The optimism keeps swelling around the 2009 Packers. Much of it concerns QB Aaron Rodgers, who had a glittering preseason. But how much of it?

Let's share our worst nightmare. Rodgers (heaven forbid) does a Brady and goes down on week one. Matt Flynn takes over for the season. He is Cassell-like: tentative and mistake-prone to begin with, but feeling gradually more comfortable in the offense.

With the new defense, the favorable early schedule, and a full-strength receiving corps, how many games does Rodgers' injury cost the Packers? And how many do they win regardless?

I doubt it. Look at most teams if they lose their top QB or RB early in the season they will unlikely have a good year.

Packers probably go 8-8, at best, without Rodgers. Maybe next year, it would be a different story, but not this year.

Can the...

Saints
Colts
Giants
Cowboys
Patriots
Bengals
Seahawks
Bears
Chargers

...get to the playoffs if they lose...

Brees
Manning
Manning
Romo
Brady
Palmer
Hasselback
Cutler
Rivers

?

If Rodgers goes down in game one like Brady did, we will be in position to draft the top left tackle in the draft next year.

No question, if Rodgers is injured, GB won't win another game... Right.

To be honest, the game plan will be drastically modified to use a lot less of the playbook. The D will be required to really stop the other team. If Rodgers is out the rest of the season, GB will be hard pressed to make the playoffs. I think they still will. If Rodgers missed a few games, then maybe a couple of them will be losses that otherwise they would have won.

I don't really like the continued negative vibes. It most certainly will end up with Mr. Thompson should have done so or so....

If Rodgers goes down early I think the anti-TT crowd would get to have their cake and eat it too.

2009: Rodgers goes down in week 2. The Pack finishes 4-12, resulting in TT being fired after the season. The firing is deserved IMO. Not having a capable backup qb in place two full years after replacing Favre is not a situation GB should be in.

2010: Rodgers returns and leads a talented GB team back into the playoffs. The anti-TT crowd crows about how quickly things turned around once TT was shown the door. The fact that the team is made up almost entirely of TT players is largely ignored.

Life is funny sometimes.

Mr. Thompson will not be fired if Rodgers gets injured and GB loses a lot of games. Won't happen. The Anti-TT crowd will always be around to nit pick his every move. His firing would be so completely undeserved that it will not happen.

Generally speaking, I think of myself as pro-TT. That being said, if this season goes down the drain b/c of an early injury to Rodgers, he absolutely deserves to be fired. This isn't something that came out of the blue. TT has had two full years to get the post-Favre qb situation under control, and he seems to be satisfied with Flynn. That's fine, but if Flynn isn't ready to perform and it costs us an otherwise promising season, the buck falls squarely on TT's shoulders.

least there is a bright side to this weird thread

It was a genuine question. I was thinking in terms of what happened to the Pats last year. There are possible parallels. Great receiving corps, above-average defense, decent coaching, cupcake schedule, and untested backup QB. Like you say, the playbook was modified and New England walked out with 11 wins. Could we do the same?

Hopefully we won't need to find out. But you never know.



Nobody had mentioned Mr Thompson on this thread before you did. Then look what happened!

Sorry if you find this all too negative, personally I'm bored with wall-to-wall homerism and can't wait for the season to begin. I think Rodgers will have a fine year — if he stays healthy. My aim was to start a discussion about whether the Pack is ready to win games without him, in the way that, say, Chicago and Minnesota won games last season regardless of (or in spite of) their quarterbacks. Championship teams need to be able to win those kinds of game, and given all the 13-3 predictions flying around I wondered if that was a vote of confidence in the defense, special teams, receivers, and running game. Of course, it's hard to tell. But the answer in 2008 would have been a resounding no — so there's already progress, even if it's only in hearts and minds for the moment.

Absolutely! One could see that coming a mile away.

This is the only thing that worries me a wee bit about the unbridled optimism in the preseason. So much can go wrong, things can get rocky in so many ways. I'd be afraid that people will turn and grouse no matter how unfair it may be at the time.

Ever see a hyped movie that everyone is saying is just great, but leaves you less than impressed? Somehow it will seem so much the worse for all that hype and acclaim, which otherwise it might not have done. Expectations can have so much effect on perception - like going to the dentist, LOL.

