The Packers dodged a bullet at QB last season when Aaron Rodgers stayed healthy. In my view, neither Matt Flynn nor Brian Brohm was close to being ready to run the offense. Ted Thompson’s determination not to sign a veteran was the single worst decision of his tenure as GM. I dread to think what would have happened if Rodgers had gone down. Think Cleveland with Ken Dorsey at QB, Seattle with Charlie Frye. Thompson-hate would be at a noxious level.

Now the situation has changed a little. Both the backups have had a year in the Packers’ system. By the time the season begins, they will have been through a second offseason, a second training camp. Will that make up for their greenness, their absolute lack of game experience?

I don’t believe in taking chances at the QB position. I think the Packers should sign a veteran as insurance. And not a washed-up wreck like Brad Johnson or Daunte Culpepper. Green Bay’s is a complicated, demanding offense; it needs a helmsman, an inspirational or dependable guy who can read a defense. Is there anyone worthy that’s available?

If, miraculously, Thompson does sign an able veteran, what happens next? Would the Packers have to release one of the current backups? Or could they carry four quarterbacks on the regular-season roster? Is August 2009 too early to make a final decision on Brohm and Flynn? It is often said that young QBs “get it” in their third year; do we end up releasing one of ours just before everything clicks? Or must we pray to the magic fairy for another year of good health for Aaron Rodgers, while Thompson’s masterplan/mega-gamble plays itself out?

Excellent question. I believe that if the Packers did bring in a veteran (which I thought they'd do last year), then one of the rookies would have had to go on the practice squad, since four QB's would be very expensive, personnel wise.

What I think is likely to happen is that TT and MM will keep all Rodgers, Flynn and Brohm, hope Rodgers can stay healthy, and that one of the others would be adequate until a veteran could be brought in during the season.

To begin, I wouldn't categorize last season's QB situation and Thompson not bringing in a veteran "the worst decision of his tenure as GM." I think it had the potential to be the worst decision, but at the end of the day, Rodgers started all 16 games.

In other words, he played with fire and won.

His single worst decision, I believe, was not filling the void left by Corey Williams. I think trading Williams was the correct decision, but Thompson failed to add someone on the roster who would account for Williams' production. Worse: he counted on Harrell to play a full season.

As with the QB situation, Thompson was playing with fire, but in this scenario, he got burned. As such, I think this would need to be considered his worst move.

But on to the topic at hand, that being whether Thompson should get a veteran QB this off-season.

Right now, I'm leaning toward yes due to the caveat that if Rodgers were to go down, the Packers could easily be one of the worst teams in the NFL.

Now I trust Rodgers, but this is the NFL and injuries happen. Like you, "I don't like taking chances at the QB position."

The next question thus becomes What are the corollaries of brining in a vet?

For starters, finding the right vet isn't an easy job. Who, exactly, is available? He would need to be a player who knows his role is strictly as an insurance policy; that is, this is--first and foremost--Aaron Rodgers' team.

The next important question, as you aptly pose, is What to do with Brohm and Flynn?

I don't think you can cut either one, as neither would make it to the practice squad. Thus, I think you just need to suck it up and keep 4 QBs on the roster. Both Flynn and Brohm have long term potential, and I don't think you can part with either of them right now, as I think both will end up "get[ting] it" by their third year.

Thus, sign a good vet to a one year deal and keep 4 QBs on the roster.

It may not be pretty, but it's probably the wisest and safest move.

Another question, however, is to consider the timing. You note that the Packers' offense is complicated and nuanced, but if this player is only here for a year, does he need to know the entire playbook? My point in asking is that if you bring this vet in right away, he will take away precious snaps from Brohm and Flynn.

Good question, but this was beaten to death a year ago, and TT answered it already.

Unless Brohm or Flynn give TT a reason to cut them, they're the #2 & #3 QB's for '09. To bring in a temporary #2 veteran, and invest time into them is a total waste. In their 2nd year, both Brohm and Flynn should be A LOT more comfortable with the playbook AND the speed of the game.

