7

November

Packers Fans Should Blame Injuries, Not Ted Thompson

Clay Matthews towel

How easy is it for Ted Thompson to replace talent at this level?

I feel like I’m listening to a broken record. Except when this record plays, it’s only after the Green Bay Packers lose a game. For some strange reason, I never hear this record after wins. So it’s been a while that this song has played. The Packers won four straight games before losing to the Chicago Bears on Monday Night Football. Throw a bye week in there, and it’s been rather blissful for a good solid month.

But now the axe-grinding fans are crawling back out of the woodwork to lambast Ted Thompson for putting together a weak roster.

The last time I addressed this crowd was after the Cincinnati Bengals game, when the Packers blew a gigantic lead to end up losing. While fingers were being pointed in all sorts of directions, there seemed to be few fans dealing sensibly with the problems of the team.

One theme that has persisted between then and now, however, is the injury bug. The Packers have it bad, and it’s starting to cost the team. Yet for some reason, we don’t give this fact its due consideration. Should teams be able to find success beyond their key starters? Absolutely. General managers need to put together a roster that can handle the adversity of a football season. But injuries to enough key players can be crippling.

Take a look at the following names for a moment:

  1. Nick Perry
  2. Derek Sherrod
  3. Bryan Bulaga
  4. B.J. Raji
  5. Clay Matthews
  6. A.J. Hawk
  7. Aaron Rodgers

Figure out the common thread yet? Yes, those are all of the Packers’ first round draft picks that are currently on the team’s payroll (listed in reverse chronological order). Now I want you to look back at that list and count the number of players who played a majority of the Packers-Bears game. What do you get?

Yup, two. Out of seven.

That means five first round draft picks were absent from the game on Monday. What do you expect Ted Thompson to do in a situation like this? There aren’t any players wandering around on the streets who can make up for that level of talent. And when one of those players is the highest paid quarterback in the league right now – and arguably one of the best three quarterbacks in the league – then you’ve got a problem on your hands.

Did the Green Bay Packers mess up their quarterback situation this year? Sure. That’s an easy answer. But even though hindsight proved them wrong, Mike McCarthy and his coaching staff expected Graham Harrel and/or B.J. Coleman to rise up to their scouted potential. At least one of them should have stuck.

But they didn’t, and Thompson was forced to look elsewhere for a back-up quarterback.

No quarterback would have known this offensive system well enough at that point to have made a significant difference. Even “system quarterback” Matt Flynn struggled in his emergency role during the 2010 game against the Detroit Lions when Rodgers left with a concussion.

Then there’s the issue of the outside linebackers. Clay Matthews and Nick Perry are not easily replaced. Just like Rodgers, Matthews is the highest paid player at his position right now. There’s a reason for that. While issues abounded in the secondary on Monday night, the front seven had to figure out how to get pressure without two primary players.

Against a division opponent. Against a quarterback who was making last-second throws in the face of oncoming blitzers. With a porous secondary behind them.

Look, it was downright painful to watch the Packers lose to the Bears like that this week. I hated that Aaron Rodgers suffered a critical injury. And while I didn’t like the loss, I hated even more that it was to the Chicago Bears. It sucked.

But what does a general manager do when five of his seven first round draft picks are on the sidelines? Throw in the fact that two of Thompson’s last three second round picks (Randall Cobb, Jerel Worthy) were also out, and it’s probably more frustrating to him than it is to any of you. Can you plan for that many key players to be gone? Is there even enough salary cap room to do so?

How many other teams would still be relevant after this level of player injury? Imagine the Bears without not just Cutler, but also Alshon Jeffery, Martellus Bennett, Julius Peppers, and Shea McClellin. And then consider the fact that the Packers are STILL favored to win against the Philadelphia Eagles this week.

I don’t know about you, but to me that’s a sign of success for Ted Thompson, not a sign of failure.

——————

Chad Toporski, a Wisconsin native and current Pittsburgh resident, is a writer for AllGreenBayPackers.com. You can follow Chad on twitter at @ChadToporski

——————

78 Responses to “Packers Fans Should Blame Injuries, Not Ted Thompson”

  1. Jason Perone Jason Perone says:

    Took some of the words right out of my mouth, Chad. I was just about to reply to some of the comments in my Tolzien piece that allude to Ted making a huge blunder by not bringing a “better” quarterback into training camp.

