Packers Question of the Day: Quarterback Controversy
It's already been made abundantly clear - Brett Hundley is the Packers' starting quarterback in the season finale.
But should he be?
Could it hurt to give Joe Callahan a look and see what the Packers have in their third-string option?
What say you?
__________________________
Zachary Jacobson is a staff writer/reporter for Cheesehead TV. He's the voice of The Leap on iTunes and can be heard on The Scoop KLGR 1490 AM every Saturday morning. He's also a contributor on the Pack-A-Day Podcast. He can be found on Twitter via @ZachAJacobson or contacted through email at [email protected].
Comments (77)
egbertsouse
December 28, 2017 at 08:58 am
Why not give him a chance? We already know what Hundley gives us, nothing. Little Joe will probably suck but then we can dump him and Hundley and start over.
TheVOR
December 28, 2017 at 11:24 am
I think it's a flaw in coaching. They want to continue to give Hundley opportunities to shine over his last inconsistent effort, and in truth, the play has already demonstrated quite clearly he's never going to be a starting caliber NFL QB, and perhaps doesn't even have enough "IT FACTOR" to be on a roster within the next 2-3 years in the league. GB is kidding themselves if they think he has trade value, or in fact any value to this team next season. We need Elliot Wolf now, and we need to go back to the Ron Wolf theory of moving around, gaining picks, drafting a QB every year, etc.. This franchise is like a blind squirrel trying to find an acorn, you get one every once in the while, but you're starving all the time..
dobber
December 28, 2017 at 11:39 am
I agree in that Hundley just doesn't seem to have "IT" (no Pennywise jokes, here, TK...), but I'm unhappy with how MM has handled him. I don't believe he's really taken advantage of Hundley's strengths and put him in the best position to win ballgames...either that, or Callahan is so bad that they don't want to get Hundley killed and force #6 to have to win games.
While I also 100% agree that Ron Wolf was a master at managing the bottom of the roster and handling personnel under the rules of the 1990s, we have to remember that his era was not much like the current cap era. He's even said that he wanted to get out before he had to manage rosters in this way (otherwise he'd have had his choice of jobs through the 2000s). I'm also casting a wary eye toward Eliot Wolf...let's not romanticize him just because he's the kid of Ron and because he's not TT.
TKWorldWide
December 29, 2017 at 12:35 pm
(Withheld)
:)
Bear
December 29, 2017 at 11:22 am
I think they have already decided Callahan is gone. They'll look in the draft for another QB.
chuckv
December 28, 2017 at 09:04 am
Sad a like able guy who will lead us to another loss chewing gum .. let Joe play and add some excitement we don't know what he will do but we know he will bring excitement and heart to the game and losing with heart is better than another oh gee i missed another pass (brets number one comment) . Please let's play with a guy with heart vs wondering what the hell is happening in front of him. I like Hundley as a person he seems to be a great young man ... but on our QB.
Savage57
December 29, 2017 at 06:09 am
I agree Callahan should get this game. But here's why it's not going to happen.
Suppose Callahan plays well, maybe even lights up the Lions. Imagine all the questions MM would have to face about sticking with Hundley as he drove the ship into an iceberg.
If there's one thing we know about Mikey, he doesn't cotton to anyone second-guessing a highly successful professional football coach (who just happened to be blessed with two first-ballot HOF locks at QB his entire tenure with the team)
CJBauckham
December 28, 2017 at 06:14 pm
Couldn't hurt. Brett's not going to prove anything to anyone in one game.. we've seen what we have there. Send out Joe, see him in real game action, do your due diligence and assess what you have. If you aren't willing to do that when given the opportunity, then why is he on the roster?
4thand10
December 28, 2017 at 10:05 am
We all have our asses(s) on this one :-)
dobber
December 28, 2017 at 09:39 am
It's as much a QB controversy as being forced to pick between fried chicken liver and braised beef tongue as a dinner entree. You know there's filet in the fridge...but in this case you can't have it until September 2018.
