Report: Packers Release QB B.J. Coleman, Sign Seneca Wallace

For better or worse, the Packers appear to be going with the veteran Wallace as their backup to starter Aaron Rodgers.

B.J. Coleman's run as the Green Bay Packers' No. 2 quarterback lasted just more than 24 hours.

A few eyebrows were raised when Vince Young was cut on Saturday and Coleman was named the top backup to Aaron Rodgers by default, but it appears that the former 2012 seventh round draft choice won't be suiting up for the Packers when they face the San Francisco 49ers in Week 1 of the regular season.

The plan, at least for the time being, is for the Packers to sign NFL journeyman quarterback Seneca Wallace, according to Ed Werder of ESPN.

Wallace is 33 years old and was last seen competing for a backup job with the 49ers this preseason and later allegedly said to be retiring by coach Jim Harbaugh, a notion Wallace disputes.

Along with Scott Tolzien reportedly being signed to the Packers' practice squad, Wallace makes it two former 49ers quarterbacks signed by the Packers, perhaps in an attempt to gather intelligence on their season-opening opponent.

The Packers, however, are also looking for a quarterback that can keep them afloat should anything happen to Rodgers, and they'll be hoping Wallace's experience, if nothing else, will be enough to help them get by.

In seven NFL seasons, Wallace has thrown for 31 touchdowns and 18 interceptions and has a career completion percentage of 59.2 percent. He last started three games for the Cleveland Browns in 2011.

Werder reports Wallace will be taking part in practice Monday in Green Bay where he'll be taking part in a crash course on the Packers offense.

Coleman spent his entire rookie season on the Packers practice squad and was given plenty of opportunity to win the primary backup job the past spring and summer.

Following a lackluster preseason performance in which he completed on 41.2 percent of his 34 pass attempts (14 completions) for 128 yards with one touchdown and one interception, it was clear Coleman wasn't ready for primetime––or at least not yet.

For his part, Coleman displayed the raw skills necessary to play quarterback in the NFL, a strong arm and an ability to thread the needle, as evident on his nine-yard touchdown strike to tight end Jake Stoneburner in second preseason game.

But Coleman also didn't display the decision-making skills nor the accuracy of a viable NFL quarterback in his two training camp stint in Green Bay.

0 points

Comments (96)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
ZeroTolerance's picture

September 02, 2013 at 09:37 am

Coleman to PS?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RC Packer Fan's picture

September 02, 2013 at 09:41 am

That's my thinking.

I think Tolzein was only brought in to figure out the 49ers offense...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
ZeroTolerance's picture

September 02, 2013 at 09:53 am

I agree - no matter how badly he looked (and I agree with this too), he has been in the system and should know most of the playbook.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ma Linger's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:24 am

Do you think he or Wallace actually knew the 9'ers playbook? If so why were they cut?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
VApackerfan's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:31 am

The same reason why Harrell got cut. It comes down to execution. Just b/c you know the playbook doesn't give you immunity.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 09:42 am

Coleman's gone guys. He TURBLE

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

September 02, 2013 at 09:51 am

There it is. Gotta think Wallace knows a lot of the offense from his time with Holmgren.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Morgan Mundane's picture

September 02, 2013 at 09:57 am

Coleman played like a high schooler looking at the receiver he was going to throw to and no one else. He was interception city and not all that adept at the playbook.
Seneca Wallace will be a huge help once he clears AARP approval and stops his Soc Sec checks.

The above just cements in my mind, TT doesn't have a clue about talent except he is an expert at avoiding the high priced talent. Gee I see the Vikes picked up an insurance Tackle who is pretty decent Ted.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:03 am

For all we know, TT also put a claim in for Webb, but since you have no clue how waivers work, it's not worth arguing.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:05 am

What an idiot.

You really just suggested we pick up trash from a team with an O-line that's worse than ours.

Newhouse >>>> Webb as a swing Tackle.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:19 am

Webb is terrible. He couldn't make a Bears team that has worse oline issues than we do.