I think either one or both will show significant improvement in their progression reads and prove to be a solid #2. TT will sign a street FA to save on the other 3's arm wear & tear, but barring injury those are the 3 QB's for '09.

With a new D every available roster spot will be used on DL's and LB's to find the right mix. I've been hopeful of a few new OL's this year (a stud OT in Rnd 1), but I think Clifton hangs-on one more year, and we'll see very little change. Breno and Moll will be given every opportunity to claim the RT spot... hope they're ready.

[quote name='ammek' date='Jan 26 2009, 01:19 AM' post='227949']
The Packers dodged a bullet at QB last season when Aaron Rodgers stayed healthy. In my view, neither Matt Flynn nor Brian Brohm was close to being ready to run the offense. Ted Thompson’s determination not to sign a veteran was the single worst decision of his tenure as GM. I dread to think what would have happened if Rodgers had gone down. Think Cleveland with Ken Dorsey at QB, Seattle with Charlie Frye. Thompson-hate would be at a noxious level.


I shudder to think that if Rodgers had gone down we might not have had a winning record last year. The horror of what could have been! We might have even ended up drafting in the top 10.

Just playing.

I think we'll be fine. Brohm's a good player (and I firmly believe the absolute right pick) and Flynn will be a serviceable backup in this league for a long time IMO. Let them attend QB school, get through some more offseason training and I think they'll develop nicely. I don't think this team is going to be any better off with a Boller/Losman/Ramsey and Garcia's not coming here to sit behind Rodgers (and would be too costly). I've seen what those guys can do...I'll take an unproved Brohm over them every day.

Could not disagree more. You cannot duplicate or replicate the speed of the game in practice or even for that matter pre season. Yes they do get some looks in camp but again not even close to real game situations. They do not get the reps with the 1st unit that Rodgers does. Remeber Rodgers when he repalced Favre in some games, the Redskins game comes to mind, it was like a deer in the headlights. One of the main reasons Rodgers progressed as much as he did this year was the number or reps he took with the 1st team Sure they are more comfortable with the playbook, but they have never had the experience reading a defense during the season when real bullets fly. We need a vet backup who has game experience

Matt Hasselbeck rarely received 1st team reps playing behind Favre in '99 & 2000. He was a PS member in '98, and the Packers only kept 2 QB's in '99 and 2000. That says alot for 6th Rnd pick, Hasselbeck, that they'd keep NO 3rd QB on the roster, and a PS squad/rookie as their backup, who rarely faced "live bullets" in a game situation.

Hasselbeck's unbelievable stats while a Packer backup... 3 for 10, 41 yds. in '99; 10 for 19, 104 yds. in 2000. Facing all of those "live bullets" in a game situation readied Hasselbeck to take-over the STARTING position in Seattle the next year.

How is this situation any different? I don't see it.

and in that 1st year as starting QB in Seattle his record as a starter was 5-7, completed only 54.8% of his passes with a QB rating of 70.9 (7 TD's - 8 INT's) But when he was repalced by Dilfer a vet QB, Dilfer had a 4-0 record as a starter a QB rating of 92 with 7 TD's and 4 INT' in only 4 games. BUT in his second year as a starter his rating increased to 87.8 and completed 63.7% of his passes. it took him 1 year as a FULL TIME STARTER to adjust. He was not ready based on his stats

Here's a list of '09 QB free agents who've already faced "live bullets" and shown their abilities, and I don't see anyone on this list who I'd trust to enter a game and help the Packers WIN a game or multiple games if necessary. Boller, Carr, O'Sullivan, Losman, Grossman, Garcia, Ramsey, ???? There's a reason why they aren't starting for their respective teams.

http://www.kffl.com/static/nfl/features/fr...n=QB&y=2009

So we should take away reps (and possibly a roster spot) from Brohm and/or Flynn and give them to this FA? Spend the time/effort coaching a guy who will either BE your long-term back-up or fetch a future draft pick (similar to Brunell, Detmer, Hasselbeck).

I was going to ask the same questions: Pkrjones, what currently available QB in your opinion is an upgrade over what we currently have on the roster? What does that do to our backups' development?