Good observation D.

I don't even view it as a particularly negative thread. I think most packer fans recognize the weakness at backup qb and are concerned about what would happen following an injury to Rodgers. I personally see the Packers as a 4-12 team with Flynn as qb. That's not being negative, that's just my opinion. In retrospect, maybe I should not have included my speculation on the fallout since it's true enough that every thread that mentions TT seems to degenerate quickly.

Sorry if my prediction of one thing that would happen, which corresponds with D's, gave you the impression that I thought you were being negative. I didn't. In fact, I thought it was a good question and maybe I should have said so at the outset.

To my mind, the Thompson observation is just an aside. It doesn't distract from the value of the question you asked. It's definitely an interesting scenario. Personally, I don't think we'd do as badly as so many seem to think. At the same time, I don't think we'd match what NE did last year. However, there's no reason we couldn't end up still with a winning season - but I doubt we'd claim the NFC North title in that scenario. Probably not even a wild card berth, unless a whole lot of teams do pretty poorly in the NFC.

I agree. I think the Pack has a good chance to win 11 games with Rodgers healthy all year. Without, any thing below 8 depending on the length of time he would be out. This is gonna be an explosive offense if he's taking snaps.

ammek & Terry, it is not that I don't agree with the topic. But this always goes there and yes, I was first. If I did not, then it would go anyway. As to Mr. Thompson's not addressing the QB spot, I fully disagree. He has 4 QBs that he picked; only 2 remain with 1 on the PS. I don't see any QB coming in GB that would be OK with the number 2 or 3 spot that had real value. Garcia, whom I don't think would be a logic choice anyway, has stated in the past that he wanted the chance to start. Many QBs feel the same way. While we don't know if Rodgers can play week in and week out, he showed a lot of toughness last year and the OL is better this year.

I look at McCarthy a lot like Holmgren; both can develop QBs and this can be a real plus for any organization. I don't think that Thompson planned to pick Flynn, but he was too good to pass up. It was not like you can go back and draft a different QB in the 2nd. Brohm was highly regarded and did not work out as well as anyone thought. Having selected 2 QBs in one draft definitely causes depth chart problems, but the team will get by.

I just think that with the start of the season around the corner, it is not very nice to suppose an injury to one of our best players. Any team including NE makes choices based on forecasting and gut and experience and evaluation. If one or two of the DLs from NE fails to perform, then everyone will question the trade of Seymour, if not then ho-hum. Cassell grew into the position very fast when he needed to; I fully expect that Flynn would do the same if needed.

You addressed ammek and Terry, but if its opened up to the other posters, I have opinions. Probably misguided, but opinions nevertheless

Patriots probably could, they always seem to have an unknown diamond in the rough QB at backup.

I am replying to them specifically. Others are always welcome to add....

I'll say it again, if the Defense stepup and play too their potential, the Pack can make it too the playoff-even should Rodgers goes down. The PACKERS Offense has as much talent on the offense as any of the top contenders in the NFL-forget not the what if's However, winning the SB without Rodgers may disappear. The bottom-line, Packers has more talent than just Rodger and should be a very good Offense*among the top 5-10 in the NFL. Relax and stop worrying about what may happen down the road? Go Packers!

To be fair and answer the question of the topic of the thread...no, I don't think the Packers make the playoffs without Rodgers. Without Rodgers the Packers would be hard pressed to win 4-6 games IMO. Flynn has potential but isn't quite ready to carry the load yet. Here's to hoping this discussion doesn't matter and Rodgers has another ironman season.

Agree with philh, if Rogers is hurt, this is not a top team without him. If he gets hurt in the first quarter vs the Bears, there is no way we're a playoff team without him. I'd guess 4-5 wins, perhaps max.

I think the defense has a chance to get back towards average, improving from the awful that it was last year. Maybe even a bit better, given some health luck and development luck. Likewise for the running game, I thought it was poor last year and I think it could improve to average; perhaps even better than average if the passing game is golden and the pass sets up the run. But for the team to be really good, the aspect of the team that has a chance to be really special, elite-special, is the passing game. That's the aspect of this team that can separate us from 18 other teams that are in between the top six and the worst six.

