1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Big Announcement Coming for 2015 Football Season!!

    Be on the look out for a big Packer Forum announcement when the schedule is released. Full details coming soon...

Chicago Tribune calls GB's QB situation 'risky business'

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by tromadz, May 24, 2008.

  1. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Dummies:

    What the Packers are planning to do may be unprecedented in NFL history.

    If the rest of the off-season, training camp and the preseason unfold the way the Packers envision it will, they will start the regular season with Aaron Rodgers, Brian Brohm and Matt Flynn as their quarterbacks. None of them has started a game in the NFL.

    Rodgers has been in the league three years but never had a chance to start because he backed up iron man Brett Favre. Starting him now is unquestionably the right thing to do.

    But where the Packers are stepping out is by going with two rookies to back up Rodgers.


    "On paper, it's not fun," Packers coach Mike McCarthy says. "The two rookies are accomplished quarterbacks. Brian has played a lot of football. Matt hasn't played as much, but he's a mature guy. We have to coach them up and get them ready. [Quarterbacks coach] Tom Clements does an outstanding job."

    It's a risky approach for a number of reasons, the least of which is Rodgers has not proven to be durable. He has played in seven NFL games and suffered two injuries. So chances are good that the Packers will call upon their No. 2 quarterback at some point this season.

    When Rodgers was a rookie, he was a primary backup, and that worked out fine. But he was backing up Favre—big difference.

    The Packers are counting on their inexperienced passers benefiting from a deep and gifted group of wide receivers.

    "Trust me, I understand the importance of the quarterback position in the NFL," McCarthy says. "But it's what's around him too. Do we have the ability to make that quarterback successful? I think we have the talent.

    "We have a good solid team in all three phases to help the quarterback be successful."

    Packers general manager Ted Thompson looked hard at the available veteran quarterbacks and decided against signing Quinn Early, Daunte Culpepper, Gus Frerotte and others. He leaves open the possibility the Packers still could go for a vet if the youngsters struggle.

    McCarthy says the decision to go with two rookie backups was based on fit. That is, Brohm and Flynn fit with the Packers scheme and culture better than any of the available veterans would have.

    The last thing the Packers wanted to do was bring in a veteran who would make Rodgers feel uncomfortable by trying to turn the locker room against him. In taking on the monumental assignment of replacing Favre, Rodgers needs to be supported, not threatened.

    That might have more to do with the Packers quarterback roster than anything.
     
  2. NDPackerFan

    NDPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,253
    Ratings:
    +4
    Yeah, the Bears have the answer at quarterback...Grossman, Orton, Griese...no, he's gone. How about Grossman one week and Orton the next, maybe we can trade for Griese...

    Screw the Bears.
     
  3. retiredgrampa

    retiredgrampa Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    804
    Ratings:
    +0
    I make this guarantee....daBears would feel much better about the future if they had our QBs. Unfortunately, they are stuck with vets who will never improve. Our QBs have unlimited futures. An old trick...if you can't reach an opponent's level, you must try to pull him down to your level. It must be hell to be a Bears fan.
     
  4. PackinSteel

    PackinSteel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,086
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'll second that one grampa. It's simply an unprecedented situation. Short of Indy every other team has had at least one other QB start a game since 1998. It's not a scenario most teams face - having a guy on the team 3 years and never starting.

    Rodgers is the guy and unless his arm falls off I'm sure he'll be the guy and MM, correctly IMO is sticking with that. While having a veteran around is a nice fallback position in this case it is just that. A veteran isn't going to give Rodgers any better advice than he's had the last 3 seasons.

    As MM stated Brohm and Flynn fit better than any of the vets out there and if he believes in them I have no reason not to.
     
  5. uwbadger12000

    uwbadger12000 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    958
    Ratings:
    +2
    Going with either Rex Grossman or Kyle Orton as your QB is risky business.
     
  6. A1MEANGREEN

    A1MEANGREEN Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    252
    Ratings:
    +5
    sounds to me like its just chicago sour grapes
     
  7. nathaniel

    nathaniel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    905
    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't see what's so wrong with what the article says. I have no problem at all with Rodgers being our starting QB, but having two unproven rookies as backups is shaky. I don't think the article is trying to be insulting, I think it's just stating a fact that we don't have a QB on our roster that has started an NFL game. Any other team might go out and pick up a veteran as a back up, but we're basically betting the farm on Rodgers.
     
  8. NFL_GEEK

    NFL_GEEK Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    77
    Ratings:
    +0
    didn't you hear?..."how come you guys(bears) didn't draft any QB"? ..ooppss...that's right we forgot all about it!
     
  9. favre2driver

    favre2driver Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    186
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think our starting position is pretty fine, but our backups are shaky
     
  10. flep

    flep Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +0
    When the Bears have a QB then I'll listen to what this jerk has to say.
     
  11. hubbabubba

    hubbabubba Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    21
    Ratings:
    +0
    Being a Bears fan is risky business.
     
