The Unluckiest Player in the NFL

The unluckiest player in the NFL today
By Os Davis on November 23, 2006 12:43 AM
Permalink | Comments (1) | RSS | [+] More Packers News

It's a scenario that is played out in the NFL a half-dozen times every season. In the preseason, the wily old veteran is tapped to give it one more go as starting QB; debates of varying ratio and intensity rage over just who the pilot of the ship should be.

Most of these teams facing the "quarterback controversy" eventually end up sending in the new guy, whether out of sheer frustration (cf. Tony Romo, Dallas Cowboys ), injury (David Garrard, Jacksonville Jaguars ), out of interest of giving the rookie playing time (Jason Campbell, Washington), or a combination of all three (Matt Leinart, Arizona Cardinals ).

For the Green Bay Packers , the man in waiting was 2005 first-round pick Aaron Rodgers. Though given no chance at the starting position once Brett Favre decided to stick around for another year at the helm of the Pack, Rodgers did what is expected of backup quarterbacks. This is to say he, um, well, he was ready to go in the game at any time during the season.

After being taken with the 24th overall pick in '05, Rodgers threw the ball 16 times in three games last year, 15 of which came in the midst of a 48-3 blowout at the hands of the Baltimore Ravens . Rumor has it that Favre refused to tutor the heir apparent during the season.

In spring, what little focus wasn't on Favre and the "will he/won't he?" questions of the old dude's retirement was directed at applying negative adjectives to Rodgers' performance in camps. Terms used in defining Rodgers' preseason outings were words like "spotty" and "disappointing" and flat out "poor." Many reporters noted his inability to successfully work the two-minute drill. And this was out of the Wisconsin media.

Perhaps unkindest of all was Rodgers' appearance on ESPN. In a cutesy, behind-the-scenes look from the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" at a group of guys paid by the NFL to prep footballs before games, Rodgers finally got his moment of "Sportscenter": As the dude who tests the feel of the balls for Favre.

No matter, any of it: For with 1:41 to go in the second quarter, Rodgers took the field on Sunday in a meaningful situation, set to prove the doubters wrong and show his true first-round abilities.

The results? The replacement went 4-of-12 for 32 yards and could do nothing to cease the relentless 35-0 punishment doled out by the New England Patriots .

And was subsequently diagnosed with a broken foot.

And was placed on injured reserve. Season over. Rodgers' big chance ... well, at least put on hold indefinitely.

Meanwhile, Rodgers' gutsy play with a season-ending injury against one of the league's top defenses seems to have been immediately forgotten, victimized by short-term collective memory along with his outstanding play at Cal that made him the first first-round QB chosen by the Packers in almost 25 years. (Did you know Rodgers' career quarterback rating at Cal was an insane 150.27?)

Surely to be forgotten in a day or two, too, is Rodgers himself. Already, his name is taking a back seat in the news, behind stuff like "Favre OK" (Can you imagine similarly reported news, like "Oracle third-quarter returns OK" or "Michael Richards rant not OK"?) and coverage of Green Bay's newest QB, Todd Bouman.

Said coach Mike McCarthy: "On a personal level, you feel terrible for him ... He finally gets the opportunity to play and that happens to him."

This writer has maintained all year that Rodgers, as Favre's backup, has the single most thankless job in the NFL. Anything less than Rodgers' utter mastery of McCarthy's West Coast offense may be considered failure, at least in majority public opinion. Rodgers will be forever compared to a quarterback of legendary proportions, the second coming of Bart Starr in the hearts of cheeseheads.

One fluke injury and lots of pro-Ingle Martin IV hype later, and Rodgers may have a one-way ticket of out the Frozen Tundra punched. Wish him a speedy recovery and lots of luck: He's gonna need it.

Watch the ebb and flow of the Green Bay Packers' luck at RealFootball365.com.

Hes not that unluky. He will get his chance

not to mention he's rich.

"Rumor has it that Favre refused to tutor the heir apparent during the season".


does any one know if this is really true?

Rumors are just that. Favre said it was not his job to get any other QB ready, Brett had to learn a whole new system this year as well.