    You hit the nail right on the head in that both TT and MM (who happens to know a lot about quarterbacks, especially young QB’s) really believed that either Harrell or Coleman were primed to take a big step forward. That didn’t happen.

    But is it the first time a player failed to reach his potential? Uh, no. So yes, in that sense, the Packers were left holding the bag, but they had a plan! Some plans don’t work out and it happened to be at a key position and low and behold, Rodgers goes down for a bit and now it’s seemingly a glaring issue. But again, the team had reason to think Harrell and probably moreso Coleman could be that guy to keep the ship afloat if Rodgers missed time.

    Let’s see how Wallace does this week after a full week of practice with the 1′s and the knowledge, all week long, that he’s starting and playing. His career stats aren’t great, no. But this team has enough talent that they can win this game. They really should have had a better shot on Monday night and that fell largely on the defense and some questionable non-calls by the coaching staff (no challenge on the Q sideline catch?!?!).

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  2. Nick Perry says:

    I made mention of this exact topic in “Game Balls and Lame Calls”. Someone posted that the Bears loss was put on Ted T and Mike M. I’m a very passionate Packers fan, one that yells at the T.V. like a fricking idiot and yes, I know they can’t hear me. By the end of the first drive, with about what, 12:00 minutes left in the first quarter, the Packer were down first Rd picks from 05, 09, 10, 11, and 12. Second Rd picks from 2010, and 11 in Cobb and Worthy. Throw in Finley, and Lang and that makes you screwed. But, the Packers lost by 7. That’s it, 7!
    I was one of those that was furious with Ted for leaving us with Wallace as a back up, he should have known better!

    Then something occurred to me yesterday morning and Chad wrote about it this morning, (Thanks Chad!) Flynn looked like garbage coming in for Rodgers in that game they lost 7-3. The following week the defense played their hearts out, Flynn played his ass off with a week of practice, and the Packers almost beat New England and would have if Slocums special teams didn’t let OL Dan Connolly run back a kickoff 70 some yards to the Packers 2 yard line.

    Everyone of these players has a chance to come back at some point this year except Finley and maybe Worthy. Obviously Capers defense has to play better but they can beat the Eagles, Giants, and Vikings with Wallace and be 8-3 heading into Detroit. 2 of these 3 games are at home. The Eagles pass defense is last in the NFL and the Vikings are right around there.

    The bottom line here is the Packers are 5-3, tied for first WITHOUT all these players. The only reason is T.T. and M.M. and the depth of this team and the coaching. I haven’t given up hope and neither should any of us. I believe Wallace will have a decent game Sunday with Rodgers right there in his ear, and Lacy and Starks will run all over the Eagles.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

    • Razer says:

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

      • Nick Perry says:

        Hmmm, sarcasm I love it. I just think these next 3 games are winnable as long as Wallace doesn’t lose the game. Like each and every Ex- NFL player that said something about Wallace, he came in without any reps, practice time, nothing. Did you think Matt Flynn would throw for 9 TD and 1 INT in his 2 starts as a Packer? I sure the hell didn’t. IF they get Perry and Matthews back playing the defense obviously is much better off. The Eagles and Vikings have two of the worst pass defenses. The Giants have a horrible O-Line and give Manning 1.5 seconds to throw loots of INT’s. If Rodgers is out 4-6 weeks the Packers might be screwed. If he can come back by Thanksgiving in Detroit or the week after, and the others like Perry and Matthews come back SOON, like this week, you don’t know what can happen. I’m choosing to be a optimist, at least for now.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        • Razer says:

          No sarcasm intended. With some of our starters back, I think that our defense can carry this team to the playoff – just like the 2010 run.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • Dobber says:

          “If Rodgers is out 4-6 weeks the Packers might be screwed. ”

          I think just about anyone would say the same for teams that lose an elite talent at the NFL’s marquee position…Brees, Manning, Newton. The nature of the beast is that the step down is just so big. It forces you to severely rethink your offensive philosophy. Teams just aren’t built to do that.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          • Chad Toporski Chad Toporski says:

            I would also add that teams spend a significant portion of the salary cap on their top players for a reason. You can’t completely load up a roster with top-tier talent, because it’s financially untenable.

            Teams have to decide what baskets they’re going to put their eggs in. And sometimes fate plays against their hand.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

            • Bearmeat Bearmeat says:

              Here’s the thing: the bad luck (if that is what it is) HAS to stop sometime.