So you think that Brohm or Flynn gives us a better chance to win than Boller, Carr, O'Sullivan, Losman, Grossman, Garcia, or Ramsey? I will take away reps if it helps me win a game or 2 YES in a heartbeat. That can mean the difference between playoffs or staying at home So what you are saying you have more confidence in Brohm / Flynn coming in for Rodgers that the guys you listed? WOW. At least a vet QB give you a better chance of winning.

I am not looking for a starter but a backupand yes there is a reason they are not starting (except Garcia). I will worry about getting a pick later, I want to win NOW

So you would sacrafice a win or 2 or more depending how long Rodgers would be out to develop a backup and maybe cost you the playoffs? Ask youself this question. Rodgers is out 4 weeks. Who give us a better chance to win, Jeff Garcia or Matt Flynn/Brohm?

But who do you give up on? IMO you get rid of Brohm he was worthless when drafted and is worthless now. Flynn I think is the better player. He has a year under his belt and I think will be better and hold onto the backup spot. Brohm has no mobilty and a average arm. I never understood why TT drafted him. He was the most overrated player coming out of college last year.

I agree strongly with your sentiment. A culture of fixating on the "future" and developing young talent has gone massively overboard IMO. The object every season is to win now. If a guy wants to develop, he has the entire offseason to work on it. The young guys aren't owed reps, and they don't deserve them just by virtue of being the young guys. If a guy is good enough, he'll eventually get a chance to show what he's got. If he shows well enough, then you can possibly dispense with some of the older guys ahead of him. Until that time, he should sit back and learn a thing or two.

I don't want to imply that developing young guys isn't important. It certainly is BUT it is not an IMMMEDIATE objective, and it certainly does not trump current team success in terms of importance.

Unfortunately, that cost has already been paid. We can't get draft picks back now, but it does us no good to keep a guy just because we used a draft pick on him. I personally think Brohm is massively overrated by Packer fans, but at the same time, I think he's got much better long term potential than Flynn, and thus we should try to get what we can for Flynn and move on.

Shambling off-topic for a sec:



I agree with your assessment of the Williams situation. However, just because Thompson didn't get burned doesn't make the QB decision any better. And it could still explode. Say (heaven forbid) Rodgers goes down in the preseason; Brohm and Flynn are not progressing as the coaches hoped. In this disaster scenario, wouldn't it be some consolation to have a veteran backup with a year's experience in the Packer offense?

Back to the backup-QB question:

Another reason for signing a vet is: this may be the last chance to get a juicy pick for our third-string QB, whomever that may be. If Brohm still hasn't passed Flynn on the depth chart after two seasons, other teams will wonder why -- and his trade value will tumble accordingly. If Flynn sinks below Brohm, he becomes just another seventh-round Mr Irrelevant. But for now, both are in a kind of limbo, a magic cauldron of youth and apprenticeship and untapped potential. That's a seller's market.

Why sign a veteran FA QB when they already have two vet's backing up Rodgers?

They may be vets by the years in the league (2nd year) but when it come to game experince they are far from it. Neither one has shown they have the ability to fill the spot for a couple of weeks let alone 1 or 2 quarters.

... and we should pick-up a vet QB, who's already shown why he's a disposable vet (Grossman, Losman, Carr, Boller), just because he's won 1/2 the games that he's started? Carr holds the ball FAR too long, hence his sack rate. Losman was handed the starting job repeatedly, and played his way out of it. Boller played NOT to lose in Baltimore, and the team's success was despite him, not because of him.

Where has it been said or written that Brohm and/or Flynn aren't progressing? I've missed it if it's common knowledge.

If there's someone "Pederson-esque" out there with decent skills and starting experience, who'll be content to be our back-up and holder for the next 5 yrs., then I'd consider this move. So far, that list of FA QB's is quite UNinspiring, and I'd prefer to keep Flynn and Brohm, and give them spot-duty whenever possible.

That was then, this is now. There are other more pressing needs.

I agree that there are more pressing needs but if Rodgres down this will be a disaster

So what you are saying is that a QB in his 2nd year with zero NFL snaps (Brohm) or one with 2 NFL series under his belt (Flynn) gives us the same chance to win as Losman, Carr or Boller? Please.