It is the coaches job to get players ready. A-Rod will be back next year, hopefully healthy, he made huge strides from year one to year two, hopeully he keeps learning and next time he gets a shot he will have better results.

All you have to do is take a look at yesterdays Cowboy-Buc. game to see the advantages of a young guy sitting a couple of years.

Tony Romo sat and watched most of 4 years and when he was given his shot he was ready. Bradkowski was thrown into the fire this year as a rookie and is struggling.

A-Rod caught a bad break, he isn't the first rookie to get hurt, it is how he responds to this break that will tell what kind of player he is.

I can't say its not true 100%. I can say this though. Rodgers has said Brett has been more than helpful with all an any of his questions an has been a great person to learn from.

It's not Brett's job to take him under his wing after games, they have QB coaches for that. So when Brett says hes not going to coach the kid, I don't fault him for it. If Brett was refusing to give him 'tips of the trade' then I could see there being a problem. However, that is not the case as Rodgers has several times said Brett taught him something.

Absolutely untrue. A month or so ago Rodgers did an interview and fully dispelled this rumor. In fact, the interview was more like a BF tribute.

Also, too bad for Rodgers. His moment finally came and he didn't step up. Quite likely he never gets another chance.

He was a wasted draft pick.

The Packers might get 1 year of play from a first round draft pick. They may never get any.

As I have said since that Saturday he was drafted; That pick would have been better used on a player at another position.

Think what a top quality O-lineman could have provided last year and this year.

It is not that I don't like Rodgers it is just that he was not as good a fit for the Packers.

I couldnt agree more. While I dont think we can judge him yet, he hasnt been given enough of an opportunity, there has to be a reason why he slipped as far as he did in the draft.

He signed his wonderlic test sheet in poop?

or teams just didn't need a QB

:rotflmao:
There are about 25 teams in the NFL that would like an upgrade at QB. It's always that way. If Rogers was an elite prospect, he would've been snatched up immediately.

good thing about that rumor with brett refusing to mentor Rodgers wasnt true .... LOL

There are those in this forum that do not believe in luck at all. They relie upon statistics and probability. Intestinal fortitude can overcome all situations. Preparation will overcome adversity. Speed can remedy disaster. In most cases this is all true, but not all cases. Luck, good or bad, does exist. I wish the Packers good luck this 2012 season !!!
!!!GO PACK GO!!!

WOW! Glad this person isn't in the front office.

There are those in this forum who have problems with reading comprehension. You seem to have a knack of attacking positions never taken. Which poster does not "believe in luck at all"?

DevilDon does not believe in luck.

When did I take that position? I'm lucky as heck to be an American, to be good looking and intelligent and have been completely lucky in the family department with a loving wife and adorable children and grandchildren. I've never taken any of that for granted.
I also feel extremely lucky to have been born when I did to appreciate the Packers heritage as I was able to enjoy a small market team being the world champions. It just seemed so incredible at the time. I also was able to enjoy the Bucks world championship with a young Lew Alcindor.
Luck exists, it's just not a large portion of why people are good at their jobs. I wonder if you're understanding what I write sometimes Smokey.

Here are four quotes from DevilDon's quotes in the "Will Defense improve enough?" thread:

1. I also argue that luck doesn't have as much to do with it as you suppose. Good teams are good teams for awhile. You don't see the Ravens, Patriots, Steelers, Packers and Saints are consistently good teams? There are up and down years but it's not as fickle as luck. Though I agree there is SOME element of luck involved.

2. You're right it has a place in the game but the great ones don't wait for luck to happen, they do it with superior skills.

3. The point I'm trying to make is that luck can be overcome by good skill.

4. I agree with luck being rare good or bad and is the entire premise of my argument.

I underlined the pertinent parts of those posts - they all contradict what you posted. Those posts all appeared on a thread you were very involved in, yet you came to the conclusion DevilDon doesn't "believe in luck". Didn't you read his posts or were you intentionally "raising a straw man"? Aren't you sophisticated enough to recognize what DevilDon (and I) were arguing is not the non-existence of "luck" - or any intangible phenomena - but in our opinions it was being overemphasized by you and others in that thread?

LOL is Rodgers still unlucky? Maybe, but at least he is skilled enough to beat out the unlucky.