If there is one thing McCarthy knows, it's QBs. He can build a gameplan around Flynn or Brohm if the need arises.

Sorry, Al, I wouldn't waste $20 and a stick of gum on any of those guys that you mentioned. They have all had multiple chances and failed. That said, I don't think Thompson is trying to save money by going with Flynn and Brohm, he thinks they're fine and will develop in time.

Franklin, I understand, but that's all that's left. I would have made a move months ago. And I'm just talking about protecting this year. So if something happens to Rodgers, you would be comfortable handing the ball to one of those guys and expecting a good year from the Packers? I wouldn't.

Frerotte did a decent job for the Vikes. Childress erred when he handed the job back to Jackson. At least Frerotte wouldn't be intimidated by the job, like Brohm and Flynn still are.

I agree 100% with this...

I normally give the coaches the benefit of the doubt in the fact they know what it is they want..

But I just can't see them thinking that those 2 q/b are capable

eh. as far as im concerned you can't deal in alternate realities like you have in this article. In 1991, we could have written this same article. Who would have thought Favre could have picked right up where Majik left off and then some. I mean you can't run a football team based on fear of injuries. They think Brohm and Flynn can handle back up duties and we have no idea what they are capable of in actual game playing time.
- But regardless, if Aaron Rodgers goes down and we have Trent Green on the bench... our season is still effectively over.

If you really want a competent, game proven, winning backup QB on the roster... sign Michael Vick. Thats really the only feasible way we could carry forward into the playoffs if the unthinkable happened. and even thats a gamble.

Ah, the first Vick mention. I purposely left him out to see if someone would suggest it. The only question is how much of a PR nightmare would he create and would it be worth it?

The vikings got to the playoffs with two band-aid quarterbacks. The bears and raven got to the superbowl. Sure your hope is diminished a bit but it's not crushed....unless you have brohm and flynn as QBs

"They think Brohm and Flynn can handle back up duties and we have no idea what they are capable of in actual game playing time."
~ They're constantly missing reads against second and third stringers in practice and that's without pads. I shudder to think of what they're capable of in games.

Certainly a well-written piece that raises serious and legitimate questions. I think you have exposed a serious achilles heel. However, I'm not certain that any of the re-treads offers anything of real value to the Packers. Should Rodgers go down, I would expect the Packers to immediately sign the best (and most appropriate for them) veteran on the market. It will come from a group of 3-4 possibilities (the Packers will maintain this list and work people out and monitor them throughout) and it probably won't be any worse than those you mention. Brohm or Flynn would hopefully be further along in their development, have another training camp, pre-season and a first off-season under their belts ... take a flyer and spend two weeks coaching up a veteran in the system to step in if the #2 is completely incapable. I think Thompson, learning from Wolf (who used to draft a quarterback EVERY draft as Thompson should do) ... develop behind Rodgers to step in if necessary (hopefully not, but statistically speaking Rodgers will go down for a bit at least) and then once those players are marketable, trade for draft picks (Detmer, Brunell, etc...) and keep the cycle going.

" It will come from a group of 3-4 possibilities (the Packers will maintain this list and work people out and monitor them throughout) and it probably won’t be any worse than those you mention."

Very true, but if we would have signed them about a month ago, they would have went through off-season work-outs and training camp with our team. Then there is familiarity with our system and our roster.

These are the only two guys left now. There won't be 3-4 to choose from later.

"This one, I am not on board with. It’s a bad idea and a huge gamble, like going to Vegas with one year’s salary and putting it all on a roll of the dice at the craps table."

Couldn't have said it better myself. There were plenty of game managers available this offseason that you could have signed to short term deals. No they weren't matt cassell, but at least they could lead a drive and maybe keep the game in tact for some wins. From what I heard, those two still look pretty pathetic. Maybe they'll be ready in a couple years, but I doubt that's going to happen this year.

If it does happen he should rightly receive a world of criticism. Honestly, he got lucky last year, especially for those that saw matt flynn against tampa.

The best indicator is the comment from Joe Philbin. If that's the best he can say about them, we are in trouble.

“Certainly they’re better than they’ve been”. Translated, that means “they aren’t sucking quite as badly as they used to”

That was the impetus for me writing this article.

Everyday, Everygame is a Gamble in the NFL.

Thats just Ted's own philosphy.

With 2010's Uncapped Season coming up with a possible work shortage, Brohm and Flynn cannot leave the team unless traded, by 2011-2012 if I recall correctly because of rules set in, if the salary cap fell.

Why pay tons of money for a free agent qb, when you have two qbs you can develop, with the same personel for over 4 years, and pay them at a reasonable low price or trade them.

Besides, this is their own teammates, and without pads. Lets wait till preseason begins to really see how these guys do.

"Tons of money? We're talking half the amount Brohm makes.

Hmmm.... That is quite the telling statement from Philbin. I don't disagree about looking at the possibility of vets. Maybe the question is they're still deciding who sucks more to cut/trade - Brohm or Flynn. I do feel better knowing these guys are in their 2nd year with essentially the same personell/system. Nice article.

So you sign Frerotte and bring 4 QBs to camp. If Brohm continues to be awful, you bite the bullet and say goodbye. But that would be embarrassing for Ted.

"And is $1,000,000 that much to spend for a one year insurance policy at QB? Not when you’re paying Brian Brohm $2,000,000 to be a 3rd string quarterback."