Spock
December 28, 2017 at 10:16 am
Exactly, we are talking about BACK-UPS here. Hardly a controversy.
4thand10
December 28, 2017 at 10:04 am
I understand that you play to win and that is McCarthy's philosophy. But at this point it is about the draft and I would give Callahan a shot.
marpag1
December 28, 2017 at 10:51 am
If your two menu choices are a crap sandwich or a turd burger, do you have a food controversy? Hmmm...
TarynsEyes
December 28, 2017 at 11:01 am
I have every NFL game on with the Packers center stage every week in my home. I never had any thoughts about changing that set up.
I understand devotion very well, though many at times feel otherwise of me,I get where MM is thinking on Hundley. But I believe the better fan and coaches are those that aren't afraid to call the team or player out when obvious failure is witnessed again and again.
When there is nothing to lose but ego and the gaining of knowledge apparent, however little, is at hand....take the knowledge. If anything, it gives you more sincerity and viable reasons, not excuses, in decisions going forward when explanations come due.
The Packers will not be center stage this week unless or until Callahan plays. Not because of being better or not, but because I don't need any more tape on Hundley. We need more on Callahan to measure Hundley's play/growth to Callahan who has not been the direct beneficiary of the Guru QB school.
Playing Callahan and him playing well, may not keep him him in GB next season but it certainly should close out the Hundley fiasco that has been 3 years in the making.
A 'Highly Successful Head Coach' should know this and accept it without hesitation.
What the GM knows and does is another story as has been witnessed again and again and anyone's guess.
TKWorldWide
December 29, 2017 at 04:41 pm
How many TV’s do you have?
Point-Packer
December 28, 2017 at 11:18 am
I think Hundley should play, as to only boost his non-existent trade "value"...
packergal
December 28, 2017 at 11:35 am
This is most insightful, Taryn. "...We need more (tape) on Callahan to measure Hundley's play/growth to Callahan who has not been the direct beneficiary of the Guru QB school...." This is Exactly why we will NOT see Callahan. IF, IF, IF he is even marginally better the BH, the QB GURU myth will be exposed for the fraud it is!
dobber
December 28, 2017 at 11:43 am
"IF, IF, IF he is even marginally better the BH, the QB GURU myth will be exposed for the fraud it is!"
Why? Hasn't Callahan also been the "beneficiary" of MMs tutelage? In the end, neither of these guys is going to be a starting NFL QB...it's just a matter of who sucks less. Matchups are inherently important, also. The only thing MM has to deal with is the question of whether he should have played Callahan sooner...which is really not all that important because in the end only #12 has the skill and ability to elevate this team.
packergal
December 28, 2017 at 01:06 pm
No, Callahan has not received same level and quantity of MM tutelage. While PS players get same number reps as starters and even though Callahan now on active roster, the one on one feedback MM provides to BH trumps the tutelage provided to JC. However, I do agree with your next comment that it's likely neither BH or JC are good enough. So therefore, why not allow the active comparison to be made?
dobber
December 28, 2017 at 04:14 pm
The QB school is mostly an off-season enterprise, isn't it?
I certainly have seen enough of Hundley. Not arguing that he shouldn't play. But I am saying that there's not a tremendous amount to be gained by initiating a pissing contest between two QBs who could be on the street in 8 months (or less).
Doug Niemczynski
December 28, 2017 at 01:20 pm
That's exactly what I was saying what if Joe Callahan comes in and actually does better than Brett Hundley then we have to be very concerned about the evaluation process that Mike McCarthy has in his brain because if he cant evaluate quarterbacks when he is an offensive Coach then we have a major problem. We already know he kept Capers for 7 years and there's got to be something wacky in his head about that.
TKWorldWide
December 30, 2017 at 07:49 am
If a QB sucks in an empty forest, would he suck worse if he hadn’t attended QB School?
