Why don't we have a veteran backup QB?

I'm completely baffled that as intelligent as our front office is, we don't have a Plan B for if Rodgers goes down. Graham Harrell has looked positively pathetic in his limited starts, which makes sense given his far and few opportunities and his age. I think the 3rd stringer is that B.J Coleman kid? Although the website isn't listing him for some reason, so maybe he's gone?

After watching that Vikings game it makes you really appreciate what you have in a QB, and that was Christian Ponder for crying out loud. Rodgers goes down funny and poof, there goes our chance at a Super Bowl run. And don't kid yourself, Harrell is NOT going to get the job done right now.

It's amazing how Rodgers hasn't been seriously injured given the fact he's consistently one of the most sacked QB's in the league, and you'd think by now our staff would realize this and comfort the weary by grabbing a veteran backup.

One guy I'd really love to take a shot at next year in the FA market is Chase Daniel, the current backup for the New Orleans Saints. He'll be entering his 5th year in the NFL and his stats are pretty good for a backup. Thoughts?

I heard Favre isn't doing much these days. Jeez, we have a playoff game and people are worried about the backup qb. If Rodgers goes down we lose, if ponder goes down vikings lose, if Brady goes down patriots lose, see the pattern?

If the Niners lose we...oh....hrmm....

It is true tho....any QB thats worth anything will leave for a chance to be a starter. Alex is gone after the season.

Because Flynn left and Free Agents aren't our style?

We don't know nearly enough about Harrell to know whether he could come in and effectively operate the offense in Rodgers' absence. All we have to go on for recent history is a few preseason games, a couple of which were very bad, one okay, and one very good.

I do know that he has 3 years in our offensive system and there isn't a veteran QB sitting on his couch unwanted by all other teams that could immediately pick up our offense and come in and operate it better than Graham off the bat.

Harrell has only gone through one offseason camp, same as Coleman

Apparently not by this one either or he wouldn be on the couch

That's not true. He was with the team from May until September 2010, on the practice squad all of 2010 and 2011 except for some active roster time, and on the active roster all of this year. His time with the team is not comparable to Coleman's.

They see him in practice every day. I'll trust them to make the right call and not be the Vikings.

The QB camp happens in the offseason, this was his first year here with an offseason:
http://www.packers.com/news-and-eve...-Harrell/50322a5e-9b64-4318-afa8-82920a1c8150
http://www.packers.com/news-and-eve...-to-grow/d7cd7e99-0a74-4a19-9d6b-e6550bcbb367

Fair enough, but there's more to learning this offensive system than the amount of time spent in our QB school.

Knowing the system, yes. They say that he already knows the system, it's his ability to execute the system that's lacking, and that is for QB camp

Tebow was a starter once too . . . Still if Rodgers goes down this game it hurts us a lot more than if kaep goes down. Nevertheless I didn't include teams like Seattle and SF that have expensive backup qb because those situations are usually one year deals. In SF case it was because the "expensive backup" was a starter who was beaten out (for lack of a better word since that may or may not be the situation depending on your point of view). Guy pegged to start was certainly beaten out in Seattle. You get the point.

I think thats a bit hard on Harrell to be fair IMO. He`s hardly in a position to gain experience, and from what I`ve seen of him this year, he`s hardly been a donkey !
The guy has got to learn his game, and who better to learn from than Aaron Rodgers ?

I've wondered this myself but MM/TT have gone with rookies/draftees as their backups since Rodgers first started. I'll trust their judgement.

As I understand it, the Front Office knows if Aaron Rodgers goes down for a long period of time, basically no matter who we have as our backup our chances for the Super Bowl are over. What the Packers look for in a backup though is someone who can come in for a game or two and at least keep us in contention. (Like Flynn.) While I have given Harrell a lot of flack, I agree with the Packers strategy. Younger in almost all cases, is better. McCarthy wants a young guy he can groom to fit the system. Not some old guy with bad habits who's just looking for some money to shore up his retirement.

There is a reason veteran quarterbacks, year in and year out are always in abundance. They don't have much to offer anymore.

Besides, if we need a veteran quarterback at the last second I know a guy in Hattiesburg who wouldn't mind the opportunity.

I don't see Harrell as NFL-material - he lacks the nerve. And there is no amount of training that can usually cure that. Another Brohm. We need a guy that can game manage in the NFL, under the lights in front of millions. The time to bring in a young guy is when Rodgers is getting up in years, like we did with Favre - then bring in a 1st or 2nd round QB that has promise. Until then, I think we just need a backup that can function under pressure. The OP is correct - if Rodgers goes down, the season is over, in perhaps an even uglier manner than the Vikings season ended last week.

Oh brother................how about why are they wearing green and gold?