Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pokerbrat2000" data-source="post: 912315" data-attributes="member: 7261">After reading this 2005 article, I am shocked they didn't cut Rodgers.  In this reporters eyes, Nall was clearly the "better" QB.  <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/rolleyes.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll Eyes    :rolleyes:" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />  Oh wait, he was saying Nall was at the time, better prepared to back-up Favre. Backup QB: Not knowing how much longer <a href="https://www.footballguys.com/FavrBr00-1.php" target="_blank">Brett Favre</a> will continue to play the Packers addressed their future needs at the position by drafting <a href="https://www.footballguys.com/RodgAa00-1.php" target="_blank">Aaron Rodgers</a> with the 24th pick in the 2004 draft. Rodgers appears to be an exceptional value having fallen from the potential first pick in the draft to the Packers. Rodgers has a strong arm, good accuracy and could potentially take over next year as the Packers trigger man. Despite his long-term potential, it was apparent in training camp that Rodgers isn't ready for prime time yet. As a result, <a href="https://www.footballguys.com/NallCr00-1.php" target="_blank">Craig Nall</a> will once again serve as Favre's game day backup.</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 984 (members: 0, guests: 984)