Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

CW21's 1st Annual Packers Camp Battles Thread
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CWood21


Moderator
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 35031
Location: 'Merica
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:15 am    Post subject: CW21's 1st Annual Packers Camp Battles Thread Reply with quote

This is something I've wanted to do for a little while now, and hopefully I can keep doing this in the future. This is meant just as an informative thread, but I want your feedback, criticism, critiques, and thoughts. Every few days, I'll look at a different camp battle and you let me know what you think. After I'm done, I'll post my final roster predictions.


Backup Quarterback(s)
This might be one of the more under-looked camp battles as Matt Flynn has left for Seattle to pursue a starting quarterback job. On one hand, Graham Harrell likely has the inside track given that he's already worked under Mike McCarthy but B.J. Coleman's impressive abilities make you think about keeping him on the active rosters. Odds are high that the Packers only hold onto two quarterback this year, which could ultimately mean that the Packers prefer the more experienced quarterback over the more toolsy one.

Graham Harrell vs. B.J. Coleman

Graham Harrell

Advantages:
+ Experience in Offense
+ Accuracy


Most would likely view Graham Harrell as the odds on favorite for the backup quarterback after Ted Thompson didn't go out and sign a veteran quarterback to back up Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers, with the exception of the 2010 season, has stayed relatively healthy in recent years and the backup quarterback isn't expected to get a whole lot of snaps outside of blowout situations.

Graham Harrell was a largely criticized quarterback coming out of Texas Tech in the Run 'n Fun system that Mike Leach ran while Harrell was there. He was expected to go undrafted because of the system he came in, but also his physical limitations. Going into the draft, most draft "experts" noted that his arm was below-average on a good day and that he likely didn't have the arm strength to be much more than a backup quarterback or even third quarterback on the depth chart. Still the Packers saw enough of him to give him a practice squad spot where he spent most of the year before getting called up at the end of the season when the Packers rested Aaron Rodgers before the playoffs. After having a lockout shortened offseason last year, this is going to be Graham's chance to really maximize his value in this system by going through Mike McCarthy's quarterback school. But what Graham Harrell lacks in arm strength, he makes up for with accuracy and leadership qualities. He was considered one of the best quarterbacks to come out of Texas Tech.

Most thought that Harrell was destined to turn out like other Leach quarterbacks in that they'd have a short shelf life in the NFL before finding themselves out of the league and likely stocking shelves at a local Walmart. Harrell has a chance to have a premier job holding a clipboard behind the best quarterback in the NFL and learning from one of the best quarterback coaches in the NFL. He'll have to work hard to beat out the promising rookie in camp.


B.J. Coleman

Advantages:
+ Impressive Physical Tools
+ Confidence
+ Desire To Be Great


Obviously due to Harrell's physical limitations, B.J. Coleman is the sexy pick to be Aaron Rodgers' backup but it's not that easy. Coleman wasn't very productive in college and remains a huge project but the upside might be a starting quarterback that the Packers could flip down the road for some picks. He's got all the physical tools you look for in a quarterback, but needs a lot of development before he's ready to play. Learning from Mike McCarthy might have been the best thing that could have had happen to him.

B.J. Coleman has the big arm, almost reminiscent of our former gun slinger Brett Favre who threw the ball around with reckless abandon. He'll have to curb his play if wants to win the backup quarterback job when McCarthy has put a premium on ball security. He's got impressive physical tools, but is still largely undeveloped after transferring from Tennessee to Tennessee Tech. Training camp will be a major factor as to whether or not he wins the spot, and he'll need to show that he's a bit more ready to contribute should Aaron Rodgers miss more time than expected. He might be tough to sneak through into the practice squad, but he might not be ready to contribute to the team just yet.

I've got no doubt that B.J. Coleman can develop into a starting quarterback, but it's on a matter of how hard he works. If his post draft interview is any indication of his work ethic, Graham Harrell could be in a world of hurt in training camp this year.


