Our Starting QB For The Opener

[Scott Campbell]

B.P.A.



I disagree with those who say that Rodgers deserves to start. I think Rodgers deserves the front runner status, but if he gets beat out in camp, too bad for Aaron. This is a football team, not a monarchy where the next up in blood line automatically gets crowned. The two QB's drafted are rookies, and unlikely to beat Rodgers out. But if one of them does, I say let them play.

[BallHawk]

In a just world that would happen.

But do you really think on a MNF Season Opener at the retirement of Favre's jersey number that the Pack would start anybody but Rodgers? That'd be ludicrous.

Of course, this is making the assumption Aaron doesn't earn the job, which I am positive he will.

[Lurker64]

I think that there are two ways to go about it:

Put as much effort as possible into preparing Aaron Rodgers to succeed as an NFL starter this season, and give him the vast majority of reps with the #1 guys.

-OR-

Have a fair competition to crown the starter and then (in whatever amount of time remains) try preparing that guy to be the starter this year and give him the majority of reps that remain.

I honestly think the first approach will result in more wins this season.

[Green Bud Packer]

There's no way I see Rodgers losing out in training camp. His knowledge of Macs offense will be light years ahead of the rooks.

[RashanGary]

I say you put everything into preparing Rodgers to be the starter.

At the same time, focus on teaching the rookies the playbook and working on their fundementals. Get them ready if they have to play. Then, if Rodgers doesn't light it up this year, bring the young up and comers in next year after a season in the system and an off season in QB school, train them all to start and let the best man win.

Right now, I just don't see how Rodgers can get beat by a rookie. Rodgers should get the first shot and if he fails, take a look at Brohm when the playoffs are out of reach. I just can't fathom a rookie starting at QB being our best shot at any point early in the year. Rodgers doesn't deserve to be crowned anything, but if he's not better than Brohm and Flynn right now, there is seriously something wrong with him and they should just cut his ass yesterday.

[GBRulz]

I agree with you, SC but IMO the only way I don't see Aaron starting is due to injury. This is TT's pride and joy, I mean he was given the backup spot in his 2nd year, not because he earned it, but because of where he was drafted. I don't see it being any different now with the starting role. TT has too much pride to not start Aaron in lieu of a rookie.

[Carolina_Packer]

Rodgers all the way. Brohm (or Flynn) would have to come in and be lights out and an incredibly quick study to challenge Rodgers. Could happen, but likely won't. I still hope we sign a vet at QB.

[KYPack]

B.P.A.



I disagree with those who say that Rodgers deserves to start. I think Rodgers deserves the front runner status, but if he gets beat out in camp, too bad for Aaron. This is a football team, not a monarchy where the next up in blood line automatically gets crowned. The two QB's drafted are rookies, and unlikely to beat Rodgers out. But if one of them does, I say let them play.

Scott, there are a lot of posters on this forum that would make a comment like that.

But man, I'm shocked you posted this.

ARod, if healthy will be the starting QB for the Pack in our opening regular season game.

Oh yeah, unless the Colts trade Manning to us or something.

Are you shittin' me??????????????????????????????????

[Rastak]

B.P.A.



I disagree with those who say that Rodgers deserves to start. I think Rodgers deserves the front runner status, but if he gets beat out in camp, too bad for Aaron. This is a football team, not a monarchy where the next up in blood line automatically gets crowned. The two QB's drafted are rookies, and unlikely to beat Rodgers out. But if one of them does, I say let them play.

Scott, there are a lot of posters on this forum that would make a comment like that.

But man, I'm shocked you posted this.

ARod, if healthy will be the starting QB for the Pack in our opening regular season game.

Oh yeah, unless the Colts trade Manning to us or something.

Are you shittin' me??????????????????????????????????


KY, he's actually right.

95% chance Rodgers plays the best given his experience and the advantage of playing with the starters.

05% chance Brohm plays out of his head and Rodgers looks awful.


Would you really declare Rodgers the starter no matter WHAT happens? That's kind of crazy. He'll almost certainly win the job but if he completely melts down would you really want to put yourself in a box with absolutes?

[vince]

I disagree with those who say that Rodgers deserves to start. I think Rodgers deserves the front runner status, but if he gets beat out in camp, too bad for Aaron. This is a football team, not a monarchy where the next up in blood line automatically gets crowned. The two QB's drafted are rookies, and unlikely to beat Rodgers out. But if one of them does, I say let them play.While noone would disagree that the best man should start, this IS kind of a silly argument. The QB who is most ready to lead the team to victory "deserves" to start. Neither of the rookies-to-be will be anywhere near as ready to make the proper calls behind center and read a much faster game with people flying at them from everywhere at the start of the season as Rodgers, who's been learning the system and working under McCarthy for two years, already is. Besides readiness, Rodgers is the most physically gifted of the bunch. And while Brohm's biggest asset is his intelligence, Rodgers is also very smart as well.

I a bit surprised at how little confidence some seem to have in Rodgers. His only problem may be his health. He's got everything else you'd want.

[RashanGary]

It would be a shock if a rookie outperforms an established guy at that position. He's a high pick, he's obviously brought in to compete for the long term starting job, but in all probablity his first real shot at taking the job comes when the Packers are eliminated from the playoffs. You just don't toss in a rookie QB unless you have to or you really stink. Rodgers has worked hard, done everthing right. He's played well when given the chance. He gets a chance to fly or fall.

[HarveyWallbangers]

While noone would disagree that the best man should start, this IS kind of a silly argument. The QB who is most ready to lead the team to victory "deserves" to start. Neither of the rookies-to-be will be anywhere near as ready to make the proper calls behind center and read a much faster game with people flying at them from everywhere at the start of the season as Rodgers, who's been learning the system and working under McCarthy for two years, already is. Besides readiness, Rodgers is the most physically gifted of the bunch. And while Brohm's biggest asset is his intelligence, Rodgers is also very smart as well.

I a bit surprised at how little confidence some seem to have in Rodgers. His only problem may be his health. He's got everything else you'd want.

Agreed.

[KYPack]

1. Vince, QFT, pal. ARod will start the opener with 100% certainty baring injury.

2. Both Scott and Ras are fulla shit?

Yeah. You guys gotta be kiddin' me!
Have other posters swooped in and stole you boys ID's er WTF?

[texaspackerbacker]

It's Rodgers's job to lose. If he plays reasonably well, he's the man even if Brohm (or Flynn) look like a superstar.

I think this double QB draft indicates no signing of a veteran backup, though.

I fully expect the Packers to trade one or both of the rookies in a year or two or three for higher picks than what we used to get them.

[the_idle_threat]

Lurker makes the best case for why Rodgers should be named uncontroverted #1, at least for this year: it comes down to how you're going to divide the practice snaps.

Rodgers has done the homework for several years and he knows the offense. Brohm is just walking in the door, and not only does he need to learn the offense, but he needs to learn the speed of the pro game.

I don't think you give extra snaps to the rookie to create a low-percentage competition. There may be a 5% chance (at best, IMO) that Brohm (or any rookie QB) could actually step in and play at the NFL level right away.

Give Rodgers all of the starters' snaps. He's learned the offense thoroughly, but he's never had the opportunity to get all the snaps, because Brett has been getting them. He can use the reps, and they would go to better use than if they are given to a guy who is most likely not ready yet between the ears.

Save the competition for next year, when Brohm has had time to practice with (and against) pro players and is caught up in learning the offense.

One man's opinion.

[Packerarcher]

Rodgers will start unless he gets a hangnail in training camp. Given how much of a puss he is this is very likely.

[Scott Campbell]

I a bit surprised at how little confidence some seem to have in Rodgers. His only problem may be his health. He's got everything else you'd want.


It has nothing to do with lack of confidence in Aaron. I think Ras understands what I'm saying. I expect Aaron to win the job. But let him win it. Don't just give it to him.

[BF4MVP]

There is absolutely no way in hell Rodgers isn't the opening day starter..Brohm isn't going to come in right away and beat him out, it just won't happen..Rodgers has worked too hard, learned the system too well, and gotten too good for that to happen..No, I'm not saying hand him the starting job on a silver platter, but there's no doubt in my mind he will earn it..He's the best quarterback on the team..

[cpk1994]

I disagree with those who say that Rodgers deserves to start. I think Rodgers deserves the front runner status, but if he gets beat out in camp, too bad for Aaron. This is a football team, not a monarchy where the next up in blood line automatically gets crowned. The two QB's drafted are rookies, and unlikely to beat Rodgers out. But if one of them does, I say let them play.While noone would disagree that the best man should start, this IS kind of a silly argument. The QB who is most ready to lead the team to victory "deserves" to start. Neither of the rookies-to-be will be anywhere near as ready to make the proper calls behind center and read a much faster game with people flying at them from everywhere at the start of the season as Rodgers, who's been learning the system and working under McCarthy for two years, already is. Besides readiness, Rodgers is the most physically gifted of the bunch. And while Brohm's biggest asset is his intelligence, Rodgers is also very smart as well.

I a bit surprised at how little confidence some seem to have in Rodgers. His only problem may be his health. He's got everything else you'd want.It has nothing to do with Aaron, it has to do with when and where he was drafted. There are people here who hate TT soley on that oick becuase he "didn't give weapons to Favre". So hate of TT gives way to hate of ARod, which means they will never give credit or have confidence in him. THey want him to fail.

[MadtownPacker]

Yeah, with the exception of injury there is no way ARod is not the starter week 1. My only question is will he remain the starter. HeE has done nothing but stare at the damn plays for 3 years. If he can't beat out some rookies he shouldn't just lose his starting gig, he should be cut!

[Merlin]

My contention all along with Rodgers was that no one was given the opportunity to compete with the guy during his 3 years with us. I don't think that is going to change now. Unless by some miracle Favre decides to return for 2009, Rodgers is the starter and no one is going to dethrone him. Brohm will either be the backup or close behind some washed up veteran for a season. The only way he gets a shot is if Rodgers goes down, which could be in mini-camp for all we know. Ideally there should be competition for the starting role and it shouldn't be "handed" to Rodgers. But that would be sending mixed signals to a guy who has had everything handed to him since his arrival.

Does Rodgers have what it takes? I don't think he does but I am willing to give the guy a shot because we have no one else on our roster who will be allowed to compete for the job. As a fan , I have to support the team even if I disagree with handing Rodgers anything.

What's really funny is all of the cake-eaters who all of a sudden aren't so high on Rodgers. Will they pony up and apologize to those of us who have not been on the Rodgers band wagon? Probably not because the "I don't know about Rodgers" bandwagon sure has gotten fairly large in the past few days here and if the general consensus is that Rodgers needs to compete for the job then they are justified in their change of mind. Ah, the human mind, what a waste it is.

[RashanGary]

I've always been on the "Rodgers is unproven and I don't know" bandwagon. I believe he has all of the physical talent. He works hard. His teammates like him. He was exciting in Dallas, but I was saying before the draft that it woudl be idiotic to assume he's the guy and that if something fell to us the smart thing to do would be to take it. Too many GM's get a high pick and stick with him through thick and thin. You never know what is going to happen and if the QB falters, everything the GM did is for not. It's a big investment to spend another high pick, but with the uncertainty of first year starting QBs, I think it was the right thing to do - even if Rodgers pans out.

I like Brohm better. Taht doens't mean I hate Rodgers and it doesn't mean that I trust my opinion as if it were the lords. I just like what I saw in the tape. I like what Jaws and Steve Young had to say. I liked Rodgers. I thought he had a CHANCE, but I think Brohm has a better one. More than anything I'm glad we have two chances. As for right now, it's going to be damn near impossible for a rookie to beat out Rodgers. He has too many advantages in the the compititions.

[Tarlam!]

(...)As a fan , I have to support the team even if I disagree with handing Rodgers anything.

What's really funny is all of the cake-eaters who all of a sudden aren't so high on Rodgers. Will they pony up and apologize to those of us who have not been on the Rodgers band wagon?(...)Ah, the human mind, what a waste it is.

I am firmly on the Rogders bandwagon and have been from Day 1 - but, hey, I am a first class homer just doing my job.

But why do I need to apologize, even if A-Rod turned out to suck? I didn't select him or coach him. I have and will continue to cheer him. I won't say "sorry" for liking a Packer.

BTW KY, I am with Scott and Ras. BPA. If that's A-Rod, great. If not, BPA.

At all positions.

[Merlin]

If you were on the bandwagon, slammed anyone for not being on it, and now express your questions about Rodgers, then this applies to you. I am not going to call anyone out because it isn't important to me. I only posted it because it goes to proving what I have been saying all along in here: No one is allowed to have their own opinion in here if it doesn't mesh with the masses unless they want to get called names and sworn at.

As I said, I don't expect anyone to really pony up about how unfairly they treated other posters about this issue or any other one.

If this doesn't describe you then you shouldn't feel the need to respond to it.

[Tarlam!]

(...)what I have been saying all along in here: No one is allowed to have their own opinion in here if it doesn't mesh with the masses unless they want to get called names and sworn at.

As I said, I don't expect anyone to really pony up about how unfairly they treated other posters about this issue or any other one.

If this doesn't describe you then you shouldn't feel the need to respond to it.

Oh, Merlin, you are so "different". It is utterly acceptable to have a differing opinion around here. I do, all the time! What is so pursued is an opinion that is insulting to the Packers in any way. That includes the GM.

You don't need to agree, you just shouldn't insult. That would be my observation.

And, I try (these days) to make a habit of not treating other posters unfairly. I'm sure I still do, but shit, I'm Australian.

[packerbacker1234]

Let them battle it out.

Hell, according to all reports, thats what was happening with Favre around when Rodgers was drafted. Because of Favre's status, he didn't need to take a majority of the reps, but there was healthy compition.

Now, with Favre, you don't bench him even if Rodgers did better. However, it was still somewhat of a compition that I think pushed favre to be better. favre kept saying how he was amazed that every year he beat someone out for the starting role and that someone could not step up and replace him. That being hte case, you let it fly. Rodgers has had THREE YEARS of preparation to be the full time starter. Let the rooks have a shot. I mean, Rodgers wont be getting much Preseason action till game 4, and if one of those rookies lights it up you would be hard pressed to not open the position for battle.

[sharpe1027]

I agree with you, SC but IMO the only way I don't see Aaron starting is due to injury. This is TT's pride and joy, I mean he was given the backup spot in his 2nd year, not because he earned it, but because of where he was drafted. I don't see it being any different now with the starting role. TT has too much pride to not start Aaron in lieu of a rookie.

I didn't know that TT, in addition to normal GM duties, also chooses the starting lineup and makes game-time decisions. That guy deserves a raise! :shock:

[Bretsky]

Rodgers has had three years to prepare for this system and this day. If I'm the coach he has to completely bomb not to start this year.

That being said, I hope Brohm look outstanding and both end up excelling.

[Scott Campbell]

No one is allowed to have their own opinion in here if it doesn't mesh with the masses unless they want to get called names and sworn at.



So you think you were unfairly picked on by the "masses", and that your own behavior had nothing to do with the way people responded to you?

If so, I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Scott Campbell]

I agree with you, SC but IMO the only way I don't see Aaron starting is due to injury. This is TT's pride and joy, I mean he was given the backup spot in his 2nd year, not because he earned it, but because of where he was drafted. I don't see it being any different now with the starting role. TT has too much pride to not start Aaron in lieu of a rookie.


I've never bought into that line of "pride" thinking. For one thing, Ted invested much higher picks in Hawk and Harrel. Why would he care so much more about Rodgers? I don't think Ted cares which guy gets the job done, as long as one of them does it. I think GM's are far better off falling in love with their roster and W-L record than falling in love with individual draft picks.

[Scott Campbell]

My contention all along with Rodgers was that no one was given the opportunity to compete with the guy during his 3 years with us.


He had plenty of competition, and wasn't handed anything but a clipboard. He didn't start - Favre did. Favre beat him out.

[Scott Campbell]

And, I try (these days) to make a habit of not treating other posters unfairly.


I miss the old piss and vinegar Tarlam! We need to get you back in touch with the asshole within.

:lol:

[Scott Campbell]

And, I try (these days) to make a habit of not treating other posters unfairly.


I miss the old piss and vinegar Tarlam! We need to get you back in touch with the asshole within.

:lol:

[chain_gang]

I think this would be a better question for next year. I think Rodgers is the starter easily for the opener, even if he sucks during the preseason. Remember that Brohm will be playing against 2nd and 3rd stringers, and Flynn against 3rd and 4ths. Of course there is a possibility of an injury. If an injury happens to Rodgers in TC, Brohm will be the starter, more than likely for about 2-3 games, and then he'll be more than likely injured, leaving us with Matt Flynn. I like Brohm, but he's been injured throughout his whole college career, which is why I'm kind of bewildered why anyone would want him to start this year, let's get the middle of Oline fixed, and then debate if Brohm should start next season.

Best way to describe this is, Montana, Brady, Manning. Not gunslingers, no huge arms, not Brett Favre. Which means, accurate and cerebral, and good/great pass blocking offensive line makes it all possible. That's what Brohm, Rodgers, Flynn, and pretty much any QB without Favre's natural talent, needs to become a ProBowl/HOF QB.

[gbgary]

unless he can't play, due to injury, or has sucked so thoroughly during the preseason that the fans riot, it'll be rodgers.

[KYPack]

(...)As a fan , I have to support the team even if I disagree with handing Rodgers anything.

What's really funny is all of the cake-eaters who all of a sudden aren't so high on Rodgers. Will they pony up and apologize to those of us who have not been on the Rodgers band wagon?(...)Ah, the human mind, what a waste it is.

I am firmly on the Rodgers bandwagon and have been from Day 1 - but, hey, I am a first class homer just doing my job.

But why do I need to apologize, even if A-Rod turned out to suck? I didn't select him or coach him. I have and will continue to cheer him. I won't say "sorry" for liking a Packer.

BTW KY, I am with Scott and Ras. BPA. If that's A-Rod, great. If not, BPA.

At all positions.

I know what ya mean, Tar.

But QB is a different animal. The young kid may have the better arm, move better, and eventually become the better QB. But he is 99% not gonna be ready. There are exceptions that prove the rule, but in general developing a QB is like making wine. It takes time.

I like Brohm. I think we got as good a prospective QB as there is in the draft, but he needs time to develop.

If Brohm would have a knock-out pre-season, and out-play Rodgers...
Rodgers should open the first game. In fact, it would retard Brohm's learning curve to play. The first year is best spent getting the hang of the NFL game, then taking it to the field.

You want the BPA to become experienced and then get his shot, not learning bad habits.

[Tarlam!]

You want the BPA to become experienced and then get his shot, not learning bad habits.

That's a killer argument, right there.

[Tarlam!]

And, I try (these days) to make a habit of not treating other posters unfairly.


I miss the old piss and vinegar Tarlam! We need to get you back in touch with the asshole within.

:lol:

Just saw this. SC! Hahahahahaha! I'm glad somebody noticed!!!

[3irty1]

Think about this though... Has Rodgers ever actually left the field with an injury? His injury concerns are inflated because he never had to start week after week while being hurt... something Brett Favre did all the time.

[Tarlam!]

The full article: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-080429-david-haugh-nfl-draft-chicago-bears,1,4248190.column



David Haugh | On the Bears
10:48 PM CDT, April 29, 2008

It generally takes three years to assess the impact of an NFL draft accurately. But after three days, here are 10 things I know now about the Bears that I didn't know before last weekend's draft.

1. I know that despite all the silly hand-wringing in Chicago over not drafting a quarterback, I would rather go into next season with the Bears' top two quarterbacks, Rex Grossman and Kyle Orton, than, say, the Packers'—Aaron Rodgers and Brian Brohm—if the priority is winning in 2008. Green Bay might have positioned itself better for the future at the position but not the present, not with Grossman and Orton bringing a combined 52 NFL starts to training camp compared with zero for Rodgers and Brohm. And remember, the Bears' 2008 draft, for a change, was more about now than later.

2. I know the Tampa Bay Buccaneers currently own the rights to seven quarterbacks after taking San Diego's Josh Johnson in the fifth round, and one of them likely to get cut would look good holding a clipboard for the Bears. Chris Simms would be the preferred choice, but Luke McCown or Bruce Gradkowski would suffice so the Bears could let the winner of the Nick Hill-Caleb Hanie derby stay on the practice squad and run the scout team.

__________________________________________________ _______________


Now that is provocative.

[Zool]

Wow so the logic is, I'd rather have 2 qb's who have proven they aren't very good instead of guys with tons of potential. Thats some genius homer logic.

[Merlin]

Grossman and Orton over Rodgers and Brohm? No friggin way. Grossman is a backup QB who starts. Orton was never really asked to do anything but not turn the ball over ad he ran a heavy run game offense, at least his rookie year. Who knows if Orton really has the skills. He certainly can run an offense that only passes 15 times a game and be frugal with the turnovers on his part, but how hard is that when you have an awesome running game? The Bears don't have that running game anymore.

I agree that if Rodgers can't beat out a rookie after three years of training for the job that he won't be the starter long. He will be the starter unless he gets injured or Brohm advances quickly and shows something special out of the gate. I believe Majik & Favre, although not certainly not "great" QB's in the beginning, both had that thing everyone looks for in a QB, the ability to step on the field and be in charge and make things happen. I don't see that passion in Rodgers. When he goes on the field it's like he is on a contact high, no emotion what so ever. I hope that will change this season, and he cuts his hair.

[MadScientist]

95% chance Rodgers plays the best given his experience and the advantage of playing with the starters.

05% chance Brohm plays out of his head and Rodgers looks awful.

Would you really declare Rodgers the starter no matter WHAT happens? That's kind of crazy. He'll almost certainly win the job but if he completely melts down would you really want to put yourself in a box with absolutes?
The problem is you don't have much to judge things on. A few preseason games really don't show how things are going to be in the regular season. In many if not most PS games the last 8 years, Favre didn't look as good as his backup. In particular Hassleback looked great in PS, but it took him a couple of years to settle in as a starter.

The only way non-injured Rodgers doesn't start is if he melts down to the point of losing confidence in himself.

[woodbuck27]

I agree with you, SC but IMO the only way I don't see Aaron starting is due to injury. This is TT's pride and joy, I mean he was given the backup spot in his 2nd year, not because he earned it, but because of where he was drafted. I don't see it being any different now with the starting role. TT has too much pride to not start Aaron in lieu of a rookie.

He was handed the back-up spot in his Rookie season GBRulz because he was TT's boy. Re-call all the Pre-season playing time Aaron Rodgers was awarded Vs Nall well Vs Brett Favre.

It was just painful for me to watch back then. Sickening.

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=746889

Fluff piece on Matt Flynn on JSO. (McGinn seems impressed by him.) He was the 12th QB taken, and the last five QBs that were chosen 12th in the draft were: James Kilian (2005), John Navarre ('04), Gibran Hamdan ('03), Seth Burford ('02) and Joe Hamilton ('00). Kind of what you'd expect.

However, here's a really interesting fact:


From 1992, which was the last time the Packers were looking for a quarterback, to 2007, 80 quarterbacks were drafted in the sixth round or later. Of those 80, an amazing 10% made the Pro Bowl.

Six actually were elected to the Pro Bowl: Brad Johnson (No. 227), Jeff Blake (166), Trent Green (222), Matt Hasselbeck (187), Marc Bulger (168) and Brady (199).

Two others went to the Pro Bowl as injury replacements: Elvis Grbac (219) and Gus Frerotte (197).

That list doesn't include Damon Huard (who had a couple of good years) and Derek Anderson (who had a breakout year in 2007). I'm amazed that the number is so high.

[Zool]

Hell I'd be happy with a Huard-type backup out of a 7th rounder.

[ahaha]

I agree with you, SC but IMO the only way I don't see Aaron starting is due to injury. This is TT's pride and joy, I mean he was given the backup spot in his 2nd year, not because he earned it, but because of where he was drafted. I don't see it being any different now with the starting role. TT has too much pride to not start Aaron in lieu of a rookie.

He was handed the back-up spot in his Rookie season GBRulz because he was TT's boy. Re-call all the Pre-season playing time Aaron Rodgers was awarded Vs Nall well Vs Brett Favre.

It was just painful for me to watch back then. Sickening.

He was a 1st round pick. A lot of first round QB's are given the starter reps in practice and made starters before they deserve it. You're sickened because the Pack favored him for a back-up role? Behind the ironman QB? Competing against Craig Nall?!?!?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I agree with you, SC but IMO the only way I don't see Aaron starting is due to injury. This is TT's pride and joy, I mean he was given the backup spot in his 2nd year, not because he earned it, but because of where he was drafted. I don't see it being any different now with the starting role. TT has too much pride to not start Aaron in lieu of a rookie.

He was handed the back-up spot in his Rookie season GBRulz because he was TT's boy. Re-call all the Pre-season playing time Aaron Rodgers was awarded Vs Nall well Vs Brett Favre.

It was just painful for me to watch back then. Sickening.

He was a 1st round pick. A lot of first round QB's are given the starter reps in practice and made starters before they deserve it. You're sickened because the Pack favored him for a back-up role? Behind the ironman QB? Competing against Craig Nall?!?!?

I was sick as well. Sick when Nall went to the Bills and became their starter. Sick when he led them to the playoffs. Sick when he was a multi pro bowl player.

Sick when i had to read more of this Nall lovefest. Craig Nall...the only QB in the league that not only wasn't given a chance by the Pack, but every fucking team in the league.

Clearly the league blackballed Nall. :roll:

[The Leaper]

He was handed the back-up spot in his Rookie season GBRulz because he was TT's boy. Re-call all the Pre-season playing time Aaron Rodgers was awarded Vs Nall well Vs Brett Favre.

It was just painful for me to watch back then. Sickening.

Nah.

That pain isn't from Nall not getting a chance in Green Bay.

That pain is from the blue balls you get after a 4 hour stiffy at the mere mention of the name Craig Nall.