Welcome to the News Editorial section of PackerChatters.com where you will find Green Bay Packers news updates throughout the year. Packer fans editorial's, pre and post game reports, draft talk and more.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Test of a QB comes in games

by T Wolf
For PackerChatters

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but the test of a QB comes in games, not in practices. If you look around the league, a lot of "ex-Packers" dot the landscape at QB. Some of them have been pretty damned good. But, there's one thing most of them have in common. There were Packer fans who said they were worthless because they didn't practice well, or didn't bump time from Favre.

As far as Pederson being the #2, that isn't a valid argument. The fact is, if Favre went down in a game, Pederson would have taken over, but rest assured, if it was from a start point, Nall would more than likely been given the starting assignment. The fact is, Pederson was our FG holder, plain and simple, and a friend of Favre's and that played heavily on the decision. He would have never stayed with the Packers had he been bumped to the #3 role.

So, how does Sherman judge players? Bringing in Couch and Smith doesn't tell me the guy is a genius. It tells me he is nearly clueless when it comes to who he brings in. The fact that they didn't even give a physical to Couch beforehand, and he waltzed in and blindsided Sherman and the team with a pre-existing injury wasn't exactly a work of genius on the part of Sherman.

As for all the rest of his "reclamation projects," if he was so smart, why did Nall still end up in GB? If he was so bad, why did Thompson sign him again this year? In all honesty, I think Sherman has blown it with Nall. He should have had him in the #2 role a long time ago, and sent Pederson packing. I think he was afraid to do it because Petey was Favre's buddy. Pederson had to retire to make the change happen for crying out loud.

Then, think of this. Anyone coach who honestly believed that Pederson was good enough to be a #2 in the NFL has to be out of their mind. Obviously there aren't too many people who would sit here and argue that Pederson was that good. If he wasn't, why didn't Sherman replace him?

Just a few thoughts. But then again, I don't think Sherman is that good of a coach, and I believe very little I've heard coming out of Packer central. I've listened to them brag up players every year who are failures, and blow it on guys who succeed.

Remember. These are the same guys that said William Henderson was done a couple of years ago, and brought in his replacement. To prove their point, they quit throwing the ball to Henderson, until they became desperate. Then, when they did throw to him, he proved all over again how good he really was.

Just based on Henderson alone, I'll stick with my evaluation of Nall. I felt they were wrong on Henderson at the time, and feel that history has repeated itself.

Why did Thompson take Rodgers? Who in their right mind would have passed on him?
I think I remember when some team/s thought that Pederson could be a number 1. To say nobody thought he could be a 2 might be a stretch.
Sherman has his faults, but, he who is without sin cast the first stone. Sherman's win/loss record is among the best in the NFL. Before you say it's all players, remember that he came into a team that was 8-8 and considered to be in a decline.
Phew! These articles...we really are in the dog-days of Packer news. I have to believe the last two articles have been written just to be provocative and not to be objective...fodder for us as we leave June and head to July.

I mean, with comments like "So, how does Sherman judge players? Bringing in Couch and Smith doesn't tell me the guy is a genius.". Well...if not by bringing guys in for a look-see, how do you evaluate them as prospects? Sherman didn't sign them to the 53 man roster, did he? So, where's the harm/foul? I want my GM bringing in and evaluating players 24/7 prior to start of regular season. That's how you find and keep undrafted free agents (like a Kevin Barry). I don't know if Sherman's a genius or not, but he at least pulled the trigger and sought out talent. Things dont' always work out. By the way, which quarterback should he have brought into camp on the cheap instead of Smith and Couch?
I’d be surprised if there were a lot of Packer fans who thought Brunell, Hasselbach or Brooks (for example) were “worthless” or who criticized them for not “bumping time from Favre”. T Wolf has no idea who would have started if Brett would have gone down over an extended period of time but says “rest assured” he does know. A comment has already correctly been made that there’s nothing wrong with bringing players in for a look-see. By the way, Is it a fact that the Packers didn’t give Couch a physical before he signed? Where is the proof that Sherman favored Pederson because he was Brett’s buddy? When did Sherman say Henderson “was done”? And isn’t Henderson’s first responsibility blocking?

In my opinion, this is not very well thought out.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?