Obvious ESPN Insider article on Rodgers

[cupacker]

Since I can't post a link or copy/paste the article, I'll summarize.

"If Aaron Rodgers gets hurt, the Packers are in trouble. Graham Harrell has only completed 55% of his passing attempts in his career. And it wouldn't help that they have a 1 dimensional offense."

I don't normally complain about articles, but COME ON! Are you kidding me? What team with a star QB wouldn't be in trouble if he went down? This applies to basically every team.

Second, Harrell is better than people think.

Third, our running game is better than people think. And even if it wasn't, the Giants had the 32nd ranked running game last year, so who cares.

I know this is somewhat of a pointless post, but who doesn't like to complain when there's nothing else going on?!

 

[VolvoD]

Wait, you mean teams would typically perform worse with 2nd string players in key positions? THIS IS A CRAZY NEWSFLASH!!!!

 

[Southpaw]

Since I can't post a link or copy/paste the article, I'll summarize.

"If Aaron Rodgers gets hurt, the Packers are in trouble. Graham Harrell has only completed 55% of his passing attempts in his career. And it wouldn't help that they have a 1 dimensional offense."

I don't normally complain about articles, but COME ON! Are you kidding me? What team with a star QB wouldn't be in trouble if he went down? This applies to basically every team.

Second, Harrell is better than people think.

Third, our running game is better than people think. And even if it wasn't, the Giants had the 32nd ranked running game last year, so who cares.

I know this is somewhat of a pointless post, but who doesn't like to complain when there's nothing else going on?!

Yes if Rodgers goes down we would be in trouble, I'd be a little less concerned with Harrell as I would with our offensive line's ability to protect. Had it not been for Rodgers' athleticism and mobility, we may have lost a couple more than we did last year. His ability to scramble is vital with how bad protection is at some points.

Our running game is as bad as people think. It's merely serviceable and that's being generous. Giants had the 32nd rush offense, but that can be contributed to the very long absence of Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs pretending he's an elusive runner.

Their running attack got better in the post season, ours was as terrible as it was all season.

But yeah, it's the offseason. People are running out of stuff to write about. You should see some of the stupid articles NFL.com has been publishing.

 

[SpartaChris]

Wow, really? I thought Graham Harrell was a pro-bowler in the making who's capable of leading us to multiple Super Bowl championships if Rodgers were to go down..

I mean, no sh*t! Of course the team would suffer if the reigning NFL MVP were to go down. It's beyond retarded that people expect the backup f***ing quarterback to not only step in and replace a pro-bowl and MVP caliber player, but to somehow lead the team to the playoffs and win the Super Bowl. Veteran or not, there is not a single backup quarterback on any single team's roster that would be capable of playing to the level of Aaron Rodgers.

Look, what happened to the Bears when Cutler was lost for the season last year is more indicative of what I'd expect if our starting quarterback went down, regardless of how good the defense or running game was. Maybe we get lucky and our backup has a Matt Cassel circa 2008 type of year, but that feels like an unrealistic expectation that's more the exception than the norm. Regardless of experience, expecting the backup quarterback to just suddenly play to the level of an elite starter like Rodgers is just unrealistic.

That is all.

 

[mor4les]

Not even a single one of the other 31 starting QBs in the NFL can perform at Aaron level, so yeah I guess is pretty hard for a backup to do it.

 

[AmishMafia]

When bob griese got injured and his backup took over the dolphins went undefeated. Therefore, we can see a pattern here. Backup QBs are more successful than starters .

 

[claybillings]

I will say this though, I believe backup QB's on our team have a better chance of success than on some other team. Not only are we stocked up with incredible talent around the QB, but our system is completely QB friendly. Flynn's performance last year (and the year before against the Patriots) is proof of that. Granted I liked Matt Flynn coming out of college, he was a winner, I didn't think he was any kind of "special" talent capable of putting up numbers like that. I suppose next year will be his true test of his skills.