But without Rogers, we won't have any aspect that is notably good, and it will be a struggle to win a few.

I'm not whining. That's the way it is. Just as was true back in the Doug Pederson and Craig Nall and early Aaron Rogers days.

I think we've got a chance, but as with most average teams who could be good if things work together and they get good health, if our by-far most important guy goes down, we're not going to be an above-average team.

First of all, the defense could indeed be average. Or even worse. Of course. But we haven't seen anything from the starters to suggest that that would be the case. Indeed, they could also be quite good and at least we have had indications of such a possibility. The only reason so many of us assume the defense will struggle at times, end up average, whatever, is that persistent and prejudicial assumption that a team cannot successfully switch their defensive scheme so drastically without an appreciable span of time for the new defense to develop. But the reality is that we don't know right now and history - including sports history - is filled with things that couldn't happen or weren't supposed to happen.

Secondly, we don't know that the offense would flop with Flynn behind center. Nothing like real life action to bring some people to life - who can say how rapidly Flynn might grow in such a circumstance? Quite aside from the ability to dink and dunk down the field. If the line is actually strong for a change and the running game surprises us a little, anything could happen.

I concede the point that it would seem unlikely that the Packers could succeed with Flynn. But the reality is still that it's all speculation and that we have precious little evidence to indicate any particular outcome. It could be that the season could become quite fascinating in such a scenario. Stranger things have happened.

Games are exciting and anticipated all week just because we don't know what's going to happen, regardless of who the QB is. So let's not carry ourselves away with an imagined reality that exists nowhere except in our heads.

That is the point and that is also why I brought up what I considered the alterior point; another zinger. Those that want to run that way, will always point out the most negative side. Considering GB had a promising start to the pre-season with the D and O playing very well and the 1st game has yet to be played, a need seems to exist to throw out the worst case senario. Some want to find the negative so they can espouse their GB is terrible b/c "....".

The D is solid and yes they have hole, just like every D out there. The O is on the cusp of spectacular with more areas being ready for a big year. Capers is the best off-season pick up. He has a history of turning ok Ds into top Ds his FIRST year. If Rodgers is hurt and I hate talking bout this before the season, the O will not be as explosive, but GB will still win games; a lot more than the 4 or 5 being talked about; GB wins 9 games this year with or w/o Rodgers at minimum...

I think that's quite credibly possible. Teams sometimes have a knack for rallying around.

If Rogers gets hurt early in the year?? No. In fact, it was really irresponsible to have Flynn and Brohm as the backups last year. They got lucky, but as it turned out it wouldn't have mettered anyhow.

I feel more comfortable with Flynn this year, but not to carry the team all year.

No Rodgers, no playoffs.

Unless NE picked up a vet QB since Sunday night they have an undrafted rookie QB (Brian Hoyer from Michigan)backing up Brady this season, so our QB situation of having only 2 QBs - and the backup without a lot of experience) on a roster isn't unpresidented.

"Can the Packers make the playoffs without Rodgers?"

No way.

Unless Flynn turns out to be our "Kurt Warner". Stranger things have happened!

Or if our Defense dominates. A possibility. Our recievers will be open, just find them in time.

Yep!!

To answer the original question.
The Packers can surely make the playoffs.
We have a solid QB , one of the best WR corps in the NFL adequate RBs and What I Feel is a much improved O-line and decent depth most positions.

I think we have the best DC the Packers have had in many years. Our 3 - 4 looked outstanding in the preseason. But it WAS the preseason and it might be able to be handled by some of the better OC's as the season progresses. On the other hand the D may get even better.

In my opinion the Packers have a better than 50 / 50 shot to win the division and got deep into the playoffs IF AND ONLY if we stay healthy.... remember sometimes is is not the best team... but the healthest team that prevails at the end.

AT this time we do have the talent and the coaching to go all the way if we continue to improve and stay healthy.
Especially if some of the other better teams do not.

Kurt Warner is the starter and Matt Leinert is the backup.
I'm not getting the comparison.
I realize ARod and Leinert were drafted
as the QB's of the future for their respective teams
but Leinert was given the chance to beat out Warner
as ARod was groomed behind Brent for a couple years.
Sorry, just a strange comparison IMO.