Tundraboy
December 28, 2017 at 11:36 am
No controversy really. Hundley will start and MM will bring in Callahan for the last few minutes. Why? Because MM has to prove a point, whatever that is.
sonomaca
December 28, 2017 at 11:56 am
Speaking of Flynn, why didn’t the Pack give him a call when Rodgers went down?
dobber
December 28, 2017 at 04:15 pm
Because he's likely almost as close to being in game shape as I am...
Point-Packer
December 28, 2017 at 12:51 pm
This is a classic Mike McCarthy head scratcher. No reason to trot Hundley out there. Lets see what Callahan has. And hopefully find something out and lose the game to get a better draft pick. For being such a "highly successful football coach", old Mashed Potato certainly makes some odd decisions.
And per the post above, why didn't the Pack see if they could lure in Flynn. From what I can tell, he's a FA.
TarynsEyes
December 28, 2017 at 12:55 pm
His elbow never healed to any stable level...I think.
Point-Packer
December 28, 2017 at 01:49 pm
Oh, well that makes sense, not like he had the greatest arm to begin with. Perhaps they were more active than anyone was aware of, minus the Hoyer reports, but not at least seeking other options at QB seemed marginal at best. I've always been a big fan of having a second tier veteran back-up. Pitt always does that well. NE has done it well at times. MN just did it. Philly is currently doing it with Foles. Sure, it may cost a bit more, but hard to push back that having one of those guys on the roster would have been beneficial, as opposed to two unproven youngsters.
Doug Niemczynski
December 28, 2017 at 01:17 pm
I don't know why they just won't let Joe Callahan play I mean the game means nothing maybe we can take something positive out of it and see what Joe Callahan can do if he can't do anything then just put Hundley back in it's that simple and then we can decide to get rid of one of them or both of them I mean what else are we going to learn from Hundley that we haven't already seen before I haven't seen anything of Joe Callahan and yes he may be worse than Hundley but what's the worst that can happen? If we lose we get a higher draft pick.
What's the big deal?
stockholder
December 28, 2017 at 01:24 pm
I'm going to start a real controversy. Forget Hundley or any bad back up- Brett Favre QB 3 1st team-1995, 1996, 1997 9 all-pro years - 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007 Aaron Rodgers 1st team- 2011, 2014 6 all pro years - 2009, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016 Bart Starr 1st team 1966 4 All pro years- 1960,1961,1962,1966 Have we seen A-rods great years end? Seriously. Look at the years in between. That #1 pick is looking more like an insurance policy. Whether it be back up or not. Lets not loose site of these figures. A-Rod still has a lot to prove. At 33 have we seen the best of A-rod? Have we seen the best of the PACKERS? With his second major injury the curtain is closing. It's time to draft a back up. We cannot let the run end. Not piss and moan about it.
Doug Niemczynski
December 28, 2017 at 02:07 pm
I don't think there's ever been a problem with our offenses it's always been the defense and I don't think it's been the players I just think it's been the coaching staff and the way the players have been trained. Maybe I'm just wrong but it always seems to be our defense that's the problem and we are hardly ever in the top 10 defenses.
stockholder
December 28, 2017 at 02:37 pm
Always the defense. ( Correct until this year. ) Hundley is not a back-up to put your super-bowl hopes on. Thats the difference. This offense has failed badly. The shut-out and loses show the Packers cannot go with Hunley or any other retread. The desire of everyone should be the super-bowl. They won't make if they don't have a back -up. Everyone will be aiming to put A-Rod Down. Hurt A-Rod and the packers keep losing. And he's going to feel every hit as he gets older. Everything will be looked at like a cheap hit. Expect more Cheap Hits!
dobber
December 28, 2017 at 04:17 pm
"Everyone will be aiming to put A-Rod Down."
You seem to be living under the presumption that teams haven't had this goal in the past. Just about every defense is playing to punish the opponent's starting QB.
stockholder
December 28, 2017 at 06:06 pm
It was their goal. And he wasn't the only one. After Adams; A-Rod will get No Mercy. I'm for a new rule! 1st- The player with the cheap hit stays out as long as the injured player. 2, The team gets the ball at the extra point line. This would stop the cheap hits.