And if there's any thing Ted has shown it's that he can't build a talented team.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Brian Carriveau's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:25 am

Totally. That Super Bowl XLV team was a bunch of bums. I can't believe the Packers have made it to the playoffs four consecutive seasons and 15 of the past 20 years with that talent. Or be only one of two teams to have double-digit wins the past four seasons.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Point Packer's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:12 am

^this^

As least he got the "idiot" part correct in his name.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Steven's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:49 am

Amen Brian. We go through this every year. If the Packer's don't win every Super Bowl the "fans" come out in force telling the rest of us how badly Ted sucks and how McCarthy is a bad coach. Frankly, we are a spoiled bunch. I bet a large number of teams would love to be in our shoes. Enjoy the ride folks. Enjoy the ride.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:52 am

Wow, I thought the sarcasm was evident. Next time I'll add *SARCASM* after any joke.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lars's picture

September 02, 2013 at 03:06 pm

An idiot calling an idiot an idiot. Love it. TT just picked up the 49'ers trash. Tolzein was FIFT-string. So I wouldn't be mocking him for the Webb comment. Of course, Thompson didn't put in a claim on Webb and everybody knows it. He hates outsiders, but he knows Wallace from his Seattle days. Tolzein could be gone after the Niners game, once he runs the scout team offense.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Stroh's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:33 am

Much rather have Young than Wallace!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:49 am

What I see in Wallace is a more accurate, smarter, and better game mgr than Young, and he has a better grasp on the WCO and is likely faster.

Though a career backup, Wallace's stats support what I have seen with my eyes.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PadLevel's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:06 pm

My thoughts exactly. VY was "hands down better" than Coleman. And given time, VY would have atleast learned enough of the playbook to be a capable backup - something Coleman could not do after two years with McCarthy.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jake's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:57 pm

I'll file this analysis in the same place as the one you gave on Manning.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lars's picture

September 02, 2013 at 03:07 pm

Young is borderline retarded and could not retain or comprehend the playbook. No way he's better than Wallace.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:00 am

I knew Coleman had no shot on this team. They released Young to make sure other potential backups weren't worried about competing and being back on the street.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:04 am

They released Young because he blows.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:14 am

And while Young was blowing, Coleman was tossing Young's salad.

As bad as Young was at times, you're the only person on this planet that actually thought Coleman earned the backup spot over Young. Releasing Young first was strategic.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:20 am

Coleman will likely remain a part of the team, whereas Young will be washing cars. Coleman has a future. You're wrong dude, get over it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:40 am

I'm wrong? Coleman's gone dude...not going to the PS.

I will paraphrase my own words...

"Coleman isn't battling to be the backup, he's battling to even make the PS"

HTF was I wrong?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:42 am

You are right about Coleman. He's done. I'm very surprised they didn't give him another year. They gave Wallace his number though, so he's not coming back.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Cow43's picture

September 02, 2013 at 02:39 pm

What the heck were you watching packsmack25? Coleman was....is....and will always be terrible.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

September 02, 2013 at 02:51 pm

Never claimed once he was good. Just claimed that Young was no better. The Packers agreed and dumped them both. I assumed they were going to keep Coleman, and if something drastic happened, then bring in a vet, but I guess they just decided Coleman was beyond fixing. Possibly because they had already seen that Harrell was too.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
ZeroTolerance's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:04 am

Interesting. But, in the case of keeping Young, would not another potential backup already be on the street?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:10 am

If we are talking about the best backups available (which I understand I'm shining turds at this point), they are more likely to sign with a team that has a "backup" (and I use that word lightly when referring to Coleman) that is questionable at best.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:13 am

But if they were going to drop the current guy anyway, why would it matter? All they have to do is tell the guy that they're going to cut their current backup if he signs.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:15 am

That's unprofessional, and not fair to Young...the Packers don't operate that way.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:19 am

What are you talking about? If they want to cut a guy and sign another guy, they can tell the guy they're signing the procedural moves they're going to make. Young blew, get over it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
ZeroTolerance's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:17 am

And Young was not questionable?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:44 am

Had Young stayed, the perception would be that he won the job. With Coleman staying, the perception was (except to know-it-all packsmack) that the Packers are going to bring in someone else.