BINGO!! (and yes thats an old age joke,I'm there with ya)

There are lots of factor that go into a winning/losing season
and health is a HUGE one.
So are talent, coaching, LUCK, MOMENTUM, etc.
Does anyone here really feel
the Cardinals were the second best
(and almost THE BEST!!)
team in football last year??

I'm right there with 76.
If we're healthy and don't have alot of bad breaks,
we will be a team to contend for it all.

Go Pack!!

I think he meant when Warner was cut and then brought back to play QB some years ago.

I agree - not that Flynn could be a Warner, but that there's no telling what the situation would bring out in him. How often have we seen him play in game situations where everyone else on the field was a starter? I wouldn't write off the season if Rodgers went down. It could be worse someone like Woodson or Collins went down.

There have been quite a few teams in the past that did very well w/ a "suspect" QB (Baltimore, Tampa)... when his main task was to get the ball in the WR and/or RB's hands and NOT make mistakes. Flynn could capably do this IF AR goes down... the other pieces are in place to do well this year. I'm preparing for the long-haul... a 19 game season lasting 'til February '10!

I recently heard a commentator say something resembling the following regarding this year's Vikings team: "Usually when everyone thinks that a team is one player away from going to the superbowl, it usually means that they're not one player away from the superbowl"

I think the same concept works in reverse, if we think the packers are right now a superbowl caliber team, then the loss of one player doesn't suddenly give them a top 5 draft pick. If Matt Flynn were to play the majority of the season, he would have good pass protection and the most talented WR core in the league. The offense would lose much of its potency, but the defense would still be one of the better in the league.

I think what happens if Rodgers goes down, is they switch to a more conservative game plan for Flynn's first game or two (more short/safe pass routes), but once he gets more comfortable sitting in the pocket you can start to call more plays designed to get guys open downfield. I don't think they alter the playbook to a simplified version. Flynn isn't a moron.... he's been learning this playbook for two years now and should know it cover to cover.

I predicted 13-3 with Rodgers, so if I had to throw out a prediction with Matt Flynn, I'd say 10-6 (give or take a game), with the packers still going to the playoff, possibly as the division winner yet.

I agree with your philosophy chewdog. Viewing everything as equal I think AR is +3, maybe +4 in the win column. I am not as optimistic as you are and will say 11-5 with AR and 8-8 with Flynn. I don't think 8-8 will take the division this year so my answer to the topic is no.

This is a 4 to 6 win team with Flynn. Sure we have some of the best WR's in the game and sure they will be open but it takes experience to read defenses, run your progressions and deliver the ball. MUCH different than pre season or practice. This offense is a structured to have the QB carry you, unlike Atlanta where it was more about Turner than Ryan.

I was talking about when Green went down in St. Louis and Kurt Warner was thrust into the starting role and called upon to lead the team.

The rest is history.........

Haven't viewed the thread in a few days-

I don't understand the resentment of opinions such as the one I put forth that if Rodgers goes down like Brady that we won't do well. Its just an opinion.

Cassell did well last year, but unlike Flynn, Cassell was starting his 4th year in the New England system, and inheriting a team that went 16-0 in the regular season, 18-1 overall. Brady over the fouth year backup was 5 games. And that was with Cassell playing well enough to land the multi-million job as a starter. Cassell had as much time in New England to learn the system as Aaron Rodgers did in Green Bay.

Flynn would have a much harder task, assuming the lead of a team that went 6-10 last year, but is admittedly improved this year and underperformed last year. I would put Rodgers over Flynn to be at least the 5 games of Brady over Cassell, which if we presume a 10 to 12 win season with Rodgers, then that puts us potentially at 5 wins with Flynn playing the whole year. ( Thus the comment about left tackle)

Its not a jab at management, nor is it a jab at the Packers. I have the same feeling about the Patriots in that if they were to go into the season with Hoyer as the back up playing for and injured Brady, they don't go 11-5 as they did with Cassell. QB position is just that important, and it takes that long to learn.