Give them spot duty WHEN?

These guys just are not ready

Don't just say this, support your ideas if they are valid. The vet QB's that you're yearning for were handed starting positions and DO have game experience, but that game experience DID NOT translate into consistent wins, or them keeping their starting gig.

While I'm not overly thrilled with the idea of an unproven 2nd year QB as our starter (should AR go down), I don't see better alternatives in the FA available. That's my only point, I'm not sold that a below average vet who's proven their below-averageness is a better 2nd and/or 3rd QB.

Spot duty = 4th quarter of a game such as Indy or Chicago. Even a series or 2 helps a young QB adjust to game-speed, and minimizes the chance of AR going down.

When you hire a backup to be a backup, you know you're getting a flawed player. These guys would be starting otherwise. However, you also know you're getting some game experience, and some leadership experience, and some skills which are there on film for you and your opponents to see.

Let's imagine Rodgers goes down in Week One. Initial prognostics say he'll be out a month. You need a substitute QB to get you to 2-2, give you a chance to make a playoff run when your starter returns. Can Grossman do that? Losman? Probably. Flynn or Brohm? We have no idea.

The ideal solution would be that one of the present backups really starts to get it during the offseason. But what happens if they don't? Rodgers did not look ready in his second season. Also, throwing your young QB to the wolves before he's ready can kill his instincts and appetite for the game. Look at Tarvaris Jackson. OK, he may never have amounted to anything anyway; we don't know for sure. But Childress slung him into the starting lineup before he was prepared, and now every pass he throws carries the burden of a dozen prior wrong decisions.

If Rodgers goes down and Brohm/Flynn messes up, Thompson is outta here. If Rodgers goes down, Carr/Grossman messes up, and then Brohm/Flynn takes over once the season is lost, he can legitimately say he did the best he could for the franchise, for 2009 and for the future. But Ted's not, apparently, made that way.

I fully expect that Brohm will be 2nd string with Flynn as 3rd. Brohm will be able to step in for Rodgers if/when it becomes necessary. Brohm will also receive much needed game (regular season) experience this year even if Rodgers is healthy.

The support of my idea is that giving a QB with zero NFL game experience is a recipe for disaster. But dont confuse starting with being a backup. I for one minute do not think that Boller, OSullivan or Grossman are any long term answer, but when a team loses its #1 QB the backup should be expected to play and help win games. And yes if Rodgers would go down for 3 game or more Grossman, Boller or O Sullivan gives this team a better chance to win than Flynn or Brohm and even if its only one game it may make the difference between playoffs or no playoffs

Either was Matt Cassell.

He had a hell of a College career though...

Can you really judge a player after one preseason (and very limited spot duty by Flynn)?

Sometimes I'd just rather go with the player I hope and think can produce versus the player I know can't.

when you watch Flynn and Cassel, Cassel is a much more polished QB. Alot of that came from playing in a pro system at USC. There was a reason that Flynn lasted til the 7ht round

Packinatl, et al, sorry if I got worked-up... didn't realize how much of a $#@#% I may have appeared until I got home and re-read my posts. I'll take a self-imposed hiatus for the night and let the discussions continue.

no issues, good discussion

I agree: "just because Thompson didn't get burned doesn't make the QB decision any better."

My point, however, was that I don't think it was "his worst decision," as you said.

In the end, our decisions are usually judged by their outcomes. It could have been disastrous, but it wasn't. As such, I don't think it is the worst--it merely had the potential to be the worst.

Now, however, it could turn out to be a blessing in disguise: the learning bumps Flynn and Brohm accrued over the past year might help their progression heading forward. In Brohm's case, I think it might have been a wake-up call.

Time will tell.

**

I still am interested in the question I posed on the first page:


For those interested in bringing in vet, what is the appropriate time? Do the Packers wait till the summer after they have had a spring to evaluate Flynn's and Brohm's progress?

It seems that many people's reticence toward bringing in a vet is that Brohm and Flynn might actually end up being capable. If they prove not to be, when do you make the move? Or, do you make it sooner--say, this March?

