OldSchoolSnapper

25 pass yards at half and a 10 point lead. I don't know why the fans are booing.

Didn't get blown out. Pretty miraculously competitive, had they won, would have likely kept Rodgers going and pushed for a WC. They were driving to tie, got to about the 20 when Allison picked up a first down and fumbled. Rodgers did throw 3 picks tho.

The tavern shuttles others have suggested, otherwise if I really want free, I park at Target and walk through the park by the VA. Can get a bag of peanuts on the way in and any home goods you need on the way out. Never had a problem.

I think they will be OK if he doesn't get hurt again. Rodgers has not played real football in a loooong time. And that was about as brutal a matchup as you can get.

They know that both Clifford and Willis suck, but my guess is that in the event Love went down for a game or two, they wanted the mobility that could provide more potential ways to have some kind of offense even if the whole throwing part is not fantastic. So they were able to find an athlete that has at least started NFL games. Plus I doubt they ever banked on Willis needing to play in Week 2.

And my post was completely on topic, unlike this one.

Go back and look at some of the teams we lost to with Brett Hundley. Losing a QB cuts off most teams at the knees. As I said, I don't think it's an indictment on the roster if the Packers suck without Love. He is "the guy" and it would happen to most teams.

Again, look back at what happens when a team loses their stud QB. Anyone remember Bob McGinn's infamous "Without Rodgers, Packers are still an 11-5 team" or whatever it was? Then he goes down and they are quite literally one of the worst 3 teams in the league. You need a QB in the NFL. If the rest of your team is strong, you at least need somebody like Baker Mayfield or Derek Carr or something. We are seriously trotting out Malik Willis as a starter. So yes - I think they will be fortunate to win a game in the next 3 weeks, given that Willis is playing and he has been in the offense for like 2 weeks. And I don't think it says much about how good or bad the rest of the roster is. You simply need a good QB to do anything. As far as the Packers defense I won't hold my breath. I have seen the worst of the worst carve them up over the last decade so while I hope you are right, my expectations are not very high especially after seeing guys run free in midfield and the defensive line get gashed up the gut again.

One of very few encouraging things about Friday night was that they did clamp down Hurts running the ball which was very refreshing for a Packers defense. Of course that was about the only thing they clamped down. I am expecting the Packers offense to be absolutely terrible without Love, so yeah, if they can gut out a couple 17-14 wins and he is actually able to come back that fast, there may not be a lot of damage done.

They will be fortunate to be 1-3. I am not the team's doctor, but I am guessing this will be closer to 6 weeks than 3.

I've seen this movie before. The fans talk themselves into the running game and defense "helping" the QB figure things out, and hey we still have some receivers right? "Jordy Nelson is really good!" "We just need to go about .500" Then the game starts and it takes about a quarter for everyone to realize why you pay Love $220mm. QBs are engine oil in the NFL. They are going to absolutely suck for the next 3-6 weeks.

I'm pretty convinced Tennessee would have won this game by not throwing a pass in the 2nd half and just punting. The Bears did just about NOTHING offensively.

They are playing scared to let him go. He's thrown 9 passes for 25 yards. Might as well just let the guy learn and play.

I've only explained it 50 times. Because that guy, 9/10 times isn't ready to step in and play in the situation the Packers are in today. A 10-year vet is. Oh no. Please don't ignore me. I'd really miss you.

They won't add a real veteran to the roster unless maybe they get more news that Love is out 12 weeks instead of 3, and even then, they probably wouldn't, which is arguably the right call as they would be cooked anyway. The time to get an actual backup in place was sometime in May. Even when everyone and their mother knew Matt Flynn was the obvious guy to go get, they had to lose a bunch of games with Scott Tolzien before doing anything.

Truly can't comprehend how you can't grasp the difference between a 1st round draft pick at backup QB vs. a 35 year old veteran with meaningful game experience as an insurance policy so I will just drop it there. Not going anywhere, but it'll probably start to make more sense next weekend when the Packers get blown out and Willis has 140 yards and 3 picks.