The difficulty, again in my opinion as this has been a hypothetical opinion thread, is that there just aren't many backups that can come in and really succeed over an extended season of play. It is not that uncommon for teams to have a backup with limited experience and be dependent on keeping there starter healthy. Indeed, it seems to me it is much more unusual that teams have a backup that makes them feel confident when called upon. Some cannot even come up with a starter that makes them confident. (See: Chicago Bears of 1990's and early 21st century.) I would think that even bringing in a veteran back up would not result in much better, as most that could reliably improve the position over Flynn would be of interest to those teams that don't have a satisfactory starter.

Flynn has a lot of potential, but I for one hope I don't have to find out the actual answer to the question.

5 wins??? Sorry, but fat chance the pats would go 16-0 in back to back seasons.

True, I'll grant you that.

But Cassell inherited a team with that capability. One of the most significant reasons they were 16-0 was a QB-receiver combo that could score so many touchdowns that they could overpower almost any team. Cassell didn't have that. With Brady last year, I think you are correct, unlikely to go 16-0, but possible.

Rodgers this year has the capability to be that kind of force. Yes he threw for over 4000 yds last year, while injured. With that year under his belt, I feel he will even be better this year.

I stand on the opinion that Flynn, at the start of year two, would not do nearly as well as Cassell at the start of year 4.
Flynn would start slow, when the schedule is easier, and by the time he matured he would be playing that last stretch where the games would be tough even with Rodgers playing. We are a 5-11 team with Flynn playing all year.

I tend to partially agree with you, Chunky, but not on the 5-11 prediction. Let's say, speculatively, that the Pats would have won 13 games last year with Brady. That means the dropoff was only two games. I can easily believe that under Flynn the Packers would drop more than that, but with luck, maybe only 3. If the Packers could win 12 games, the dropoff would then only mean a mediocre winning season, like 9-7. Maybe 8-8 at worst.

Remember, in a lot of the games Cassell won, an even weaker QB could easily have won most of those too. Let's say, just to pick a number, that 7 games would be won regardless of whether Cassell or Flynn or just about anybody was QB. That leaves 9 games that Brady would have won 6 of, Cassell 4 of. It's still a significant drop from 4 to 3, if Flynn could only win that many, but it would still leave us with a decent season.

The point is, 8-8 or 9-7 or even 10-6 is not beyond the realm of possibility. Nor, of course, would 7-9 be. But 5-11 is a pretty massive leap. I can't see the Packers losing that many games with Flynn, assuming everybody else (at least anyone who is critical) remains healthy.

Now, knock off a significant piece of the defense to injury as well and then, sure, we're looking at disaster - no doubt a bigger disaster than the Pats with Cassell would have faced. Then I could imagine a 5 win season, sure.

As always Terry, you put together a thoughtful analysis. While I feel you underestimate what New England would have done with a healthy Brady last year, we will never know.

I am optimistic about the season, but not as convinced that the defense will dominate the way they did in pre-season, and not as convinced that the run game will come through as stong as in pre season. There is reason to be hopeful for sure, but I am trying to not get my hopes up too far. Both of these impact this subject.

That which we do not discuss is how defense affects this issue. It really is the crux of the issue. As everyone knows, you win games by putting more points on the board than the other guy. This is obvious. But before expanding on this, I will digress on some other issues pertaining to offense.

Perhaps a better way to evaluate a QB change is in scoring offense. In 2007, the patriots lead the league at 36.8 ponts per game, falling to 8th under Cassell at 25.6. The change may have cost them 11 points per game. I say may because it seems from my brief review that the numbers they put up in 2007 were indeed phenomenal. I believe that that shows the phenomenal system that Cassell inherited, and the likelihood in my mind that they would have won more than 13 games in 2008 with Brady. To put it in perspective, last year New Orleans lead the league with 28 points and change.

Last year we scored a respectable 26.2 points per game, down from 27.2 in our 13-3 season. I feel that we will be successful this year, but I also feel that will be due to the ability to win a few shoot outs. I feel that will result from Rodgers ability and the weapons he has to use. But if a change from Rodgers, who I feel is now has all the skill of Brady, to Flynn occurs, and that change costs us half the change of the Brady-Cassell change, then we are at a scoring level of some of the worst teams in the NFL. The exception is Pittsburgh, who had poor scoring last year, but won with the top defense.