Verdict: Graham Harrell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 7047
Location: @_G_Tom
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Honestly, I'm not comfortable with either of them. Matt Flynn had physical limitations too, but I think he was also much smarter than either of these two. I don't care about physical attributes in a #2 QB. Give me someone who can take care of the ball, operate the basic offense, and let the defense and running game give you a 50/50 chance of winning any given game with your MVP caliber QB gets healthy. I give this spot on the roster an F, maybe a D depending on preseason no matter who wins the job.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
IrishGreen


Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 35818
Location: Wisconsin
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChaRisMa wrote:
Honestly, I'm not comfortable with either of them. Matt Flynn had physical limitations too, but I think he was also much smarter than either of these two. I don't care about physical attributes in a #2 QB. Give me someone who can take care of the ball, operate the basic offense, and let the defense and running game give you a 50/50 chance of winning any given game with your MVP caliber QB gets healthy. I give this spot on the roster an F, maybe a D depending on preseason no matter who wins the job.


didn't harrell get like a 4.0 at texas tech? i'm not saying that means much, but there's no reason he should be any worse off than flynn in that regard.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TedThompson


Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Posts: 802
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have tons of confiendence in Graham Harrell. No worries with him.

Coleman is a project.
_________________
"It's the same old Jay," Woodson told ESPN afterward. "We just need to be in position. Jay will throw us the ball."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13857
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TedThompson wrote:
I have tons of confiendence in Graham Harrell. No worries with him.

Coleman is a project.


About how I see it as well. Harrell is anything but a premium athlete. But his skills work in the fit. I'm not even sure this is going to be much of a battle to tell the truth. Mac's fit all starts with the feet and Harrell has a HUGE lean there. I would give Coleman a arm strength/body lean, but that's truly it.

That said, I feel good about Coleman's future here. Pegged him as a guy this staff might want to work with about half way into last season. The raw parts are there, and the kid wants it. My only real doubts fall under his leadership style. Just hope he can lead men! If he can do so and the game slows down for him, ya might have something there. Could not ask for a better situation though.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BartStarving


Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 1060
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Harrell in the very short term. Not much to add to the previous spot on posts except the usual huge caveat, I hope these two stay healthy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 7825
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder what the staffs plan is for the d-line. Are they gunna use Muir and Pickett together in the 2-4-5 to stop the run or will they use more of the traditional 3-4? It seems they are commited to the 2-4 with the Worthy and Daniels picks ad I saw them both as a better fit at the 3. I am interested in seeing Perry-Raji-Daniels-Matthews go after the QB.
_________________



Duff Man wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
Josh Sitton, Mike Daniels

Average at best
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jfinley88


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 10896
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's hard not to root for a try-hard guy like Coleman. It would take a hell of a TC and pre-season for him to overtake Harrell. But unless Coleman just completely sucks in pre-season I hope we make room three QB's on our roster.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1099
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

IrishGreen wrote:
ChaRisMa wrote:
Honestly, I'm not comfortable with either of them. Matt Flynn had physical limitations too, but I think he was also much smarter than either of these two. I don't care about physical attributes in a #2 QB. Give me someone who can take care of the ball, operate the basic offense, and let the defense and running game give you a 50/50 chance of winning any given game with your MVP caliber QB gets healthy. I give this spot on the roster an F, maybe a D depending on preseason no matter who wins the job.


didn't harrell get like a 4.0 at texas tech? i'm not saying that means much, but there's no reason he should be any worse off than flynn in that regard.

Yeah not to mention he should be able to swing a slightly better job than stock guy at Wal mart with a 4.0.

Oh wait, he meant football smart. OOHHHHH
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sandybaby716


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 3627
Location: Rhode Island
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jfinley88 wrote:
It's hard not to root for a try-hard guy like Coleman. It would take a hell of a TC and pre-season for him to overtake Harrell. But unless Coleman just completely sucks in pre-season I hope we make room three QB's on our roster.


I think that too many people are writing off that possibility. I'm not sure why people think the new roster rule involving the "emergency" QB makes it so you're less likely to carry three. So he'll just be a game day inactive. I'd rather have the piece of mind in a league that is so QB driven that I will have a good backup plan should someone get injured. Well worth one of our game day inactive spots.
_________________
wgbeethree wrote:
In all fairness it is kind of rude to just lay injured at their feet while the Lions defensive players are trying to hold a completely unrelated dance party.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blount_truth


Joined: 29 Oct 2010
Posts: 411
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sandybaby716 wrote:
jfinley88 wrote:
It's hard not to root for a try-hard guy like Coleman. It would take a hell of a TC and pre-season for him to overtake Harrell. But unless Coleman just completely sucks in pre-season I hope we make room three QB's on our roster.