Again, it was in the Packers and Young's best interest to cut Young first, since they apparently liked neither QB enough to keep.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:31 am

Now you're making up hypothetical situations and calling me a know-it-all. Hombre, I don't know you, but you've got to take it down a notch. Young was cut because he's not any good. There's no hidden reason.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ruppert's picture

September 02, 2013 at 03:46 pm

Wrong -*ble. Young wasn't questionable. He was horrible. Laughable. Mockable.

It was incomprehensible that they even signed him to begin with. Reprehensible, even.

Young sucked.

I am mildly surprised they didn't keep Coleman around another near even if he did stink, though. The Packers don't usually quit on a guy after a year. I can't help but wonder if Coleman had some personality/attitude issues that outweighed his talent. Or perhaps he just sucked, too.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ma Linger's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:26 am

I'm thinking one thing. Tolzien and Wallace came cheap is all.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
I bleed Green More's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:37 am

Wow

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
waynerd's picture

September 02, 2013 at 10:51 am

Great move by the Pack- thought they would sign either Wallace or Skelton. Next move should be signing Fernando Velasco Center just released by the Titans. He started all 16 games last year and can play both center and guard. Ship Taylor to the PS to make room. Last move then would be signing Mcknight or Leon Washington for RB/return duties. What do you think?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jh9's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:13 am

If Velasco is better than EDS, I'm for it. IMO, the weakness right now with the Packers is in the O'line. I would like to see them pick up another tackle first and then get a RB/KR.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jh9's picture

September 02, 2013 at 08:01 pm

"The Green Bay Packers announced their final two practice squad signings for opening week of the 2013 season today. Those players are offensive tackle Aaron Adams and running back Michael Hill. Both players are undrafted free agents and come from small schools, with Adams hailing from FCS Eastern Kentucky and Hill from Division II Missouri Western."

Bingo!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Mojo's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:35 am

Just read this at PFF about Velasco:"The Titans found a good one in C Fernando Velasco in 2012. He played every single one of their offensive snaps and had success both in pass protection (+5.6) and as a run blocker (+8.1). In total, he allowed his QB to be knocked down only twice in 643 drop-backs which is very impressive indeed. Unfortunately, he’s scheduled to become a free agent, so the Titans will need to pay for his return though it’s hard not to see them stumping up."

It could be an upgrade over either EDS or GVR. The big negative would be if he played center getting QB1 comfortable with him in such a short time.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Steven's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:43 am

Grab him Ted. He won't be around long.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bart's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:06 pm

Yep. I would jump at any chance to upgrade the OLine. I just don't see EDS as an NFL quality starter, Backup OK but not a starter. Gonna be hard to get a running game going when your center is getting overpowered and knocked backwards on a regular basis.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
66Paperboy's picture

September 02, 2013 at 02:34 pm

Drop the Skelton thought. Ive been living in AZ for five years and watched him with the Cards. He's a disaster. One more concussion and he will be worse than Jim McMahon. He needs to retire in order to live a productive life.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jh9's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:00 am

The only way the swapping of Wallace with Young at this late date makes sense to me is if TT and MM saw something either professionally or personally with Young that made them feel very uncomfortable and they aren't talking about it publicly.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:11 am

I disagree that that's the only way it makes sense, but agree that could have been part of the reason. I don't think that was the case, but considering Young's track record, it's possible

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PadLevel's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:31 pm

That's what I suspect as well. Something non-football related may be going on with VY. He didn't light up the field with his plays and at time played worse than Harrell, but I was willing to give him more time to prove himself - after all the Packers were so patient with Harrell and Coleman. VY has won games in the NFL, that cannot be discounted.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
calpackerfan's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:49 am

wallace = harrell = mccoy

now the pack has to start over. Good luck:(

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
calpackerfan's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:51 am

where is all the love for young coming from? (UT fans i am sure) That guy was bad - still cant believe they cut Harrell before him. Team is making a lot of questionable decisions so far this season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Longshanks's picture

September 02, 2013 at 12:08 pm

I agree. I think they wanted to sign Harrel back and are possibly waiting / hoping the Jets to cut him. When they do, they'll pick him back up. Harrel was our backup last year. There's no way Wallace is better than Harrel at this time. They were fooled into keeping Young over Harrel over ONE DAMN SERIES!! thinking he would continue to get better.

