I've struggled with this. The way I see it, though, you can't be spending high draft picks on backup QBs, because there's still a high miss rate anyway, and if you have a starter like Rodgers, don't you want to spend your prime draft picks on guys who will help win with him, not on a guy who only helps you win without him? That's how I'd approach. I'd say you just have to keep drafting them late and hope you find a good backup for a few years, and then another. I'd say fifth round or later. Maybe fourth, but then you're talking about maybe missing out on guys like Lang, Sitton, Bakhtiari, Tretter (all fourth-rounders). The Patriots drafted Garoppolo in the second round I think as a possible successor to Brady but Brady is lasting longer than they thought he might. That's my impression of why they used such a high pick. I get it if somebody sees it different, QB is THE position in the NFL. But if I had a guy like Rodgers with a lot of years left, I wouldn't draft a QB earlier than the fourth or fifth round (probably fifth) unless something really freaky happened and a guy you considered a true first-rounder still was on the board in the third.
Bulaga has two years left on his contract, so if they cut him in the offseason then the remaining signing bonus proration will count on next year's cap. That's $3.2M of dead money. He's due $6.75M in salary and other bonuses, so it would be a net gain of $3.55M. Sorry for the delay, had to look up something about prorated-bonus acceleration, but I think I have it right here.
Kevin King and Josh Jones were drafted this year specifically because they're fast for their positions. But agree they still need more speed, especially at edge rusher.
NFL teams can't hire an assistant coach from another team for anybody job short of head coach if that assistant coach is under contract and his current team won't allow him to leave.
Me. I take'm as they come, skip the ones I've already answered and some that are inappropriate or are statements, not questions.
This is one of his weaknesses as a GM. He returns few if any calls during the season -- I think most if not all reporters have stopped asking -- and doesn't do a lot more than the bare minimum of media availability. He does an extended Q&A with us (PackersNews.com/JSonline.com) every training camp. Otherwise, his availability is almost exclusively what's mandated by the league's media policy.
Sorry, previous answer didn't post when I hit the button.
As to Greg's comment, it's a common sentiment among many of you, though some word it differently than others. This is a QB driven league, and GB has been fortunate to have back-to-back Hall of Famers. It's meant a winning franchise for 25 years and counting. From a macro view, that's the way this league works. Yes, it will be a harsh reality when Rodgers is finished. Winning year-in, year out without a really good QB is tough. Look at Baltimore. Flacco is a decent NFL QB, played well on their SB run, but he's not good enough to get his team to the playoffs almost every year like Brady-Rodgers-Roethlisberger.
I'm pretty sure he's on the competition committee, which is a really important committee because it determines all the rules. Traditionally the Packers have been big supporters of the NFL office, because as a small-market team they rely so heavily on the sharing of TV revenue. I do wonder if they still need to think that way. If revenue sharing ended, the Packers might do just fine because they have such a big following around the country. Then again, they've known nothing but winning for 25 years, and that's not going to last forever. So maybe their popularity won't hold up if they go into another drought.
I'd guess both, but more the former.
OK, this will have to do it. Have that previously mentioned column to finish. But thanks for taking the time to come by, many great questions and time to get to only a fraction of them. Bill's question is similar to one earlier about Capers' defense. There could be some truth to this, Lombardi isn't the first to raise this point. Though I've always been under the impression that Belichick's D is complicated because his game plans vary greatly from week to week. But maybe he has found a way to keep it relatively simple for the players. I don't have the expertise to know whether Lombardi is right, but he might be. McCarthy has been talking a lot about simplifying the last couple years and especially recently with Hundley at QB. To what degree he's followed through it hard for outsiders to know. I will say that Lombardi's overall point is a good one, that not just the Packers but most teams skew young because of the cap-related roster turnover every year. And most of those young guys end up playing, sometimes a lot. So coordinators/play callers have to make sure things don't get too complex, or you're asking for mental mistakes. Thanks again everybody, take care and we'll talk again next week.