Having spent much of the week researching the long career of No. 2 quarterback Seneca Wallace, the guess here is that even if the Packers were to lose Aaron Rodgers early Monday night against the Chicago Bears they’d find ways to finish 11-5.

JSOnline  wrote:

Anything is possible, but I doubt it.

The Packers O Line just doesn't give a QB much time to throw. Maybe Wallace could run for his life and throw on the run, but not anything like Aaron Rodgers. Also, Rodgers is disciplined way beyond anything I've seen from any other QB in terms of not making ill-advised throws. Maybe Wallace is a little bit that way too, but NOBODY is like Aaron Rodgers.

As for a running game, whenever the D of the other team knows it's coming, our line just can't seem to open any holes. Lacy is better than anything we have had in a long time, but he can't make something out of nothing like Adrian Peterson or Barry Sanders or O.J. or Jim Brown or Gayle Sayers (I see a little bit of that in the Badgers Gordon - but that's a different topic).

Without Rodgers, we would be sunk against any decent team. Probably the Bears still qualify as that.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

FACT. This team won most of it's Superbowls WITHOUT Aaron Rodgers.

.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

Bullsh!t.

Aaron doesn't make ill advised throws? Really? He won't throw a Hail Mary at the end of the half, because he's afraid of having an INT on his stat sheet. That's true. But did you see those TDs to Jordy last week? Dude wasn't open. Aaron zinged it right past the CB's helmet.

And yeah Seneca is a running QB. So much so, that he's actually played WR in the NFL. But he's also not gonna be holding the ball for 8.5.

As for Eddie Lacy, he's made something out of nothing many times. I still think Franklin is better at that. He's a little shiftier, he's just being taught a lesson about ball security.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

Never understood what people see in McGinn. IMO he's just another hack reporter/pseudo-journalist. But that's me bias.

I do know I don't like tempting fate this way. Rodgers better not go down. Just because the Packers can whip a hapless team like the Vikings doesn't make them a juggernaut without their all-world QB.

Rodgers goes down for any length of time and this team isn't going to be a one-and-done wild card team.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

I didn't say Rodgers is a machine that NEVER puts it up for grabs or whatever (those throws to Nelson certainly weren't an example of THAT).

As for Wallace running, I would rather have had Vince Young. Undoubtedly Wallace could escape and throw it sometimes, maybe even occasionally complete. The point is, our O Line, sadly, makes that necessary way too often. The point also is, NOBODY does it quite like Aaron Rodgers - not even close.

I like Lacy a lot - Franklin not so much, but without a great threat of a pass to set them up, the O Line just doesn't give them a chance - and that get hit in the backfield, bounce off 2 or 3 times, change direction and be off to the races thing just doesn't happen for either Lacy or Franklin like it does for those other guys I mentioned.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

Totally and completely FALSE.
THIS team has won nothing with or without Rodgers when it comes to Superbowls. THIS team has not even made it to the playoffs yet. You can not look at 1960's and say because they won without Aaron the current team can win. The guys who played back then are too old now.

Originally Posted by: wpr