You'll have to excuse me for being old, but I don't even know who Emma Watson is hahahaha.

I assume you saw the same preseason games I saw, and for sure you watched last Monday night. I rest my case.

A decent backup QB should be able to come in the game and do like Josh McCown did when Cutler went out for the Bears ....... or a helluva lot of other backup QBs before that. Vince Young's ability to run combined with the game Lacy had would have been enough to beat the Bears, and if you don't think he would have been able to throw better than Wallace, well, you're beyond help.

BTW, my wife is 28, and she doesn't know who Emma Watson is either.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

I do think it's good, but I just thought it was funny we have a thread dedicated to something you singled out as no one considering. 🙂

I'm starting Seneca Wallace on my fantasy team in place of Aaron Rodgers.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Learn to read, mate. I said "for everyone clamoring..." which implies there are those that don't fit in this bucket. I didn't say "everyone is clamoring..."

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 

I worry more about him seeing the passing lanes through with taller defensive players in his face. The protection on the edges just got that much more important. The defense needs to do a much better job at making the plays that are there as well. Packers.com showed some great cases where they were inches close to making a big play but just didn't get it done.

Originally Posted by: DarkaneRules 

Bayliss is a tool's tool. I wouldn't waste my time ready his crap.

Uncle Teddy did gamble at the QB position and has done so for years. Trouble is you can "win" with the gamble for years but when you are wrong the team is screwed up big time.

you can not have one backup in OTAs, drop him and pick up another in TC. Cut him and pick up still another once the season has begun and expect the QB to do anything. Right or wrong stick him one guy and team him the system.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

If I had known me linking that thread would throw you into making unnecessary rude comments, I'd have kept it to myself. My apologies.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I hear you and for the most part I agree but the thing is you (maybe not you specifically but so many people TBP for instance) are saying that Wallace was a bad gamble after one poor showing in a game for which he had very little to no preparation. We have no way of knowing right now if this team is screwed or not. We may be and after this Sunday we will have a better idea but for now, no matter what some people would have you believe, we simply don't have enough information to reliably say one way or the other. We all have our opinions but you know what they say about opinions.

Originally Posted by: sschind