I think that too many people are writing off that possibility. I'm not sure why people think the new roster rule involving the "emergency" QB makes it so you're less likely to carry three. So he'll just be a game day inactive. I'd rather have the piece of mind in a league that is so QB driven that I will have a good backup plan should someone get injured. Well worth one of our game day inactive spots.


I'll give you its a qb driven league, but its a league driven by GOOD
qbs.

I think graham is good enough that if rodgers goes down for the season he might get us to the playoffs (with an improved defense, and assuming if we actually TRIED running the football we could be quite successful at it) but not much further, akin to yates in texanland.

BJ might have a higher ceiling but he's nowhere near ready, I think he could survive a trip to the ps. If he gets an offer bring him up.

The thing is if you keep 3 on this roster you're cutting a player off our d where its already going to be tight with the talent we got. Not to mention the 3rd qb doesn't play special teams, unless they're tebow, so you're taking one of the young players away from teams.

I wouldn't be completely shocked of they kept 3 if BJ progresses like crazy this offseason, which I guess is possible with his ethic, but I don't see it with the rest of this roster.
_________________
Adopt-a-Packer: Casey Hayward
Tackles: 46
Passes defended: 19
Interceptions: 6
Forced Fumbles: 1
DROY candidate. Jersey acquired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1099
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7970796/nfl-green-bay-packers-future-tied-squarely-aaron-rodgers-health

A question I have for you guys: say Rodgers does go down? Are we really going to do the stereotypical "Run the ball, play good D" type of gameplan that you would see the steelers run with chaz batch or will we still try to pass to win. Clearly with flynn we passed to win, and I think mccarthy believes the passing game can operate at a decent level without a star QB. True? Half true?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rbens06


Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 788
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skibrett15 wrote:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7970796/nfl-green-bay-packers-future-tied-squarely-aaron-rodgers-health

A question I have for you guys: say Rodgers does go down? Are we really going to do the stereotypical "Run the ball, play good D" type of gameplan that you would see the steelers run with chaz batch or will we still try to pass to win. Clearly with flynn we passed to win, and I think mccarthy believes the passing game can operate at a decent level without a star QB. True? Half true?


I think it depends on 1. When does Rodgers go down and 2. How long is he out for. If it is like Schuab, who went down in week 10 with Houston's next game in week 12, I think they would roll with Harrell and keep most of the offense the same. My guess is that we would try to become more balanced and you would see a higher amount of run calls, but I think that we would still be a passing team. This will be Harrell's third year on the roster, so he should know the playbook and checks well, it is just executing them. Houston was much better situated to be a run heavy team and rely on their defense. Foster and Tate provided one of, if not the, best running attack last year and Houston's defense was very successful at getting after the quarterback.

If Rodgers would go down in training camp or very early in the season I could see Thompson trying to get a more experience veteran that could help guide the team through the year. I personally would let Harrell have his opportunity before looking for a veteran, seeing there is not anyone I would want right now over him and he knows the system better than that veteran would.

Overall, I don't think we would be a ground and pound rely on our defense type of team like Houston did. I think we would become more balanced and run a little more, but I think if Harrell is the backup McCarthy and Thompson have enough faith in him to take over and not change anything too drastically.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
.flash


Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 2975
Location: <- Coast
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think we're going to take 3 QB's with us to the 53. And I'm just fine with Harrell. He's the next Flynn tbh. Wink
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sandybaby716


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 3627
Location: Rhode Island
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blount_truth wrote:
The thing is if you keep 3 on this roster you're cutting a player off our d where its already going to be tight with the talent we got. Not to mention the 3rd qb doesn't play special teams, unless they're tebow, so you're taking one of the young players away from teams.


This is where I disagree. We will be having several game day inactives regardless. 8 players each week won't be playing special teams, offense, or defense, because they don't suit up. So if Coleman is one of the 53 best players, we will keep him no matter what.

If he isn't one of the best 53, then yeah we cut him and try to stash him on the PS. I'm willing to bet he wouldn't make it there if he's any good.
_________________
wgbeethree wrote:
In all fairness it is kind of rude to just lay injured at their feet while the Lions defensive players are trying to hold a completely unrelated dance party.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group