Packers the next Indianapolis Colts

[El Guapo]

When thinking about the draft, the thought creeped in that TT should really be focusing on a solid backup to Rodgers. Graham Harrell is no Matt Flynn (yet). So what happens if we lose Rodgers like the Colts lost Manning? We have a mediocre offensive line and no running game. We have good receivers but with nobody to pass to them and a terrible defense, would we fare much better than the Colts 2011 record of 2-14? They were 10-6 in 2010. Would we fall to 4 wins?

I realize that this likely won't happen, but it's an interesting scenario to ponder.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

The Colts won 12 or more games for something like 10 years straight. Peyton Manning got hurt when he was 35 years old. I'm not worried about Rodgers getting injured.

No quarterback is Rogdgers. If he goes down, it won't matter much who the quarterback is because a Super Bowl would be a stretch. That's the story for any elite team. If Brady or Brees gets injured, that's all she wrote. The salary cap doesn't allow a team to keep two stud quarterbacks.

If you want to be covered, sign a veteran quarterback. A rookie needs to be drafted and developed.

 

[SpartaChris]

Even signing a veteran backup won't guarantee success. They're backups for a reason, and it's absolutely unrealistic to expect any backup, veteran or otherwise, to play at the level of the starter, especially an NFL MVP caliber starter like Rodgers is. Since losing Rodgers for the season is pretty much a worst case scenario, I'd rather just let Harrell see what he can do.

 

[Powarun]

I don't think the Packers are quite at last year Colts level. When I think of last year Colts I think of two things, an unprepared, scared team that was afraid of having a different QB play, and a bunch of veteran players without a leader. The Packers are a young team, sure they are getting older but they can still adapt and have depth. And you know Harrell is going to be trained to be a starter, the Packers have one if not the best QB school in the NFL, I can name 4 back up Packer QB's in the last 20 years that have made it to the Super Bowl, Favre, Rodgers, Hasselbeck and Warner, Warner is a stretch but he did sign with the Pack.

And in the last 19 years the Packers have had 3 different starting QB's that have all set records in the Packers record books and that is pretty darn impressive for a franchise as old as the Pack.

Defensively I think we are going to change for the better this year, since all we can do is look up.

 

[Southpaw]

That's a rather asinine comparison. Rodgers is not ingrained into the Packers the way Manning was the Colts.

The reason the Colts sucked without Manning was because Manning was essentially the whole entire show running his own offense, calling his own plays and making rather average talent around him apart from the likes of Harrison, much better than they really were because of his thorough mastery of the game.

We run a modified West Coast offense up here, we take our calls from the sidelines, it's McCarthy's system, and we have a stacked roster of talented receivers. Now that is not to downgrade how great Rodgers is. He's incredible, but it's not going to take another Rodgers to lead our team to wins with the weapons in place.

It wouldn't hurt to find a more suitable back-up though, but again I don't think it's a huge priority.

In fact, if we happen to lose Rodgers, I'd be more concerned about the defense than I would our back-up. I think regardless of who our back-up is, we'll be able to put up points. But if we have a defense resembling anything the likes of last season, we're not going to win too many games.

So right now, I think the primary objective is building a great defense, not finding a back-up.

 

[okcpackerfan]

What if the Patriots lose Tom Brady?
What if the Ravens lose Terrell Suggs?
What if the Saints lose Drew Brees?
What if the Giants lose Eli Manning?

anytime a team loses their best player they will play worse, and a lot of the time they will play substantially worse.

 

[Forget Favre]

When thinking about the draft, the thought creeped in that TT should really be focusing on a solid backup to Rodgers. Graham Harrell is no Matt Flynn (yet). So what happens if we lose Rodgers like the Colts lost Manning? We have a mediocre offensive line and no running game. We have good receivers but with nobody to pass to them and a terrible defense, would we fare much better than the Colts 2011 record of 2-14? They were 10-6 in 2010. Would we fall to 4 wins?

I realize that this likely won't happen, but it's an interesting scenario to ponder.

This is exactly for reasons why I didn't want to see Matt Flynn leave.
Frankly I was surprised and a bit upset that just about every poster on here was perfectly fine on letting him go.
Why let a great back up go so easily when he may be needed in a very crucial situation.
I realize that Flynn, who may be starter caliber, should leave to find greener pastures elsewhere since he will never get a starting job in GB.
It's a catch 22 but dammit. I want Flynn or someone just as good in case the worst thing happens.