His last performance against KC was some of the worst qb'ing I ever saw. From Coleman too. After that game I said TT should cut Young and while they are at it, cut Coleman as well. I was right on those two but the Jets have put a wrench in GB's plans by continueing to keep Harrel. Wallace is at least a true backup with NFL experience but I can't help but think they want Harrel back big time.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

September 02, 2013 at 12:13 pm

Harrell was just cut. I'd be shocked if they brought him back.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Longshanks's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:01 pm

That's good. I would not be shocked at all if they brought Harrel back. In fact they are crazy if they don't. Seneca Wallace is not any better than Harrel is plus he doesn't know the offense. Harrel makes the most sense. The only thing that could prevent TT from picking him back up would his pride and his admission of making a mistake.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:07 pm

Agree with Longshanks that Harrell is better than Wallace at this time. Posted on the other thread that it makes no sense to have Wallace over GH and got attacked by the same poster attacking Packsmack here. There's a lot of GH hate, but he knew the offense and I'd trust him to manage the game more than a total newcomer. Again, I'm not a GH promoter or apologist. Just want the best QB available in an emergency. Logic tells you that was GH.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Longshanks's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:30 pm

Yeah, I've been getting attacked too for wanting TT to go back to Harrel. He's clearly their best option at this point. Whe the f else is out there that could step in week one other than Harrel? Nobody, that's who. It's too late.

There's really 4 options left:

1. Bring back Graham Harrel and say "we screwed up" to him and move forward.
2. Try to get Flynn in a trade. (unlikely at this point)
3. Send James Campen down to Hattiesburg MS to see if The Old Gunslinger would be interested in playing for another season as backup to Rodgers.
4. Punt

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Barutan Seijin's picture

September 02, 2013 at 12:51 pm

Graham, you had four years to develop and didn't show any progress. You couldn't even convince the NY Jets to keep you around. The Jets! What's that say about a guy if he can't even cut it as Sanchez's backup? I think it's time to find a new career.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:46 pm

If Young was bad, Harrell was putrid.

Funny someone questions the love for Young and then clamors for Harrell in same paragraph.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:57 am

I think it was all preparation for SF. Young got cut by Buffalo....BUFFALO! But he could still run, good practice for the read option. This whole pre-season was a 4 game practice for SF. MM said were putting together a team for when it counts. Then signs 2 SF qbs..............hhmmmmmmmmmmmm.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bart's picture

September 02, 2013 at 12:12 pm

I doubt they are so obsessed with the 49ers that they would base their whole preseason and sign BU QBs on just beating the 49ers in Week 1. There are 15 games after Week 1 whether they beat SF or not. My guess is that this just how the chips fell. When all 3 BUs failed there weren't many options left and TT/MM just tried to find the best they could off the scrap heap....

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
66Paperboy's picture

September 02, 2013 at 02:49 pm

Bart...McCarthy is obssessed with SF. Where do you think he came from before the Pack? He was their OC for four years. Pride can give you blinders besides motivation.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Stroh's picture

September 02, 2013 at 05:17 pm

McCarthy is obsessed w/ SF? Exactly what the hell do you base that on? exactly NOTHING! Does McCarthy want to beat SF and recognize that they are one of the teams we'll have to beat to get to the SB. Of course... But McCarthy doesn't get obsessed w/ any opponent, especially one outside the NFCN. Get Real!