              This team has been almost crippled by injuries in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2013. That’s 4 out of 8 of MM’s years as head coach.

              That’s a pattern. Some of them (like a broken fibula) are just bad luck that could happen to anyone. But the strains/pulls/tears etc..?

              It all comes back to injuries. If GB loses this season to injuries AGAIN and doesn’t make the playoffs… someone/something HAS to change.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

              • Chad Toporski Chad Toporski says:

                Totally agree with regard to the injuries; however, Razer made a good point below. A lot of the injuries lately have been contact:

                Rodgers: Broken clavicle
                Finley: Neck/spinal cord bruise
                Cobb: Broken leg
                Matthews: Broken thumb
                Perry: Broken foot
                Bulaga: Hip/knee injury
                Sherrod: Broken leg
                Lang: Concussion

                Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

          • Nick Perry says:

            I agree Dobbler. I guess I was just saying the obvious. That and yesterday I heard Rodgers would be out 3 weeks. This morning I read 4-6. I guess we’ll wait and see.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      • Dobber says:

        That’s the spirit! ;)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    • PaulRosik says:

      You beat me to the Flynn comment about how bad he was against Detroit. You have to give Wallace a week with game planning and first team reps. If he tanks against an iffy Eagle defense at home – then you could have this discussion.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  3. paul heimann says:

    perfectly put!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    • Nick Perry says:

      Agreed, I think Wallace will do just fine this week. The Eagles have the 32nd racked pass defense, the Vikings 29th or 30th. I think this is where they start to dust Franklin off and use him in the game as well. Not so much running the ball, but catching it. I haven’t been this nervous about a game in a long time. The Packers need Matthews and Perry, Period! Capers defense can’t afford zero pressure in a game again. It will be tricky because if the Packers are caught with Pickett, Jolly and Raji on the field and Philly starts these plays every 15 seconds, our boys will be gassed in no time. Matthews with a club even if his game involves his hands so much is better than any other player they have on defense. I’d like to see Sherrod to be ready by Thanksgiving or even the Giants, Newhouse is scary.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  4. Razer says:

    Thanks Chad for putting a realistic light on this past weekend – it was downright painful on a lot of fronts. My expectations have adjusted according to the crippling personnel loss. It doesn’t make it easier, just understandable.

    The lack of backup is disappointing and has a bad timing aspect. The Packers did a good job of flushing Harrel and Coleman after they didn’t step up this training camp. It is good to move on rather than keep digging a dry well. Unfortunately, we left ourselves vulnerable to a backup dilemma.

    A couple of years ago I argued that the Packers didn’t assess and move on from projects quickly enough. We seemed to have O-linemen, linebackers and TEs who hung around but never evolved. This has changed the last couple of years as we turnover marginal talent with greater frequency. I applaud the coaches for using a keener eye. Having Rodgers and Favre has spoiled us and revealed a soft underbelly. More than anything it is a bad break compounded by bad timing.

    Dig deeper and stay the course.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  5. Dobber says:

    I worry about the injury to Rodgers, but I think the injury to Lang is just as big. If he can’t go, I think it puts a lot of pressure on the OL, which will need to be very good through this stretch for the Packers to be successful. If they can’t open holes in the run game, they will struggle to protect Wallace against defenses pinning their ears back to get to the QB.

    This is where the Packers put the money where their mouth is: the running game must carry this team going forward. I think Wallace can be an effective game manager with good mobility, a la Alex Smith and the Chiefs (yes, I know that Wallace was not a first round pick and that Jamaal Charles is a rare talent), but in the rare instance where MM has had to game plan a stand-in (Flynn) he didn’t scale back the game plan. I think he needs to do that here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  6. Outis says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

    • Razer says:

      I think that many people see having an Aaron Rodgers behind Bert Favre for 4 years as the normal QB backup scenario. Fundamentally, the modern backup is a low cost, competent, offense manger. The exception being a real talent being groomed to take over (ala Rodgers).

      I am not one to throw in the chips because my 8 week backup hasn’t had a chance to take enough reps or have a gameplan tailored to his strengths. The fact that our young projects didn’t turn out better is unfortunate but talented guys who can be “the man” are not easy to find. Give Seneca Wallace the chance to prove he can (or cannot) manage this evolving offense.