Again, I don't know what is so ridiculous about this. The Packers drafted Jordan Love fully intending that he would start and be a franchise QB. The Chiefs know they aren't getting that out of Carson Wentz. But if Mahomes has a concussion they have a guy that can win 2 games. I would much rather have that behind Love than another project. The situation they are in today is not in any way analogous to where they were when they drafted Love or Rodgers. Stop with the straw man crap.

This really isn't the wild crazy concept you're trying super hard to make it. Someone like Wentz is a backup that (you hope) can come in and immediately be mediocre, at least MAYBE give you a chance to compete for a handful of weeks. You give him an entire camp and he knows the offense at a minimum. If your backup is rookie Jordan Love, he's going to get eaten alive. Or someone like Brett Hundley who you've "developed" but has never actually played a meaningful game. I didn't say anything about when to draft anybody. It's simply the difference between having a known or unknown commodity backing up your star. Some teams have veteran backup QBs, usually a guy with a not great ceiling but at least a floor that won't leave you completely uncompetitive. The Packers have almost never gone that route despite being absolutely destroyed by Rodgers being hurt multiple times. Behind their 25 year old star, they have Malik and Clifford. I'd say they botched that. Why are they "developing" another young guy? Love is 25. This is the exact situation they should have planned for - needing to replace him for a few weeks. If he tears an ACL who cares, they'd be dead anyway. The situation they are in today isn't a parallel at all to drafting Rodgers/Love to replace an aging star. They have no reason to be doing that. The journeyman vet is the backup they should have. Not this garbage we're about to to suffer through.

I'm aware. I'm referring to his 2nd trip to the Packers. And I don't know what you're LOLing. Rodgers and Love were not drafted to be backup QBs. They were drafted with the intention of sitting for years, learning and becoming franchise QBs. If the starters has been hurt in their first seasons, they would not have provided any value at all to hold the line. There's a significant difference between a "backup QB" like that and one like the Chiefs bringing in Wentz even if you want to be a douche about it. The latter is someone that can hold the fort and maybe go .500 when your starter is out 3-6 weeks. We don't have that.

False equivalency. Love and Rodgers were not drafted to be backup QBs. There is a big difference between that (and Love really wasn't much of a backup QB and really never could have been counted on to do anything if Rodgers had been hurt) and signing a veteran QB whose sole purpose is a break glass insurance policy. Matt Flynn round 2 was a legitimate backup QB. Ryan Tannehill is a backup QB. Carson Wentz is a backup QB. The Packers have never really gone that route where they have a veteran backup in camp. Flynn was the only one and it was after 6 weeks of everyone screaming at TT to do the obvious.

When the Packers signed Malik I honestly thought it was just so the defense had a mobile QB to play against in practice. He is terrible and I will be shocked if they win 2 games.

Sorry but I'd MUCH rather have a QB that started a Super Bowl and numerous playoff games than Malik Willis right now. Even if he does completely suck. This is going to be the same dumpster fire it was in 2013 and 2018. I am fully expecting that getting a first down will be pulling teeth next weekend.

That has zilch to do with the fact that the Packers backup QB is a schlub they signed late August and the other guy they drafted last year didn't make the team. This is the same team that in prior years in the same situation sent out Scott Tolzien and Brett Hundley. Why are you even bringing up where Jimmy G was drafted? Point is that that right now, the Rams grabbed him as a legitimate backup. The Packers have never done anything like that.

The Eagles played in the same circumstance, turned the ball over 3 times and still humiliated our "defense." If the Packers had committed those 2 early turnovers inside their own 25 yard line, does anyone have confidence they wouldn't have immediately been down 14-0? The game was eerily similar to the one they lost to end the season in San Francisco. It's a pattern, no matter how much everyone likes making excuses for MLF's consistently unprepared teams.

Don't we already know #2 is true? The backup is a guy we signed like 10 days ago. They preferred him to a guy they drafted last year in the 5th round. They don't really have a backup QB. Other teams have backups like Garopollo or Justin Fields; it has never been a route the Packers have taken. I understand the math of why, but they have never taken that position seriously.