My following response is really for everyone and not really directed at you Packinatl.

As there were reasons why Cassell lasted until the 7th...and reasons why Driver lasted until the 7th...etc. It's a lot easier to judge a player after some time and not base quick judgements on one preseason of action or a few snaps in the regular season. Cassell didn't exactly light the league on fire over the first half of the season and the team largely won despite of him, not because of him during that time. The point of bringing him up is that virtually no one thought that he should have been backing up Brady and the masses were very quick to write the Patriots off in '08 - but the sky didn't end up falling. Seems he lived up to the potential the team execs saw in him everyday. Now for every Cassell there are a number of Harrington's and Carr's and Mandarich's, as well...but they were given the chance to succeed/fail and we know how that turned out.

MY POINT WITHIN THIS WHOLE THREAD: I've seen Carr, Boller, Losman, Ramsey, Harrington, et all given the chance to succeed/fail....and I know how that turned out. Their experience in games does not impress me. I can point out as many games that those players lost as they won (Losman vs the Jets anyone?) I watched Carr tear apart the Panthers last year and I still shudder. I'd personally feel much more comfortable with Brohm (or Flynn) as my #2 then any of the above (unless a better option can be provided by someone). Unless someone gets cut, Garcia is the only unquestioned, proven backup IMO - but I sincerely doubt he's interested in going to a team he can't be the starter and he's too expensive with all of our other needs and prime players reaching free agency this year and next.

BTW - people may be interested in revisiting pre-draft profiles of Brohm and Flynn from NFL.com and ESPN. I read these and profiles from several other sites..and funny..never saw the terms overrated or worthless...did see Brohm compared to Brees though.

Brian Brohm 6'3" 227 lbs 4.83 40 (7th at combine)
http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/brian-br...le-tab-analysis
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/...er%3fid%3d12009

Matt Flynn 6'2" 228 4.79 40 (5th at combine)
http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/matt-fly...le-tab-analysis

I think you do it now. Make sure the deal is cap friendly and if Brohm/Flynn beat out the vet so be it. But on another point, most if not all backup QB's do not get the entire playbook anyway, that is based on reps and other issues (skill set, time in system). This to me is all about experience and depth at the position just like any other. You want to make sure the next guy in gives you the best chance to win and in 90% of the cases its the guy with experience. You may catch lightning in a bottle but its rare

Hypothetical:

You have the chance to start a new NFL franchise. You think you have a good coaching staff in place, some good players on both sides of the ball and all you need is a GM to keep the ball rolling.

Choices

1) Matt Millen
2) Charlie Casserly
3) Mike Lynn
4) Some hotshot you've had your eye on who's demonstrated through past employment opportunities that he's pretty talented and you think has a good eye for talent yet to date has never been a GM

This is where I disagree. What has Brohm or Flynn shown that you are comfortable with them winning a game or 2? At least the other QB's have game experience and have shown the ability to win games. Do I want them as a full time starter in the league, hell no, but as a backup they give us a better chance to win than Flynn or Brohm

First of all Flynn and is no hot shot and he beat out Brohm, enough said, and if I start an NFL franchise I want my GM first.

That said it depends on the "hot shot" and what he has accomplished in the league over a period of time and not one year and who he has worked under. I want him to work under a guy and organization with a track record of success and can step in and be a winner from day one without skipping a beat

I'm still taking Kokinas even though each of those GM's is available...and even though most of my coaching staff and players are in place. He may not work out...but I'm pretty confident in what I'm getting from them.

There is a big reason he is the GM choice, his relationship with the HC. this from the Cleveland Plain Dealer

Kokinis, who is Mangini's first choice, is the front-runner, but the Browns are keeping their options open.

wow the coach helps pick the GM?

Pretty much, with the exception of Garcia. So these guys have started games and faced the bullets. They still sucked when they played so whats the point of hindering the development of the guys we have already to put in somebody who's only proven why they aren't a starting QB? You can't expect to have two starting caliber QBs on your roster. Its just simply too expensive. Let's not forget that Flynn got lots of 1st team reps while Rodgers was battling his injury. He had about 70% of the 1st team reps for about 4-5 weeks. I don't think its unreasonable to have a 2nd year QB as a backup QB. I think our QB situation is just fine. It was a big risk in 2008 but I think Flynn and Brohm will be fine now with an entire offseason and QB school with the Packers.