      In the meantime, the defense will have to step up, make games close, force some turnovers and yes carry the team. Just-like-they-did-in-2010. Have some faith people

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      • Chad Toporski Chad Toporski says:

        Great point.

        I’d also add that if you want to place blame with the quarterbacks, point your finger at Mike McCarthy. I’d be willing to bet he was the one who wanted to keep Harrell and Coleman as backup projects, and advised Thompson in that direction. General managers base a lot of their decisions on what the head coach has to say about the players.

        There’s definitely criticism to be made about the backup QBs, but you can’t insinuate that they were just taking shots in the dark. Even the best laid plans sometimes fail.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      • Dobber says:

        Nobody PLANS to use a backup QB except in mop-up duty when leading by 30 points. The backup gets next to no reps, so aside from some action in preseason with scrubs, who knows what you’re really getting?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    • Chad Toporski Chad Toporski says:

      I’m not making excuses for Ted Thompson, because I don’t think he’s done anything majorly wrong in his approach to putting this team together.

      I do have a simple question for you, though, and I hope you will give me a simple answer:

      In your opinion, was Matt Flynn a competent backup while he was here?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      • Bearmeat Bearmeat says:

        From 2008-2009? No. In 2010 and 2011? Yes.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      • Outis says:

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

        • Chad Toporski Chad Toporski says:

          No, I won’t, because I’m looking for YOUR opinion on what constitutes a “competent” backup.

          But hey, if you’re unwilling to have a civil debate and answer an honest question, then that says more about you than it does about me. No skin off my nose.

          Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

    • PaulRosik says:

      The Packers have a long history of successful backups all the way through Flynn. But Harrell and Coleman couldn’t live up to it and left a hole in this year’s team. Wallace will have a chance to see if he can fill it.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  7. Skip says:

    Thing is, that for the past few years there is a consistent pattern of injuries and I question the tranining and conditioning coaches..Its not just this year, but every year and while you cant help broken collarbones or fracture legs, there are plenty of other ongoing injuries that have always made many of us question the conditioning of these players in GB. I for one wonder what the accountability level is with those coaches?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    • Dobber says:

      The abundance of quad, hammy, oblique and other pulls and tears in the league this year is staggering…

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

    • Razer says:

      I don’t know that we are that much worse than the others. Most of our significant injuries are contact injuries. Cobb, Finley, Matthews, Perry, Sherrod and even Rodgers have all been about hitting and falling wrong.

      The pulls, tears and twists are part of the modern, muscular athlete landscape. Maybe we can effect these but I won’t hold my breath.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    • PaulRosik says:

      You keep hearing this from Packer fans. But do you REALLY think that other teams are doing something strength or conditioning wise that every team is not doing? In the 1970′s the Steelers were way ahead in strength conditioning and diet and overpowered the competition but that sort of edge is long gone in the modern day.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      • Stroh says:

        The Steelers were ahead of the game in Steroids too. Don’t think for a second that didn’t have a dramatic impact on being ahead of the game in Strength and Conditioning. Its pretty well known that a lot of the 70′s Steelers were heavy on steroid use.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        • Two Bears, One Cup says:

          Glad someone brought this up. Those Steelers took more steroids than East (and West, apparently) German swimmers in the 80s!

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  8. Dobber says:

    Maybe with Wallace’s mobility, we see the read-option wrinkle this week…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  9. Since '61 says:

    Chad – I think that your article makes some valid points. I have been saying for the last few seasons that I wish we could see this entire Packers team play as Ted has built it. Preferably for a full season, but at this point I would be happy with just one game. That’s not going to happen this year and had no chance to happen before the season even started with the loss of Bulaga and D. Harris in the preseason. As for the QB situation we went from having the most accurate QB in the league to not being able to pass at all on one play. To beat the Eagles the defense will need to step up big time and not only get off the field in 3rd down but also create some turnovers. Hopefully, Matthews and/or Perry will return and make an impact. The secondary needs to make some plays. If Lang is out I will be very concerned about the right side of the OL, especially with Newhouse over there. We should get a fair look at Seneca this week and then we’ll know where we stand at QB. Thanks, Since’61

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  10. NYPACKER says:

    I’m very interested in how Wallace plays this weekend. If MM can come up with a gameplan that minimizes the limitations of Wallace’s lack of arm strength, he is a genius…..I would play 8 in the box & press our receivers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  11. Bearmeat Bearmeat says:

    I am a realist. 2010 was an exception. With the exception of the 49ers game, and the 4th Q of the Redskins/Bengals/Bears games, the D has been better than at any point under Capers since 2010.

