I don't see why everyone's down on Craig Nall. He was a decent backup in '04. He hasn't played in regular season besides with the Packers.
Fyi, here's his career stats:
+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Passing | Rushing |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| 2004 gnb | 6 | 23 33 69.7 314 9.5 4 0 | 3 7 0 |
| 2005 gnb | 1 | 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 | 0 0 0 |
| 2006 buf | 2 | 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 | 0 0 0 |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| TOTAL | 9 | 23 33 69.7 314 9.5 4 0 | 3 7 0 |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
I still prefer to have 2 QBs, to free up space elsewhere. And Porky is right, if we're down to our 3rd QB, we already lost the game anyways. But we have a QB with a history of playing through anything, and a 2nd string QB with a chip on his shoulder (which is a GOOD thing) and something to prove.
I'm just saying I liked Nall when I saw him in '04.