 

[SEWICHEESE]

This is exactly for reasons why I didn't want to see Matt Flynn leave.
Frankly I was surprised and a bit upset that just about every poster on here was perfectly fine on letting him go.
Why let a great back up go so easily when he may be needed in a very crucial situation.
I realize that Flynn, who may be starter caliber, should leave to find greener pastures elsewhere since he will never get a starting job in GB.
It's a catch 22 but dammit. I want Flynn or someone just as good in case the worst thing happens.

I don't think it was so much that posters didnt care if he left but most of us could surmise that he wanted to start in the NFL and not be a career backup. And now was his perfect chance to become a starter. If he would have re-signed with us again he probably wouldn't have ever got that chance again. Thus he wasn't gonna come back unless we broke the bank on him and that wouldn't have made a lot of sense. We'll draft another qb for the 3rd stringer.

 

[SEWICHEESE]

The Colts won 12 or more games for something like 10 years straight. Peyton Manning got hurt when he was 35 years old. I'm not worried about Rodgers getting injured.

No quarterback is Rogdgers. If he goes down, it won't matter much who the quarterback is because a Super Bowl would be a stretch. That's the story for any elite team. If Brady or Brees gets injured, that's all she wrote. The salary cap doesn't allow a team to keep two stud quarterbacks.

If you want to be covered, sign a veteran quarterback. A rookie needs to be drafted and developed.

Nice post. You covered about all of it.

Maybe now Harrell is where Flynn was 3 years ago and ready to blossom into a good backup.

 

[Lunchboxer]

The Colts won 12 or more games for something like 10 years straight. Peyton Manning got hurt when he was 35 years old. I'm not worried about Rodgers getting injured.

No quarterback is Rogdgers. If he goes down, it won't matter much who the quarterback is because a Super Bowl would be a stretch. That's the story for any elite team. If Brady or Brees gets injured, that's all she wrote. The salary cap doesn't allow a team to keep two stud quarterbacks.

If you want to be covered, sign a veteran quarterback. A rookie needs to be drafted and developed.

Dammit now you jinxed the up coming season. If Rodgers gets hurt Ill know who to blame

 

[Jules]

Puh-lease

As if the Packers could suck as successfully as last years Colts.

DREAM ON








No seriously, the Packers don't have Jim Caldwell and Curtis Painter. They would be in better shape at least with a competent head coach who does not spend half time probably looking for more ketchup for his cheeseburger.

IMO Rodgers is the best QB in the league so without him no I do not think the Pack can make the SB but I also don't think they would be completely dead.

Of course if the D stays ranked dead last maybe they would be dead.......


Nevermind.

Stay healthy Aaron.

 

[Croak]

If Rodgers were to get seriously injured the Packers would just have to bend over backwards and kiss their...oh wait a minute, this is a family forum. They would have to bend over backward and perform momentary farewell **** suction to their own gluteous maximus.

 

[7thFloorRA]

You bring guys in that can bridge the gap if Rodgers has to miss a few series or a game. You can't plan on him being out the entire year. Harrell, Chandler Harnish whom they will snag in the 7th round and wildcat Cobb will be fine in a pinch.

 

[13 Times Champs]

Rodgers is just a system QB. We would bring in Graham Harrell and keep on trucking.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Nice post. You covered about all of it.

Maybe now Harrell is where Flynn was 3 years ago and ready to blossom into a good backup.

I hope so!

 

[The Drew]

all these what ifs... just live for today... I dont like to think about negative shizz like this.

 

[El Guapo]

What's the point of a forum if you don't talk about the "ifs?"

Some of you missed the point here. The question wasn't would we reach the Super Bowl. It's a given that any team losing their star QB would likely drop instantly to a mediocre team. The question was, would the Packers plummet as far as the Colts.

There were some good responses, such as Harrell maybe getting to the place that Flynn was two years ago, Caldwell not being a great coach, and the Packers being a system QB team. However, you still need to have the right horses to run in that system. Flynn could hop in because he had been in the system long enough. I don't know if Harrell has had those same opportunities yet and neither would have any veteran jumping in short notice.

I think my central point is that with a mediocre defense at best (last in some categories, middle of the road in others) and next to no running game, how can you expect any other QB besides a Matt Flynn to jump in and get the ball to those receivers? I was all for letting Flynn go. He was the baby bird that needed to fly. I wonder if the backup QBs will be ready, especially with McCarthy NOT being able to run his quarterback school until later this year because of the new CBA.

 

[warhawk]

What's the point of a forum if you don't talk about the "ifs?"