    However, there have been NO game changing plays on D/ST this year. If Seneca is the guy for the next 4-6 weeks, the D has to step up and make BIG plays. If they don’t…. we’re not making the dance.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

    • Razer says:

      Bearmeat, you, my friend have stated the bottomline!

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    • Icebowler says:

      “except for the 4th quarter”? That’s a problem, a big problem. We need to play 60 minutes. Now that is a strength and conditioning problem.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. pack1best says:

    This team needs clay and Perry back point blank period. Pass rush is everything for this team. I think on the back end those guys have to get a lil more physical, in there coverages but deffense has to step up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  13. Big T says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

    • PaulRosik says:

      The o line has pass blocked poorly. The Packers philosophy has been to draft of course – they have 50 players on their team who have only played for Green Bay. So when you have two early picks like Bulaga and Sherrod unable to contribute and Lang out with a concussion they are going to struggle. Rodgers’ talent covered for them but it may really show up now how bad the o line has been.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    • marpag says:

      If you really think that the O-line got Rodgers injured, you’re just flat-out wrong. While the blocking wasn’t spectacular, this was a total coverage sack if there ever was one.

      Watch the play. The ball is snapped and Rodgers spends a good amount of time standing in the pocket. No one is open. Barclay takes on McClellin, prevents him from getting any significant push, and redirects him up field. Meanwhile, Rodgers decides to take off, and Barclay has absolutely no way of seeing or knowing when, or to where, Rodgers is going. Because Rodgers sprints right, McClellin is now between Barclay and Rodgers, and Barclay has little hope of preventing McClellin from disengaging short of drawing a 10 yard holding penalty. McClellin takes off after Rodgers and does not even touch him until he is at least half way between the right hash and the out-of-bounds line, which is halfway across the field from where the ball was originally spotted.

      That’s called a coverage sack. O-linemen cannot be expected to protect the QB forever if none of the receivers are open.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    • Batavia Greg says:

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

      • Chad Toporski Chad Toporski says:

        Yeah man, that offensive line really sucks this year… I mean, the fact that PFF ranks them tied for 5th in Pass Blocking Efficiency says everything!

        Oh, wait…

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  14. marpag says:

    It’s futile to try to argue with the Chicken Little Crowd.

    The Chicken Little Crowd already knows the indisputable, incontrovertible fact that Seneca Wallace and the current roster are incapable of winning anything… just like they knew the self-evident reality that Thompson and McCarthy were idiots to move on from Favre and promote that girly flop of a first-rounder named Erin Rodgers. And they know this undeniable fact from watching less than a game of Wallace taking over a gameplan that wasn’t designed for him.

    Nevermind that TT has already shown astounding QB acumen in drafting Rodgers in the first place. Nevermind that he was dead, spot-on correct when he dumped Favre and moved on to ARod. Nevermind that he was absolutely right to let Flynn walk for the stupid money that he got from Seattle. And nevermind that in Bob McGinn’s now infamous article he quoted several “non-Packer” scouts who said that Wallace was no worse than an average backup. The Chicken Little Crowd knows the truth, dammit.

    You can argue as much as you want, but Chickie ain’t changin’ his mind.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

    • Two Bears, One Cup says:

      I too have been disappointed with so many Packers’ fans attitudes. So many seem to relish in Packer struggles and they get really quiet when they win. It is like some inward-directed schadenfreude that I cannot understand.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  15. GBPDAN says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

    • Outis says:

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

      • Jason Perone Jason Perone says:

        Who should they have brought in, then? Hindsight is 20/20 and yes, neither Coleman nor Harrell worked out. So who would have been available to bring in and who would have been a RESPONSIBLE draft pick, otherwise? Obviously they wouldn’t have taken a guy in rounds 1-5 because they have a QB for a while. So who?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        • Batavia Greg says:

          Jason, don’t tell me that you don’t read replies to your own post. Had you read mine to your post from yesterday’s post you wouldn’t ask about the availability of a “responsible” QB for the Pack to select in the late rounds of the draft. I’m deeply hurt. Perhaps you are like the character, Leonard, in the movie, “Momento,” who has anterograde amnesia and is unable to store recent memories, so I shouldn’t be offended.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

          • Batavia Greg says:

            Oops, I repeated the word, “post,” in the second sentence. I must have forgotten. Did I just say something? I think I did. I’ll have to write it down and have it tattooed on my arm so I don’t forget.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

          • Two Bears, One Cup says:

            And if you had read his post you would remember that we already had two young prospects heading into the draft.