What about Aaron Rodgers? He hadn't started a game in his first three years and rarely got any 1st team reps. He responded by posting a QB Rating over 100 in his first two games as a starter. The Falcons and Ravens actually had rookies STARTING for them this year. Wow they must have been really crazy. They actually started rookie QBs and here we are worrying about having 2nd year QBs as our backups.

Jeff Garcia but he isn't going to be a backup and he will want a pretty hefty salary. The guy played in the Pro Bowl just two years ago.

Kokinas worked in the NFL for some time. The real analoy would be having the front office in place and choosing between a retread NFL coach or a hot shot college coach. History would tend to favor the retread NFL coach, I would think.

Its not too expensive, these guys can come in with incentive laden deals. Non of the guys that have been mentioned as starting caliber QBs, they are backups and experienced ones. QB school and another year in the system does not replicate the speed of the game. Rodgers was a possible #1 pick over all when drafted and a better skill set than either Brohm or Flynn. He has also been in the system how many years? makes a difference..... not 1 like Flynn and Brohm

But I would still take my chances with a guy who has won a game at the NFL level over a guy with zero snaps (Brohm) or a guy with a series or 2 (Flynn) under his belt.

Did you read what I said. Garcia is not going to come to Green Bay to be a backup. The guy went to the Pro Bowl just before last year. Other than Garcia, the other guys you mentioned are basically crappy QBs that I don't really think are any better than what we have. Sure they have experience but not very good experience. All they have proven is that they aren't good QBs. Our backup QBs aren't proven but they can't really be any worse. If those guys you mentioned proved that they could win games they would be starting for an NFL team.

I think the question becomes, what are you looking for in your backup? I believe a guy like Losman, Boller, Chris Simms, etc could lead to a good team to a .500 record if forced to start a few games (2-6 games for example). I believe that Brohm of Flynn would be lucky to win 1 game. If we are a team that can contend for a playoff spot, then you better believe I want to split those games instead of lose them all. If we are a bad team with no hope, or perhaps if Rodgers were to go down for the season early on, then I might be more inclined to stick with Brohm or Flynn. The problem is that you need to make that decision before you know what your team will be like.

IMO, there is an almost fascist-like obsession with youth and potential for some fans (no no no I am not calling anyone fascist). We forget there is some value in knowing what you are going to get from a guy, even if there isn't potential for great things. A bird in the hand, or something like that.

At this point, I would go with Flynn & Brohm. I think Brohm will look completely different than last season. He is not going to be lights out, but I have the belief that Brohm, in season 2009, can keep GB in a few games if he is required. Also, and I don't really want this to be another comparison to previous QBs, but I see Brohm ( or whoever the backup QB is) will get some decent playing time in some type of blow out that GB will have in 2009. Rodgers must show that killer instinct this year and put teams away when given the opportunity. Must have TDs and build leads that they don't give up......

Good point. I really just threw that hypo out there as a complete joke, and just ran with the Kokinis thing after the reply.




"This is where I disagree. What has Brohm or Flynn shown that you are comfortable with them winning a game or 2? At least the other QB's have game experience and have shown the ability to win games. Do I want them as a full time starter in the league, hell no, but as a backup they give us a better chance to win than Flynn or Brohm"

And this is where I disagree again packinatl. IMO the the other QB's mentioned at this point have all shown the ability and experience to lose games just as easily as win them. I understand your concerns and I agree it is ideal to have experience and depth - I just don't agree that the practical game experience in the currently available QB's (except for Garcia) outweighs the potential we have in Brohm/Flynn. Every year teams have to make these decisions throughout the team by cutting experienced players like a DE for the tantalizing potential of a player like Maybin or Barwin.

I haven't heard anyone suggest a particular QB other than Garcia that is an upgrade...

I think that is the talk of a loser.

It sounds quite akin to this: why go big when you can settle for mediocrity?