Which brings me back to my point. New England had 8th best scoring defense last year. This takes heat off the back up. I worry based on the pre-season that there are exploitable issues with the current defense. (Our scoring performance in 2007 and 2008 also supports my notion that the difference between 13-3 and 6-10 was indeed defesive performance) Yes, Capers has put together good schemes in other places, and is likely to do that here, but that is yet to be seen. I worry that teams have moved the ball well on us, and with better ball security on their part our presumed defensive dominance would not have been there. In the Tennessee game, our first string did not look good, though they were in the game for only a few plays.

If capers puts together a top D, then we will win with fewer points, thus the efficiency of the QB can drop, and those who predict a reasonable finish should Flynn play the whole season will be right. If the defense is average though, the team would do poorly if scoring falls, which I feel is likely with the hypothetical change.

I think Flynn does have the potential to develop, thus I feel it a reasonable move at this point. Just don't think he's there yet. But who knows. Afterall, there were those who wanted Dilfer over Favre in the early 90's so we fans often are wrong, and I hope that I am wrong if it comes to this scenario.

I know this is long winded, but what can I say, I'm a bit bored today.

I can't think of too many teams that would win consistantly if their starter went down. NE is in worse shape than we are this season. I suppose Leinert could steer the Cards to the playoffs if Warner got hurt seeing AZ is in a pretty weak division. There might be two or three more but I can't come up with them right now...

Last year would have been much worse for GB if Rodgers missed any games. In the end, they only won 6 games and lost 7 of the 10 by 5 pts or less (I think). Why they lost can be debated, but they did. I felt the D let them down and that was before Barnett, Jenkins, Hawk & Harris were hurt/injured. This D was not prepared and did not give the Offense of the opposing team much difficulty. At the end of the game, our offense could not finish and we lost too many games. If Flynn had to start some of the games, we may have lost more games.

This year, we have already debated in our minds whether Flynn could lead GB to victories. I believe he could, but McCarthy would change a lot to help him manage the game. Rodgers is the type of player with enough watching and one year of playing that he can and will to be leader and can make plays. This year, he needs to finish off teams. That being said, if Flynn had to start a string of games, our Defense would be leaned on to bring us victories, along with more running and shorter passes. We will win without Rodgers if we need to. I believe that we will not have to worry about that and Rodgers will have a fantastic season and will be sitting out some 4th quarters as Flynn gets game experience by handing off the ball a lot.

You're right, HeavyD, it was seven games we lost closely - but it was by four points or less. You can confirm that here. I don't know if we would have done much worse with this year's version of Flynn, but many of those close games might not have been nearly so close - and the big wins might have been closer.

Hmmmm... your argument seems to be getting stronger and stronger as you proceed, Monkey.

Ok, then shall we say it's reasonable to assume that the Pats would not have won more than 14 games with Brady? Let's face it, the year before, to win all 16 was damned lucky - they had a few nail biters mixed in there. If so, then the drop to Cassell was three games - a drop from, say, 12-4 with Rodgers of, say, 4 games, would still be a respectable (barely) 8-8; still a far cry from only 5 wins.

However, the points scored argument (which, btw, I think you're right about as I think about it) is a more compelling argument. That sort of makes me sit back and think about it again. Maybe I was being optimistic. However, I don't know enough about the sorts of points that other teams scored on average last year.

I think we can agree on the defense. While I certainly hope it's better than average, I wouldn't expect it to be really top flight, like in the top five. I'd be elated if it was just in the top ten. And with a significant dropoff in scoring, as you suggest, even that wouldn't bode terribly well for the team.

I think I just prefer to trust that the situation won't arise. Maybe more realistically, we could consider the outcome if Rodgers missed, say, two successive games. Or three. In which case I suspect a lot would depend not only on the defense, but when in the schedule that happened. Let's say Rodgers misses 3 games that the Packers would have won with him - then the question is, does the team lose 1 or 2 or all 3 with Flynn? And if it's 1 or 2, will that be enough to toss us out of the playoffs? (Again, assuming that the defense is a top ten defense.)