            And not everyone thinks so highly of Osweiler and Dysert as you do. Osweiller was a second-round pick, which would be a waste of a pick with Rodgers on board and other needs. Dysert was passed on by EVERY GM (including the Vikes, Jags, Cardinals, and Browns to name a few) for over six rounds. He put up big numbers . . . Graham Harrell put up bigger numbers.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

            • Batavia Greg says:

              Jason asked in this post who would have been available in the late rounds of the last draft who could possibly have contributed or helped the Packers. Yesterday, I expressed my opinion that I found it regrettable that we didn’t select Zac Dysert in the 7th round. But it isn’t important that I like Zac Dysert. What’s important is that John Elway likes Zac Dysert, who has a much stronger arm than Harrell by-the-way, and that he likes him enough to keep him on the 53 man active roster and not on the PS. That couldn’t be said for Scott Tolzien who now, unfortunately, is our current backup QB. I wish Tolzien well, though, at least for the time that he remains a Packer.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

              • Two Bears, One Cup says:

                Why is it important that Elway likes Dysert? When has he ever proven an ability to judge young QBs? And if he liked Dysert so much why didn’t he make sure he got him before the seventh round? If this genius Elway thought Dysert was a sure thing why risk waiting?

                Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

              • Batavia Greg says:

                For “Two Bears One Cup:” Dysert played himself onto Denver’s active roster during the pre-season after he was drafted. He earned it. He flew under the radar in the draft because Miami of Ohio was a mediocre team last year, finishing with a 4-8 record. However, Dysert does have good fundamentals, a strong and accurate arm and is mobile. Although a “project,” he has plenty of upside potential and it quite bright. Elway, a Hall-of-Fame QB,recognized those qualities and potential; TT didn’t.

                Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  16. GBPDAN says:

    The bears, for example, did the right thing by spending a little money for a competent, veteran, back up. The reason they did this was because they saw their promising season, a few years ago, go down the tubes when Cutler was knocked out for a stretch of games. This will be a wake up call for TT and MM to quit gambling with this all important back up position. I think Ted has been doing a good job with this team for the most part, but, not at BUQB

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

    • PaulRosik says:

      The Packers have not liked keeping the old vet as backup – because well if you’re an old vet not starting there is usually a reason. They prefer to keep young players they groom and prep as backup. For the first time in a long, long time the Packers missed on selecting that young backup to groom. The ones they had could not cut it. Harrell and Coleman were supposed to grow into those spots but failed. The list of successes at backup is long but no one notices until one fails.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      • Dobber says:

        There’s a potential profit margin in bringing in young QBs to groom. They become trade bait (Brunell, Brooks, etc.) or net you a compensatory pick when signed away, or become your starter if they’re really good…and they’re CHEAP.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    • Two Bears, One Cup says:

      The Bears, for example, do not have a bevy of up-and-coming talent that will need to be signed soon. Overall, the lack of talent on the Bears roster allows them to spend a little extra on their backup QB. Is their situation one we as Packers fans envy?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  17. James David says:

    Does anyone really want to trade TT for say Jacksonville’s GM ? Good organizations have three things in common: a good GM,and a coach who is wedded to an elite QB. You keep all three of them together once you have them!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

    • Batavia Greg says:

      What a great idea! Let’s “trade” TT for another GM! I suggest Phil Emery of the Bears. Maybe they’ll even throw in Josh McCown and we’ll finally have a real backup QB. Now, if only we can convince the GMs for both clubs to make the trade!

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  18. PaulRosik says:

    I agree. It has been remarkable actually how they held together with all the injuries. Rodgers was able to compensate for an offensive line pass blocking poorly and make the offense run. Losing him may be the proverbial straw. The offensive line and defense really need to step up in his absence.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  19. starr57 says:

    Chad,

    Although you are absolutely right, I am afraid you are going to be crucified over the writing of this article.