And McCarthy spent ONE year as the OC at SF. NOT 4. He spent about 4 yrs w/ NO. Get your stuff straight!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jh9's picture

September 02, 2013 at 12:23 pm

IMO Flynn would have been better, but I guess Reggie McKenzie didn't want to part with him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jack in jersey city's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:06 pm

yeah, i don't see the raiders cutting flynn. he's a solid backup qb.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
KennyPayne's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:10 pm

So the Niners have Colt McCoy and a promising rookie as their 3rd QB and cut Tolzien and Wallace and we pick up their scraps?

Have I got that right?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
I bleed Green More's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:13 pm

Well they could have got Quinn or Harrell they were available.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bart's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:28 pm

Wallace and Tolzien were probably the best of a poor lot to choose from. Just so happens they were both cut by the Niners. If Rodgers goes down for an extended time it won't matter who the backup is.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Nononsense's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:15 pm

Its pretty simple, Vince Young is a complete stranger to the West Coast style of offense and Wallace has ran some version of it pretty much his whole career. So IMO Young is way behind Wallace even with 4 extra weeks of preparation in the Packers offense.

You also have to remember that theres more to being a backup QB than just playing in place of the starter should he miss time. His contributions go beyond that, hes an extra set of eyes in games and to some degree Wallace will be an extra coach of sorts for Rodgers who only has Ben McAdoo (a non QB) as his QB coach.

Overall it may not make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside but I believe TT is making the best of a bad situation going with Wallace. Time will tell how it works out.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

September 02, 2013 at 03:04 pm

This is part of the reason I wasn't surprised they ditched Young. There's just no way Vince Young would offer anything on the sidelines.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:20 pm

Again, I have complete trust in TT and MM. However, the Packers have had the ideal backup QB situation for the past few years, a young no.2 and young PS guy, both of whom knew the offense. Now they have neither, except that ST is young.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:53 pm

Lay off the effin crack pipe.

You are getting laughed at the more you type.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

September 02, 2013 at 02:32 pm

I'll explain it slowly since you seem to be the only person who can't understand. The optimum back up QB situation for the Packers is to have a young No. 2 with potential and a rookie or second year PS QB with potential. That was the situation with Flynn, GH, and Coleman. Just because two of those guys didn't work out doesn't mean that's not the correct way to proceed. It's the correct way to build a complete roster for the present and the future.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:29 pm

Your scenario may very well be ideal, but you don't do it for the sake of doing it. If you've got the guys to do it, great. If not, you do what you need to do.

Since we clearly don't...no need complaining about it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Nononsense's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:25 pm

Young did play in Philly for a year so maybe hes not a complete stranger to the WCO offense but Wallace still has a lot more familiarity within that system.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:30 pm

In news that will actually impact this team, Burnett and Jones returned to practice today. Huge news.

Hayward is still out, but I think Hyde can fill in more than adequately.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RC Packer Fan's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:37 pm

That is good news.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 01:52 pm

What TF bizarro world have I been living in where Graham Harrell showed much if anything this TC?

For someone with enough of a brain to operate the interwebs to point blank state that Harrell is better than a guy that has played in and won games in this league, with an 81 career QB rating, near 60% comp rate, and solid TD/INT ratio is dumbfounding.

Now don't get this twisted, Wallace is no world beater, but WTF is up with all of this whining about bringing Harrell back?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

September 02, 2013 at 02:18 pm

I think it's just one or two people that want to bring him back. No idea why.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

September 02, 2013 at 02:51 pm

Packsmack, the reasons were explained above and in the other thread. Our friend posting above you obviously dislikes GH, and that's fine. Neither I or Longshanks said GH was great, just a better option than Wallace. Just ask yourself this: If AR were to miss time in the first few games who would you rather have, GH with years in the offense or Wallace? If you choose Wallace that's OK, but if our "friend" above thinks so he needs basis for it, besides just saying GH sucks or blows.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

September 02, 2013 at 03:00 pm

I'd rather have Wallace, because he has proven he can make throws like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu3XgDwVoMw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

September 02, 2013 at 04:02 pm

That's cool. There's legitimate reasons for opinions either way. Those reasons just need to be stated without personal attacks.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ron G's picture

September 02, 2013 at 02:16 pm

I have always like Wallace. He is a better option than Young, Harrell, or Coleman. Harrell can't move the ball. Coleman isn't an NFL QB. Young is not the ideal backup and not much of a passer.