Some of you missed the point here. The question wasn't would we reach the Super Bowl. It's a given that any team losing their star QB would likely drop instantly to a mediocre team. The question was, would the Packers plummet as far as the Colts.

There were some good responses, such as Harrell maybe getting to the place that Flynn was two years ago, Caldwell not being a great coach, and the Packers being a system QB team. However, you still need to have the right horses to run in that system. Flynn could hop in because he had been in the system long enough. I don't know if Harrell has had those same opportunities yet and neither would have any veteran jumping in short notice.

I think my central point is that with a mediocre defense at best (last in some categories, middle of the road in others) and next to no running game, how can you expect any other QB besides a Matt Flynn to jump in and get the ball to those receivers? I was all for letting Flynn go. He was the baby bird that needed to fly. I wonder if the backup QBs will be ready, especially with McCarthy NOT being able to run his quarterback school until later this year because of the new CBA.

The answer is they very well could plummet that far and beyond that who cares if they were to win a couple more games and not be so sorry as the Colts were? Look, any team blessed with a REAL franchise QB is going to suck wind without them. It's a pay scale scenario. You DON"T have Mr. Franchise behind center and you have much more money for the best RB's and better defenders. You PAY that guy and ultimately your going to lose a little talent wise at other positions. The way the league is set up it's proven that having THAT guy is still worth it. Just look at who wins most of the time. The teams with the best QB's. But your going to suck if they go down unless some guy comes out of nowhere and you get lucky.

 

[HyponGrey]

bend over backward and perform momentary farewell **** suction to their own gluteous maximus.

Why does this sound dirtier than what you would have said?

 

[HyponGrey]

When thinking about the draft, the thought creeped in that TT should really be focusing on a solid backup to Rodgers. Graham Harrell is no Matt Flynn (yet). So what happens if we lose Rodgers like the Colts lost Manning? We have a mediocre offensive line and no running game. We have good receivers but with nobody to pass to them and a terrible defense, would we fare much better than the Colts 2011 record of 2-14? They were 10-6 in 2010. Would we fall to 4 wins?

I realize that this likely won't happen, but it's an interesting scenario to ponder.

If you're really worried about Rodgers getting hurt focus on the o line not the d line. The o line needs depth. The Defense can improve significantly with only a few upgrades (ie what we're currently hoping is what TT is focusing on). Besides, if ever Rodgers would have gotten seriously injured it would have been this year, and who knows, Harrel or Hill might surprise you. Besides, Brady was a late round compensatory pick (not that I'd want him)

 

[TJV]

I was “fine” with Flynn leaving because the reality of the league is a team can’t pay two QBs starting money and have enough cap space to succeed. And Flynn was going to get his shot to start.

If Rodgers got hurt the Packers offense wouldn’t fall apart like the Colts IMO because of what Southpaw posted about the Colts and because McCarthy and Clements have earned their reputations as running a QB U. IMO some Packers fans made the mistake of assuming the Packers success at training QBs survived Holmgren and his staff’s departure. I don’t’ think it did, but it certainly returned under McCarthy. Like El Guapo and others have posted, if Rodgers gets hurt for any length of time – or even if he’s not on the top of his game in the playoffs – the Packers aren’t going to win it all. But they won’t fall completely apart either.

 

[SEWICHEESE]

Even signing a veteran backup won't guarantee success. They're backups for a reason, and it's absolutely unrealistic to expect any backup, veteran or otherwise, to play at the level of the starter, especially an NFL MVP caliber starter like Rodgers is. Since losing Rodgers for the season is pretty much a worst case scenario, I'd rather just let Harrell see what he can do.

I think a vet backup such as a Jason Campbell for example could help you quite abit over a partial game to several game absense of your franchise qb. But if Aaron were to be out for the rest of a season and not come back for a playoff push. I don't think it would matter what kind of veteran backup you have. It would deflate the entire team and the backup wouldn't be nearly as good as the starter.

Thus like you have stated if the ultimate goal of making the playoffs and attaining a SB ring isn't realistic, then why spend/waste a bunch of money on a veteran backup qb? Doesn't make alot of sense to me and that is most likely where MM and TT are coming from. Seems to me they will take that calculated risk(qb school types) and spend the $ elsewhere. I don't even remember a vet backup qb being on the team since Doug Pedersen. Although I'm probably forgetting someone.

 

[ivo610]

Last year our back up was great. No doubt about it.

I feel like its still too early to judge our back up QB situation in march. Let's see what it looks like mid August before we clamor for a big name that really isn't that good.

Last resort? "hey Brett its Ted, how's it going?"

Jk