    Today’s fans love gloom and doom, when things are going well they have nothing to complain about.
    Haven’t you figured out sincemadden has been around that everyone thinks they are a gm, and can do the job better than Ted Thompson.

    I’m willing to give Wallace a chance(he is our best option THIS WEEK), he will never be Aaron Rodgers, and he doesn’t have to be, he just needs to be the guy who has done it before, come in and don’t lose the game for The Packers.

    The GLOOM & DOOM crowd are having a great week this week, they are in hog heaven, not since The Magic man went down has there been such panic.

    Great article Chad, just hope you survive the onslaught that will no doubt is just around the corner.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  20. mark says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

    • Dobber says:

      I don’t know whether to be reassured that we made it about 8 hours on this thread before Tim Tebow’s name came up, or to be dismayed that it even came up at all…

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  21. Archie says:

    You got it all wrong. The complaint is this is a one team player. With AR we can beat anybody but w/o him we may not be able to beat anybody. No injury mattered till AR went down i.e. only his injury mattered. The drop off between AR and SW is the biggest in the league at the only position that matters. 9 years of GM and we are ARE ONE PLAYER TEAM AND THAT PLAYER HAS NO REAL BACK-UP? But hey, if you wish to be a corporate lackey and worship at the alter of TT, that’s your prerogative, I just strongly disagree. My view is we are in the position we are because of TT, not in spit of him. Heck, it took him 9 years to recognize that even in the modern era, and even with a great passing team, you need balance i.e., a running game. His defense has many flaws as well as was amply illustrated by the Bears’ back-up QB on MNF. But hey, you’re all Packer fans first and I understand that. Never let the facts get in the way of a good cover-up story for Packer management. Heck, even Bob McGinn was drinking the kool-aid, saying the Packers’ system under TT/MM was so good they would go right on winning regardless of injuries, even if the player was named AR. We saw what bull-crap that was. W/o AR, the king has no clothes on but sadly, the GB media doesn’t have the cayones to come up and dish it straight to the locals.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

    • Outis says:

      Well-said, Archie. In fairness to the GB media, there are some who at least did comment upon management’s failures regarding the backup QB position. For example, in earlier comments, I cited to articles by Jason Hirshhorn and by “AllGreenBayPackers.com”-own Kris Burke. The problems, though, as you noted, are more pervasive than just the backup position and there are a lot of “TT’s toadies” or sycophants out there in the media, including the author of this post.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      • Batavia Greg says:

        Let’s see . . . “toady” and “sycophant” . . . aren’t those “highfalutin” words for “brown-nose”?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      • Stroh says:

        I shudder that you call this and other blog sites “media”. The media are allowed in the press box during games. Bloggers are NOT!

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  22. GBPDAN says:

    I will say this, as I posted yesterday. I’m to give S Wallace a chance to keep this team a float and hope we dont lose enough games to miss the playoffs. I agree it premature to do other wise. I just have a bad feeling and thats why im frustrated with how the back up QB situation unfolded the last few years. Maybe I’m a dooms
    day guy, or maybe I’m just being a realest . I hope we win with Wallace and he shuts me up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  23. GBPDAN says:

    The Packers plan to bring Flynn in for a workout, according to Ian Rapoport of NFL Network.That indicates some level of interest in Flynn from the Packers’ brass, but the reality is if they thought he could step in immediately and play better than Seneca Wallace, Flynn would already be a Packer. Flynn passed through waivers unclaimed on Tuesday, the day after Rodgers broke his collarbone, so the Packers (and 31 other teams) have already passed on the opportunity to bring him in.There have been reports that the Packers think Flynn may have some injury to his throwing arm, and it’s possible that they’ll sign him if he can show in a workout that there are no injury concerns. Still, the Packers say they have confidence in Wallace as the starter and Scott Tolzien as the backup until Rodgers can return. A workout is probably all Flynn is going to get in Green Bay.

    The Pack must have their doubts about Wallace

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  24. GBPDAN says:

    See above…..I rest my case

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  25. tim says:

    I think just about every team in the league with a great qb is faced with a huge drop off when he goes down, not because the back-up is so bad, but because the difference between the starter and back up is huge. Wallace has got some tools to rely on. Give Wallace a shot, last week was a write off – it would be for most teams in that spot. He missed training camp, probably has gotten little practice time and was thrown into a game with a game plan that doesn’t suit his talents to the best extent. Lets see if this week isn’t better. All is not lost.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1