Aaron Rodgers

[Rutnstrut]

Bringing him back really makes no sense. This team is pathetically terrible, they aren't a championship team.

[mraynrand]

Bringing him back really makes no sense. This team is pathetically terrible, they aren't a championship team.

It's hard to take this seriously. Packers were 4-1 with Rodgers. They nearly beat Pittsburgh without him. I get the accumulated injury deal, but that's a problem for everyone. Just ask Philly. You never know what's going to happen. Maybe with Rodgers back, and with a two-headed running game, the Packers could dominate TOP against other teams and protect their defensive-back depleted defense and be totally competitive. If Rodgers is healthy, who knows - maybe he gets as blistering hot as in 2010 and they run a team off the field when they weren't supposed to and it propels them to Championship. Careers are limited, you never want to miss an opportunity, no matter how improbable.

[Joemailman]

It's hard to take this seriously. Packers were 4-1 with Rodgers. They nearly beat Pittsburgh without him. I get the accumulated injury deal, but that's a problem for everyone. Just ask Philly. You never know what's going to happen. Maybe with Rodgers back, and with a two-headed running game, the Packers could dominate TOP against other teams and protect their defensive-back depleted defense and be totally competitive. If Rodgers is healthy, who knows - maybe he gets as blistering hot as in 2010 and they run a team off the field when they weren't supposed to and it propels them to Championship. Careers are limited, you never want to miss an opportunity, no matter how improbable.

I think if Rodgers had not gotten hurt, they would be 10-3 right now and right in the hunt for best record in the NFC. The cornerback situation would be an issue, but they would be a team others couldn't take lightly.

[mraynrand]

I think if Rodgers had not gotten hurt, they would be 10-3 right now and right in the hunt for best record in the NFC. The cornerback situation would be an issue, but they would be a team others couldn't take lightly.

I had them at 10-3 as well. Losses at ATL, MN, Pittsburgh. Figured they lose at Carolina and win MN and at Det.

Maybe they would even be 11-2 because of Pitt, but unsure.

Still, why the hell give up now? At least wait until after Carolina...

[denverYooper]

It's hard to take this seriously. Packers were 4-1 with Rodgers. They nearly beat Pittsburgh without him. I get the accumulated injury deal, but that's a problem for everyone. Just ask Philly. You never know what's going to happen. Maybe with Rodgers back, and with a two-headed running game, the Packers could dominate TOP against other teams and protect their defensive-back depleted defense and be totally competitive. If Rodgers is healthy, who knows - maybe he gets as blistering hot as in 2010 and they run a team off the field when they weren't supposed to and it propels them to Championship. Careers are limited, you never want to miss an opportunity, no matter how improbable.

This is important. One thing the Rodgers-less offense has done is found that they have a couple of great young RBs, at least one of whom can catch.

[Rutnstrut]

This is important. One thing the Rodgers-less offense has done is found that they have a couple of great young RBs, at least one of whom can catch.

True, but I doubt stubby utilizes them if he has Rodgers back.

[denverYooper]

True, but I doubt stubby utilizes them if he has Rodgers back.

Valid point.

[Pugger]

True, but I doubt stubby utilizes them if he has Rodgers back.

Mike might if wants to keep defenses honest and to protect his QB's mended collarbone.

[woodbuck27]

This is important. One thing the Rodgers-less offense has done is found that they have a couple of great young RBs, at least one of whom can catch.

Yes. We have to be happy about that and the RB position.

We know we have a REAL RB (s) on our Team's Roster. We needed to see that develop this Season and I think we got there.

[QBME]

It's hard to take this seriously. Packers were 4-1 with Rodgers. They nearly beat Pittsburgh without him. I get the accumulated injury deal, but that's a problem for everyone. Just ask Philly. You never know what's going to happen. Maybe with Rodgers back, and with a two-headed running game, the Packers could dominate TOP against other teams and protect their defensive-back depleted defense and be totally competitive. If Rodgers is healthy, who knows - maybe he gets as blistering hot as in 2010 and they run a team off the field when they weren't supposed to and it propels them to Championship. Careers are limited, you never want to miss an opportunity, no matter how improbable.

That's the little glimmer of hope that clicks with me. I've always heard that an O-Line prefers run blocking and that it really helps when the D doesn't know exactly what you're going to do. Keeps them off balance and easier to handle.

[Pugger]

It's hard to take this seriously. Packers were 4-1 with Rodgers. They nearly beat Pittsburgh without him. I get the accumulated injury deal, but that's a problem for everyone. Just ask Philly. You never know what's going to happen. Maybe with Rodgers back, and with a two-headed running game, the Packers could dominate TOP against other teams and protect their defensive-back depleted defense and be totally competitive. If Rodgers is healthy, who knows - maybe he gets as blistering hot as in 2010 and they run a team off the field when they weren't supposed to and it propels them to Championship. Careers are limited, you never want to miss an opportunity, no matter how improbable.

This.

And even if we miss the playoffs I'm just happy now we can watch competent QB play again for our favorite team.

[Zool]

Bringing him back really makes no sense. This team is pathetically terrible, they aren't a championship team.

So the two available options are pathetically terrible and championship level. Fuck gray am I right? All black and white.