I think you may have answered your own question right there, Al. It is not just Brohm's terrible performance, but also the large amount of money invested in him (plus a high draft pick) that is at the root of the problem. Paying a million for a second string QB is more, not less, difficult when the third stringer is making two million. For one thing, you have less money to spend at the position, and for another, the new guy might not be real keen about making half the money of the third stringer.

Matt Flynn, for his part, is giving us about what we would expect from a seventh round pick, which is not much. But to give up on a prospect like Brohm at this early stage would be almost unprecedented and could very well come back to bite the Packers in the rear end.

I do share your concern about the backup QB situation. I don't think Brohm looked anywhere near as good as Rodgers looked as a rookie, and Rodgers did not look NFL-ready himself. But I think Thompson is stuck and will have to ride this one out and hope for the best. Sometimes a QB can be better than expected when forced to step up, like Matt Cassell last year, and Thompson has staked a large part of his reputation on the need for something like that to happen if Rodgers goes down. It's not an ideal situation, but that's where the Packers are at right now.

"Paying a million for a second string QB is more, not less, difficult when the third stringer is making two million"

Not if that third stringer is sent packing. But the Packers doing such a thing is certainly unlikely, as you point out.

Obviously, we lucked out last year with Rodgers' injury. Teams like the Bears and Vikes KNOW our QB situation and hope to get Aaron out of the game. My opinion is that TT will watch our two back-ups carefully in training camp. If neither looks to be able to fill in, he will then sign one of the caretaker QBs and hope for the best. Frerotte didn't do badly for the Vikes last year and, IMO, wouldn't hurt us as much as putting in either Brohm or Flynn.

But you're assuming they would still be available. Remember, there are only those two experienced guys left and 31 other teams that could suffer a QB injury and need help.

Quote: <blockquote cite="comment-4376">

<strong><a href="#comment-4376" rel="nofollow">Franklin Hillside</a></strong>: That’s what it would be no matter who is in there…..You think McCarthy is going to open things up for Gus Ferrotte? Come on.
</blockquote>

If you asking me the packers would do better with experience, yet flawed veteran over a two year qb who doesn't even know how to drop back properly, then yes, I would go with the crappy veteran. At least they can manage a game. Flynn and Brohm would flat out give it away.

IMO unless the backup is a capable starting qb in the nfl, we'l be doomed if Rodgers is gone with either the rookies or those bad veterans. All the teams mentioned here were run ladden. We lean heavily on pass to win. When Romo went down in Dallas, so did they, despite having a veteran qb. Same thing for Carolina in 07. And those teams are run first. But not that much. Their passing game is an important part of their offense, and without a quality one, they can't win. Just to illustrate, they would be something like 60-40 on the run. Baltimore and MN would be 70-30. We are 70-30, 65-35 on the pass. And I don't think we have the personnel to do a drastic change favoring the run midway through the season.
-
My point is, unless we're talking about Garcia, Kitna, Leftwich and such there's no need to bring a veteran qb, because either with the kids or with the guys currently available, if Rodgers goes down, so do we.

Quote: <blockquote cite="comment-4372">

<strong><a href="#comment-4372" rel="nofollow">Asshalo</a></strong>: Sounds like a lot of running and short passes to me and a lot of eight man in the box formations for the defense.
</blockquote>

I was responding to that statement. That'll be the gameplan no matter who is brought in.

In any case, bringing a throwaway veteran takes away reps from these two. Who, if you believe the gospel word of sportswriters (something to be taken with a grain of salt), need all the reps they can get.

maybe in the preseason they need all the snaps they can get. When the season is on the line however. I would rather take a game manager.

Okay, can anyone here honestly say they would have been happy had we brought in Rex Grossman or even David Carr?

If yes, then you've made your point and stuck to your guns.....and you're lying.

I don't know why this post intrigues me so much. Well, done, Al.

Because each Happy Meal comes with a Toy. Thats why it intregues you.

But if you want breakfast, you have to come before 10:30.

Well Franklin, glad I made it interesting for you. I think it intrigues you because deep-down, you know I'm right - LOL. It's just tough to admit that a Gus Frerotte is better than what we have on our bench...

I was mocking them, but I digress, I think we agree to disagree here.

If Rodgers hurt, season done = agree
Need vet QB to solve that = disagree

They are also throwing to third stringers...

Nick Barnett may still be hurt, AJ Hawk may get hurt, should we bring in Derrick Brooks? You could play this game all over the field.

Quarterback is a special case. Don't try to compare it's importance to a linebacker or any other position.

You mentioned, what if Rodgers goes down for the season.What if he only misses few games and you need someone just to carry you over the few games he is out?

In our present configuration, it means we lose those games.

Jim McMahon was the answer once.

Coincidence that is was during our best seasons? Or was it more of Wolf's genius...

Brohm is going to impress come preseason, I really believe that. The game needs to slow down for him and that will happen in training camp. Brohm is going to be QB 2 and a viable backup for a couple of season. IMO.

Well, you're seeing something that I'm not seeing. I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

I think the answer is the same this year as it was last year. If Rodgers goes down, the caliber of veteran QBs that are available now, will be available later.

I would take Gus Frerotte or JP Losman over the guys who have already been signed.

As others have mentioned, any teams' starting QB going down would likely be too much for most teams to overcome.

Losman has gone to the UFL and I don't think Frerotte will be available. He is really the number 1 option right now for any team that suffers a QB injury. He'll be snatched up by somebody.

Maybe we can get Brett Favre he hasnt signed with anyone yet he'll be glad to backup Rodgers

You just couldn't resist, could you?