We need a veteran QB as backup.

[Lambow]

Going from Favre to Rodgers is a HUGE drop off. However he can start in NFL games.(it seems) But there needs to be a player to step in if(when!) he's injured Brohm showed on Monday night he's a ways off. Flynn was ok but we need a vet that knows the ropes. One that Tompson won't trade to the jets for crap.

 

[TheEngineer]

There is already a thread about needing a vet QB. You could have posted this into there, instead of making your own thread.

 

[starr15]

i dont think so, brohm is much much better than you think and hes perfect for the starting job if rodgers gets injured flynn has no chance

 

[flapackfan]

There is already a thread about needing a vet QB. You could have posted this into there, instead of making your own thread.

Another thread doesn't hurt.

 

[flapackfan]

i dont think so, brohm is much much better than you think and hes perfect for the starting job if rodgers gets injured flynn has no chance

No chance this team wins a game with Flyn or Broham @ QB. Yes, we need a vet.

 

[TheEngineer]

There is already a thread about needing a vet QB. You could have posted this into there, instead of making your own thread.

Another thread doesn't hurt.

Sad to see that the tight management of threads from before the changeover no longer exists. When you have everybody voicing any thought that comes into their minds in a new thread when they've been rehashed ad nauseam, you start to get cluttered. I didn't know the walls of this place were so hollow, because it seems a lot of the trolls crawled out of the woodwork.

 

[Tengo Juego]

Well Daunte was offered and turned it down. I guess purple and gold still runs thick in his veins.

 

[DoddPower]

There is already a thread about needing a vet QB. You could have posted this into there, instead of making your own thread.

Another thread doesn't hurt.

Sad to see that the tight management of threads from before the changeover no longer exists. When you have everybody voicing any thought that comes into their minds in a new thread when they've been rehashed ad nauseam, you start to get cluttered. I didn't know the walls of this place were so hollow, because it seems a lot of the trolls crawled out of the woodwork.

That's why one should post at www.packerhome.com.

They actually moderate (in a good way) over there.

 

[packedhouse]

WE may just need a starting QB if what I'm seeing in this second game. Rogers looks awful and the defense is on the field for nine minutes. Man, if you can't get any stops then your QB has to be efficient cause he's not going to get the ball very much

 

[flapackfan]

I knew this would happen. Inconsistent offense, lose turnover battle, lose field position battle, lose time of possession battle. This is Packer Football now so get used to it. The cleansing has begun as they used to say on here.

 

[TheEngineer]

I new this would happen. Inconsistent offense, lose turnover battle, lose field position battle, lose time of possession battle. This is Packer Football now so get used to it. The cleansing has begun as they used to say on here.

This is also the preseason, which makes a large percentage of what happened inconsequential and not really indicative of the season performance.

 

[flapackfan]

I new this would happen. Inconsistent offense, lose turnover battle, lose field position battle, lose time of possession battle. This is Packer Football now so get used to it. The cleansing has begun as they used to say on here.

This is also the preseason, which makes a large percentage of what happened inconsequential and not really indicative of the season performance.

And if the Packers won 34 - 6.......would you say the same thing? Or, would you be saying that the Packers look awesome and are ready to make a playoff push/championship push? It's funny how people say pre season is meaningless only when they lose. If Rodgers went 15/17 for 230 yards and 3 touchdowns would you say "it's just preseason" ? I doubt it.

 

[TheEngineer]

I new this would happen. Inconsistent offense, lose turnover battle, lose field position battle, lose time of possession battle. This is Packer Football now so get used to it. The cleansing has begun as they used to say on here.

This is also the preseason, which makes a large percentage of what happened inconsequential and not really indicative of the season performance.

And if the Packers won 34 - 6.......would you say the same thing? Or, would you be saying that the Packers look awesome and are ready to make a playoff push/championship push? It's funny how people say pre season is meaningless only when they lose. If Rodgers went 15/17 for 230 yards and 3 touchdowns would you say "it's just preseason" ? I doubt it.

I would say "Well Rodgers looked pretty good, but there's always something to work on." But thanks for just assuming, in order to prove your hypothesis. You can try and search for some post I made crowing Rodgers as the saviour of the franchise and the Packers going 16-0. But you won't find it. Here's what I wrote in ph.com about the first preseason, if you must know:

"Didn't get to see the game, but it appeared to be an overall decent start. A couple of things here and there to work on.

A couple of questions to those who saw it:

How does Jordy Nelson look as a WR and PR?

Rouse got an interception it seems. Was he impressive during the game? "