than there are of the former.

Garza will be young enough and good enough in 2-3 years to be a TOR starter for the Cubs, so it doesn't make sense to trade him for anything less than an elite prospect (or two). We've got enough middle-of-the-rotation/back-of-the-rotation/question marks. By "if the Cubs couldn't afford Garza", I meant that if the Cubs were a small market team they could take quantity over quality. Basically, the Cubs don't HAVE to trade Garza, unlike teams like the A's, pre-stadium Marlins, and Rays. They shouldn't get a package of players like a team that is financially forced to trade their good players.

Rotoworld quote, citing a Sun Times article. It does sound like Tice making a personnel decision, but that is just the wording I'd guess. Also, it's pretty evident that all the experienced coaches have some say so in personnel. Tice all but hand-picked Carimi. Martz literally hand-picked Enderle. I'm guessing Marinelli had a lot to do with the targeting of Paea also.

"New Bears offensive coordinator Mike Tice is expected to target a "big-play element" at wide receiver this offseason." He did work with Moss in Minnesota. So, far Tice is saying all the right things about the Bears offense. Still question his execution of it, but it appears he "gets it".

If the Cubs couldn't afford to re-sign Garza, I'd take a deal without the Tigers top 2 involved. But if you don't get Turner or Castellanos, then you'd just keep Garza. Have to get at least 1 elite prospect out of the deal or you are doing the deal just for the sake of doing it.

Ha yeah. I could sort of just feel this -- or something similar soon -- coming. The defensive performances/effort has really slipped the last three games. They have not played that well since the early 15-point lead against Michigan; I think you could say they had been coasting. They had also managed to win every close game so far. This team still has such a small margin for error that it was always going to be difficult to avoid some slip-ups. And Minnesota was going to be very hungry for a win, and they're not a bad team. I was hoping that they could beat Minnesota and the expected loss at Ohio State would serve as the "reset" I think the team needed. I was also hoping to avoid bad losses at home (it is not real logical, but I probably would feel better if they had lost to Penn State and won tonight). My statement was based on my faith in Crean to get this team ready. A team that suffered thru what IU did the last 3 years, has no business coasting against anybody. I figured, even though success was new to this team, that he would keep them grounded.

Gotta love Verdell getting booed at home. He needs to stay off the floor now that Roth and Sheehey are better offensively and defensively than he is. Nice if Watford would have showed up.

Like I said, I don't see any bad losses for this team. :banghead: