Well...first string looks great.
What the Pack needs to work on is a second string quarterback.
We use to have Rodgers backing up Favre and when Rodgers came in against Dallas two years ago, he did great.

I don't think we have a good backup and if Rodgers gets hurt, season over for the Pack...unlike if Rodgers would have come in for the rest of season if Favre had gotten hurt, we would have been fine.

We need a good second string like the Chargers had with Flutie...experienced and won't mess up your season.

Otherwise....looking good!

"wrolly"Well...first string looks great.
What the Pack needs to work on is a second string quarterback.
We use to have Rodgers backing up Favre and when Rodgers came in against Dallas two years ago, he did great.

I don't think we have a good backup and if Rodgers gets hurt, season over for the Pack...unlike if Rodgers would have come in for the rest of season if Favre had gotten hurt, we would have been fine.

We need a good second string like the Chargers had with Flutie...experienced and won't mess up your season.

Otherwise....looking good!

what is the big worry about having a super star for number 2?
Rodgers proved his durability last year by playing through a separated shoulder.
it's almost like people have no faith in his ability to stay healthy.
Maybe its because Favre never got hurt in all his years and we go accustom always having great backups.
or at least perceived then as great.
do you really think doug peterson was a good QB or any better than Matt Flynn?
Let the QB situation work it's self out, we got two young guys who need some growing, just like A-rod did.
what is the bigger concern is D and how that will all shake out.
based on the last two games, even though they were against teams with losing records, i think we might have a pretty good chance of being a sleeper team.
Thoughts on Sat performance against buffalo??

I have faith in Flynn, but going with these two back-ups was just stupid last year. This year, it still seems shaky, but Flynn appears to be able to at least lead the team somewhere.

Problem is, we don't have a dominant running game that can carry the QB along (Thinking Ahman Green here). If a back-up QB steps in for us, he'll have to show something inmediatly. Or we'll run it 2-3 times and go 3 and out.

I still think that we should've made a move for Mark Brunell before he signed with the Saints and just draft another QB in the later rounds (Flynn, in this scenario). That would've left us with an extra pick to invest somewhere else (Thinking Pollak here) and we would've had a more stable offense, had Rodgers gone down.

Stable offense is what is needed.
Comparing these backups to A-Rod isn't the best comparison.
First, baseball allows for more time for someone to grow because of the amount of games played.
Second, A-Rod has more talent in his pinky then our backups do...I'd be more confident if he was our second string.
Third, A-Rod was doped up (just had to put that plug in there).


Either way, yea we'll have to let the QB thing shake itself out.
I agree, Rodgers is durable, but you never know when a Theisman injury happens and the back has to prepare for that.

"wrolly"Stable offense is what is needed.
Comparing these backups to A-Rod isn't the best comparison.
First, baseball allows for more time for someone to grow because of the amount of games played.
Second, A-Rod has more talent in his pinky then our backups do...I'd be more confident if he was our second string.
Third, A-Rod was doped up (just had to put that plug in there).


Either way, yea we'll have to let the QB thing shake itself out.
I agree, Rodgers is durable, but you never know when a Theisman injury happens and the back has to prepare for that.

a-rod = aaron rodgers....

Ah...A-rod=Rodgers.
I'm a huge baseball fan, so I try not to mix nicknames between sports.

I still stand behind my remarks about the Yankee slugger ;) and we need a better backup!

He's Rodgers is on his way to breaking Favre's start streak...let's hope he stays happy and doesn't retire and then want to come back.

Watching the Aaron Rodgers highlight video on NFL.com, I was impressed with his poise in the pocket. All traces of "happy feet" that we saw in the 2007 Cowboys game are gone.
He seems to scramble a lot less than last year, which indicates to me that he's more confident and even more importantly, the offensive line is giving him more time.
Also, I'm pleased to note that Ryan Grant seems able to catch passes again.
Our screen passes looked sharper than they have in several years.
The Packers were once known as the best screen-passing team in the league.
Hopefully Aaron Rodgers can return us to our former dominance in that regard.

I didn't see any play action on the video.
Can anyone give some insight into how we're looking in that area so far?

I'm pleased that Rodgers has added a significant amount of mass, but I still think he needs to bulk up a bit more.
He seems a bit skinny for a quarterback his height.

I wouldn't worry about Rodger's size...he's a big guy and look at one of the best quarterbacks in Packer history, Bart Starr.
He was smaller then Rodgers.

You raise a good point, of course, but I would point out that defensemen of that era were also significantly smaller than they are today. ;)

"wrolly"Ah...A-rod=Rodgers.
I'm a huge baseball fan, so I try not to mix nicknames between sports.

I still stand behind my remarks about the Yankee slugger ;) and we need a better backup!

He's Rodgers is on his way to breaking Favre's start streak...let's hope he stays happy and doesn't retire and then want to come back.

I was about to give you a plus one because A-Rod is a baseball player but then you made a statement that made me laugh so hard. I can't believe anyone would even say a comment like that and actually believe it.