Roadrunner23
December 28, 2017 at 01:36 pm
Ok here is the way old NostraDANus see's it.
*Hundley is signed through next year and he is really not trade-bait so he will be the back-up next season.
*Hundley showed his limitations this year so now McCarthy knows what he has
*Hundley showed he can win a game or two against weak competition should Rodgers go down for a game or tow next season with a pulled calf
*Hundley is on a rookie contract and is affordable
*Hundley knows the playbook well
*Will Hundley ever be a great or even average QB in the NFL? No
* Does Hundley have some skills? Yes
Sorry to disappoint y'all but if Callahan was "mini-Favre" he would be playing instead of Hundley.
Best case scenario is that the Packers draft a QB in 2018 and develop him as a third QB.
It just is what it is.
Have a Happy New Year my Cheese Loving Brethren!
Doug Niemczynski
December 28, 2017 at 02:09 pm
Nobody is going to want Brett Hundley and that's for sure.
stockholder
December 28, 2017 at 02:55 pm
No to skills and No to 3rd back - up. The touch is what a QB is all about. Not feet. If TT is still GM count on a QB Rd. 1./DT Rd. 2 WR. 3. OT. 4. C/G 5. TE 6. WR 7. TE.... Why did I not go defense? Because the 3-4-4 will be the defense if TT, MM, and DC return. The CBs will be back with House,Rollins, Randall, and King. The safeties will be back with Brice,Dix,Jones, Whitehead. The LBs- Perry, Mathews, Ryan, Martinez, Biegel, etc. The line is Diaz,Clark,Daniels,etc. No major changes. Other than DT. The pass Rushers you want will have to be cheap FAs. Especially if they sign Adams.
dobber
December 28, 2017 at 04:19 pm
Thanks, nostradanus. This is about as accurate an assessment as you're going to see. People might not like Hundley, but these facts all add up. Is it possible he'll get beat out for the backup job in camp? Yep. But he'll be there at least until the final cutdown next fall.
gmeyers1
December 28, 2017 at 01:39 pm
Callahan would be in the game if he had shown the coaches that he belongs out there. Obviously he hasn't. So the problem is that there isn't anybody on the roster with nfl qb skills. So this one is on TT. Hopefully they somewhat respectably lose to the Lions improving draft position slightly, fill some holes through the draft, and sign a free agent back up qb.
Doug Niemczynski
December 28, 2017 at 02:08 pm
But just what if Joe Callahan was to come out there and winhe game then what would you say what would Mike McCarthy say what would anybody say except that Mike McCarthy was wrong.
dobber
December 28, 2017 at 04:35 pm
Depends on the circumstances under which they won the game. Callahan isn't going to win it by himself. Look at last week's Seattle/Dallas game...the one Seattle won with more penalty yards than total offense. It would be hard to state that Russell Wilson won that game.
Doug Niemczynski
December 28, 2017 at 02:15 pm
I don't feel Brett Hundley is is the backup quarterback and I don't know anything about Joe Callahan but all I do know is Mike McCarthy truly believes that Brett Hundley is the packers future backup quarterback therefore we will not be addressing this situation in the draft just like Mike McCarthy believed that Dom Capers was and still should be the defensive coordinator for the packers and have heard nothing to the contrary that things will be changed and that Dom Capers will not be released. we still not have been back to the Super Bowl based on Mike McCarthy's weird imagination that everything is fine and we the fans are the ones thst suffer. There is some kind of major pride issue with Mike McCarthy or some kind of weird loyalty issue.
dobber
December 28, 2017 at 04:31 pm
" I don't know anything about Joe Callahan but all I do know is Mike McCarthy truly believes that Brett Hundley is the packers future backup quarterback therefore we will not be addressing this situation in the draft"
I think that it would be fair to say that until the Packers get through the player acquisition segment of the off-season that MM likely considers Hundley the backup for 2018. Once the draft and all signings are done, and they can start seeing players in pads, all bets are off. MM doesn't make the picks, TT does. For all the opining around here that TT operates independently of the coaching staff with regard to bringing in players, this assertion seems to be counterintuitive to that.