In addition, I'm not sure it is people being enamored with youth as much as it is people preferring potential.

Going with "experience" (and I am using that term quite liberally) may position yourself on the safe side, but those who seem to be the most successful in life are those who take a certain amount of risk.

I guess for me, I think you are underestimating Brohm and Flynn after a year of experience--or suggesting they can't do what those proven losers can. Unlike you, I think Brohm and/or Flynn could possibly provide everything these proven losers would. Plus, there is upside.

In our society, potential is much sexier than, say, a turd--which I would equate all the suggested back-up QBs to.

I'm just amazed that two teams that went to the playoffs laid all their hope in a rookie QB to actually be their starter and here we are arguing about whether our two 2nd year QBs are adequate backups. I would have to think that at least one of these guys will be a decent backup next year. I really think all this talk of experience for a backup QB is just silly. I mean Aaron Rodgers had thrown 59 NFL passes yet was deemed worthy of being a starting QB. McCarthy has lots of experience working with QBs and I trust him to make the decision on whether he needs a veteran backup QB or if he feels comfortable with the guys he has. I think the reason why TT didn't sign a backup QB is because like other posters pointed out, there just simply isn't anybody out there that is an upgrade.

I really don't think guys like Boller, Losman, or Simms are any better than what we have. Again all they have proven is that they aren't starters. I really don't think Flynn or Brohm could do any worse than Losman. I mean just look at how he played this year in Edward's absence. The Bills were beating the Jets with 2 min. left in the game and he fumbled the ball. The ball was returned for a TD. A competent starting QB does not make that mistake. How are our QBs going to do any worse?

Let me start by saying that I like Aaron Rodgers.

Wait...that is someone else's line.

And even so, I love Aaron Rodgers--but in a healthy fan sort of way.

Nonetheless, what I do see continually reoccurring is what I believe to be two misconceptions.

(1) It isn't foolish to put a lot of stock in young QBs because both Ryan and Flacco had success as rookies: Honestly people, this is the exception, not the rule. Before this year, could you name one, let alone two, rookies who had success at the QB position? Ben Roethlisberger did quite well, but that was more the team around him than it was him. Vince Young won Rookie of the Year, but look at him now. Even guys like Peyton and Aikman struggled mightily as rookies. That said, Brohm and Flynn are second year guys, so the analogy seems to lose a bit of relevance. Moreover, both Ryan and Flacco were first round picks. Brohm was a second, and Flynn was a 7th. The draft is an inaccurate science, but simply looking at their draft position suggests there is a disparity in talent level.

The point: just because these two (Ryan and Flacco) had early success does not mean both Brohm and Flynn will and/or can.

(2) Aaron Rodgers was deemed NFL starting material at QB despite never starting a game: While Rodgers was annoited the starting QB despite never taking an NFL snap as a starter, Rodgers was deemed a starter because the coaches saw a player who was poised to take over. They were privy to this knowledge from seeing him in practice. But fans were privy to this as well; they just saw it in different situations: the last two pre-seasons, which he performed quite well in, and the Dallas game.

In other words, there was a corpus of material with which the coaches could compare to what they saw in practice. This gave them an informed, educated opinion on Rodgers' ability to start. It didn't come down to the number of snaps he took in the regular season. It came down to progression and what they saw from him in the pre-season and in actual pressure situations--no, playing scrub minutes against both Baltimore and New England is not adequate data.

In addition, fans were making the same education guesses.

People can assume Flynn and Brohm will mature, but people actually saw Rodgers mature. It was more evident.

Oh, and Rodgers was also a first round pick. In all actuality, he should have been the first pick overall.

The point I am making here is that Brohm and Flynn will make their own histories. Sure, it is fun to look at how others in somewhat similar situations did prior to them, but the operative words in that sentence are "somewhat similar."

Said another way: each player's context is different, and at the end of the day, both Brohm and Flynn will be judged by what they do individually, not what others did before them.

I agree it is fun to project and assume based on past history, but let's be honest: this isn't an accurate indicator of how these two will perform.

They alone decide their NFL fates.

Past history is simply a lens for conjecture in this scenario.