But I digress, I just have confidence in our coaches and their scheme that if Aaron does go down, we would be in a better situation than most other teams.

 

[FrankRizzo]

How'd the perennial 12-win Colts fare last year without Peyton?
How would the Saints do with Chase Daniel?
The Patriots with Ryan Mallett?
The Giants with Dave Carr?
The Packers with Graham Harrell?
The Texans with.... wait, they did okay without Schaub but losing him did hurt them in the end.

I like Graham Harrell, but I only want to see him in 4th quarters with us up by 30.
That being said, I believe he can do well.

 

[SpartaChris]

My primary point was that it's simply unrealistic to expect the backup quarterback to play at the same level as the starting quarterback. Maybe the backup surprises people and does ok, and manages the game well, but the fact is they're a backup for a reason. It's unrealistic to expect to win Super Bowls with the backup quarterback.

 

[FrankRizzo]

More: http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/42448/on-packers-and-vikings-qbs

The first comes from Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

, who thinks the Green Bay Packers will be taking a huge risk if they entrust their backup quarterback job to Graham Harrell. You need an Insider subscription to read the entire story, but Schatz believes the dropoff from Aaron Rodgers to Harrell would make the difference between an elite team and a .500 team.

Schatz wrote the Packers were 15-1 last season with "possibly the greatest passing game in NFL history," but it "hid the fact that the 2011 Packers were essentially mediocre or just plain bad in every other aspect of the game."

My feeling is that most teams would have a dropoff upon the loss of a starting quarterback. The Packers' gap between Rodgers and Harrell is wider than most, but that might be more a reflection of Rodgers than Harrell.

 

[BorderRivals.com]

Thanks for pointing out the worthlessness in this article. And as Rizzo points out, the Packers' backup depth is no different than most teams - so why the article? The bottom line is a team will not go far with their backup QB, no matter how good the backup may be. I'm pretty sure David Carr, Kyle Orton, Jason Campbell, etc. aren't leading their teams to the promised land if the starters go down. To me, the article was further example of ESPN creating storylines.

Also, I liked how the article praised the Pats' backup QB position, b/c you know, Brian Hoyer and Ryan Mallett have earned the respect already. The Hoodie can do no wrong. Guy is a heck of a coach, but a terrible drafter. No one mentions the fact that his poor drafting resulted in the Pats using Edelman at DB - instead it's how great he is to get Edelman ready to play on both sides of the ball. But, I digress. That's an entirely different post topic.

 

[Jules]

How'd the perennial 12-win Colts fare last year without Peyton?
How would the Saints do with Chase Daniel?
The Patriots with Ryan Mallett?
The Giants with Dave Carr?
The Packers with Graham Harrell?
The Texans with.... wait, they did okay without Schaub but losing him did hurt them in the end.

I like Graham Harrell, but I only want to see him in 4th quarters with us up by 30.
That being said, I believe he can do well.

How did the Pats do when Brady took over for Bledsoe?

Yeah I know.....lightening strikes every once in a while. I never had faith Curtis Painter was the next Brady. lmao. And Jim Caldwell the next genius coach either.

Too bad about last years Texans. Look how much noise those guys made in the playoffs with whats his name in there? OH MY GOD. They beast through Baltimore and NE possibly with Schaub.

What a shame. I know a healthy Texans team beats the Giants. I freaking know it.

Eli would have been on the ground and they would have ran over the G men.


/rant over

 

[Trapped In Vikingville]

Did they happen to speculate what would happen if Peyton Manning would go down for Denver?
Trapped

 

[Kitten]

Captain Obvious strikes again. Damn that guy is good!

 

[Wood Chipper]

Wait, you mean teams would typically perform worse with 2nd string players in key positions? THIS IS A CRAZY NEWSFLASH!!!!

Yeah last year we had a starting qb and a star qb sent from the heavens. Now we just have a starting qb. I miss Flynn.

 

[armand34]

And this guy gets paid to write...