  12. packman31

    packman31 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    97
    Ratings:
    +0
    WHO CARES WHAT THE BEARS SAY, THEY HAVE HAD 10 OR 15 DIFFERENT QB'S IN THE LAST 10 YEARS AND THEY ALL HAVE SUCKED.
     
  13. CaliforniaCheez

    CaliforniaCheez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    There is an element of risk. The risk diminishes over time. It won't be nearly as risky nest season. Along with that the longer Rodgers avoids injury this season the better.

    Kyle Orton as a rookie was sufficient for the good team that Chicago was.

    Every week the Packers' situation improves.
     
  14. PackOne

    PackOne Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,013
    Ratings:
    +4
    Trom, did you get a girl?

    Or, is that a batman pic in your avatar?
     
  15. Since69

    Since69 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    422
    Ratings:
    +1
    Pot...kettle. Kettle, pot.

    Da Bores are just upset that we still have the best two QBs in the division.
     
  16. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    It might be shaky.....but it's STILL better then what the Bears have. Just having a veteran backup doesn't guarentee anything. Most vet QB's that are available are guys that couldn't make it as a starter. So is it so bad to have a rookie as your backup? Hopefully we won't need our backups, and there won't be a problem.
    If we do, these rooks will probably fare as good as some vet backups.
    And......who knows if these are the guys we go into the season with. We may just get a vet backup before the season starts. It's a long way from now to opening day.
     
  17. smlutz

    smlutz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    331
    Ratings:
    +0
    I can't believe that you guys aren't giving this guy the time of day, regardless if he is a Chicago sportswriter he is just writing his opinions on league news, and in the offseason there is no need to contain it to simply Chicago. On top of that Chicago and Green Bay are very close neighbors, and that means that there are probably a decent amount of Packers fans in his coverage area.

    I don't know why you all just can't critique what he writes and not assume its bull **** because he writes for a Chicago newspaper.

    That being said, I disagree with him 100%. :eek:
     
  18. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    It's a pretty innocuous article. It could just as easily have been written by a Green Bay sportswriter. At the end, he explains the rationale for going with three inexperienced QB's, and it makes sense.

    It surprises me that this hasn't been done before (or so they say), but that just shows what a copycat league this is. The conventional wisdom is that you have at least one veteran QB on your team, and in the NFL, conventional wisdom is often treated as a rule that can never be broken.
     
  19. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22

    http://www.lurkmore.com/wiki/Line_Trap

    :-?
     
  20. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Well, here is my only thought on this whole deal.. there is a landslide of risk with this approach, if one of the 3 QB's goes down or struggles mightly... having a veteran on staff through training camp and the offseason programs gives you a little wiggle room.

    While avoiding any threat to Rodgers in terms of depth chart, also leaves us totally dependant on 2 players we have never seen in a game type situation in the NFL. Bringing a veteran in later this offseason, lessens the chance that he will be totally comfortable within this quick rythmn type offense.

    With all that said, I am for whatever reasonably comfortable (yep that is a important factor) with Brohm and Rodgers at the helm.. so leaving a rookie QB as the 3rd option seems rational and has been done many a time before. Add to that. there doesn't seem to be a QB on the market that would on paper be better than Brohm. So, it seems rational to go this direction.

    And yes I am going to say it... we do have a insurance policy of sorts if the wheels fall off totally. IMO.
     
  21. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    For me it had NOTHING to do with where he writes. I don't care if he writes there or in Wisconsin........i just think he's full of crap, period.
     
  22. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    It is risky no doubt about it. All 3 guys have started ZERO NFL games. That's risky.

    If this came from any other city in Chicago it'd probably be met with better reception from Packer fans.
     
  23. packedhouse01

    packedhouse01 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,560
    Ratings:
    +1
    I would describe the Packer QB situation as tentative at best. Rogers looks good, but he has to prove he can stay healthy and make wise choices on the field. The two rookies scare the bejesus out of me. But I'd rather have a talented rookie that can learn than a bad veteran. As for he article it doesn't bother me.
     
  24. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    Well, in Rex Grossman you have a known and in Rodgers you have an unknown.
    With Grossman we know he will throw at least one interception in every game he plays but with Rodgers it is unknown what he will do.

    However Rex being the known known for what he is I like the unknown Rodgers even though we don't know because there are no knowns.

    It's like finding out your wife's been cheating on you. Sometimes it's not good to know.

    You know what I mean?

    For me it's not a big deal whose behind Arod because it's a known that 2nd string qb's very seldom if ever lead their teams deep into the playoffs so if Rodgers get's hurt, or, sucks, I hope you all KNOW BY NOW we are probably screwed or worse.
    How many playoff games do we have to lose to show it's hard to win playoff games when you've got a great QB in there let alone having to play somebody that wasn't good enough to start in the first place?
     
  25. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    My brother used to have 4 ducks. One of them got killed by a raccoon. The other 3 are still alive.

    Of the ducks, all 3 of them are smarter than Wrecks Grossman.

    I'm not worried about our QB situation, and for a Bear fan saying we have a risky QB situation, well, it would be like Refrigerator Perry telling you that you need to go on a diet.
     

Share This Page