I think the negative Wallace comments are by people that don't know much about him. He has only started 21 games in his career. In 2008, he started 8 games for a bad Seahawks team. He had a QB rating of 87 that year and a 3-5 record for a 4-12 team. Hasselbeck started 7 games and was 1-6 wth a QB rating of 58.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ron G's picture

September 02, 2013 at 02:34 pm

He had crap receivers in Seattle and Cleveland. He is a good athlete - Combine - 4.56, 38 vertical, 10'7" broad jump. His biggest issue is that he is only 5'11", but throws straight over the top.

Just turned 33 with little wear on his body(didn't play in 2012), so he could be a backup for years to come. Lots of experience in the West Coast. Perfect backup. Should have signed him last year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Stroh's picture

September 02, 2013 at 05:34 pm

So he's a career backup. How does that give you any confidence? It doesn't me. Would have rather had the younger more athletic Young, except for his ball security issues the last preseason game you would too. Wallace hasn't ever really done anything of note in the NFL. Far as I know he's never started a playoff game.

IMO go back to Coleman, at least he had NFL tools of a QB, just needed to keep learning and maturing. All the QB's available have less talent than Coleman. No matter what, if Rodgers is out for more than a few games the season is lost anyway.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 02:50 pm

Ron G...my thinking exactly.

Always liked this guy, and perfectly suited to be a backup.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Mark in Montana's picture

September 02, 2013 at 05:42 pm

Absolutely- at least now we are in the "average" range for backup quarterbacks, maybe above average. I don't mind Tolzein being on the PS either- probably not a guy that can be developed much further, but an ok emergency option for this year. It could be worse- we could have the Jets' QB situation.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

September 02, 2013 at 03:19 pm

Just saw on Packers.com that TT was involved on drafting Wallace back at SEA. Had forgotten that connection.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bibbon Hazel's picture

September 02, 2013 at 05:49 pm

They suck!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jon's picture

September 02, 2013 at 06:35 pm

LOVE the signing!!!!

Great job TT. I say small chance his age catches up with him and he can't sling it but I'm sure he's stayed in shape if TT brought him in to run his team if Aaron goes down. He will do great with the weapons we have around him if we need him. Great pickup.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Fish . Crane's picture

September 02, 2013 at 06:42 pm

Career QB ratings NFC Central:

Rodgers 108
Wallace 81.3

Cutler 81.3
Ponder 81.2
Stafford 79.8

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RC Packer Fan's picture

September 03, 2013 at 07:06 am

^ 'NFC NORTH'

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
masterFake's picture

September 02, 2013 at 07:10 pm

Just this first play is good enough for me... he looks like the best backup the Packers have had since Rodgers.
http://youtu.be/L7Elsegn4Zw?t=59s

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idahopacker's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:17 pm

I sometimes can't believe some of you Guys, You are ripping apart a team that yes has some week areas but not real weak we could be Oakland or Jacksonville thats weak. Stop ripping apart Ted Thompson I definitely wasn't comfortable with Harrell or Coleman. Actually for our system Wallace was probably the best choice out there, Vince Young if we picked up last Spring maybe but I still think he would rather run than Pass. By the way Thank You Fish for your STats.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
djbonney138's picture

September 02, 2013 at 11:45 pm

I thought this Wilde article explained it all pretty well...
http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/page.php?feed=2&id=9241&is_c...

We need a capable backup. Wallace is exactly what we need. When was the last time a 2nd string QB in Green Bay played a significant amount of time? 1992?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
fish and crane's picture

September 03, 2013 at 03:08 am

yes.. And his name was Brett Favre

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.