Since'61
December 28, 2017 at 03:04 pm
There is no QB controversy here. They both stink. The only question is which one will we chuck first. Hopefully both on 01-01-2018. Thanks, Since ‘61
Since91
December 28, 2017 at 04:45 pm
Agreed
Both garbage
C yah
pacman
December 28, 2017 at 10:37 pm
Unless Hundley throws a bunch of pick's, he will probably be around next year too. Too many other positions need reinforcements to waste any draft picks on. Unless there is some absolute steal of a pick, Packers will keep Hundley around for another couple years on the cheap cuz nobody else is going to pay him anything.
Of course, this line of reasoning goes out the window if TT or MM (in addition to DC) are fired.
cheesycowboy
December 28, 2017 at 03:48 pm
I believe it is well known the Joe couldn't beat
out Brett for the #2 QB position or he would have.
The fact remains the Packers have one QB that can
transcend the level of the team to a playoff level.
A nasty defense could overcome some of it but the
song remains the same.Where does the fault lie?
There are now seven months to hash and rehash
the pressing question. The management / coach triangle
is still inverted. The players play. The coaches teach.
The talent procurement scouts.The president oversees it
all and the BODs approve all football decisions .
Once again, Where does the breakdown lie?
dobber
December 28, 2017 at 04:26 pm
"I believe it is well known the Joe couldn't beat
out Brett for the #2 QB position or he would have."
Not only that, but he couldn't play well enough or show enough promise to force the Packers hand to keep him at the final cutdown at the end of the preseason. He was outplayed in the preseason by another UDFA (Taysom Hill), and the Packers didn't try to protect HIM by keeping him on the 53, either. Callahan's around because when #12 got hurt, they needed a QB to back up their backup, and Callahan was the only one available who's played in the system.
4zone
December 28, 2017 at 06:45 pm
Green Bay committed early to premier Hundley in the pre season to show him off for trading. They had no plans on him starting over half the season. A a result of that, Callahan got tossed on the scrap heap.
Green Bay didn't want to carry 3 QBs on the roster and there was no way Hill was going to make it to the practice squad. Green Bay kept the wrong guy as their #2.
Since91
December 28, 2017 at 04:45 pm
Gentlemen!
Who cares!
I luv the analysis 61
Protect Rodgers with a first round investment in the oline
Rodgers must also protect himself better in the future
cheesycowboy
December 28, 2017 at 06:01 pm
System. Exactly my other points eluded to dobber.
The system seems to be fractured so where do
the issues lie? Who deserves the bulk of criticism?
Anyone? No one? Everyone? This topic will be cussed
and discussed for months. Look at the product on
the field and connect the dots. As an outsider looking
in and a stockholder who votes via proxy, real questions
still remain. Will Murphy address them? no.
Will Thompson address them? no. Injuries? Not an
excuse, every team has them. The NFC champs who
shall not be named, won the division with their 3rd
string QB if memory serves me correctly.
Is talent the issue? Is coaching the issue?
Sincerely,
Mojo
December 28, 2017 at 05:33 pm
Give me whichever QB gives us the best chance to lose.
I don't know what the tie breakers are after win percentage, but based strictly on win percentage there are about 10 teams that can still affect GB's draft order next year besides GB itself (Dolphins, Raiders, Bengals, Chargers, Bills, Titans, Cowboys, Redskins, Cardinals, Lions).
We need to get ahead of as many of them as possible in the draft order. The difference between the Pack ending up 7 & 9 versus 8 & 8 means little to me. I'll take the draft ammo.
dobber
December 28, 2017 at 08:57 pm
The rules for determining draft order are buried in here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Draft
Tundraboy
December 29, 2017 at 08:41 am
8 - 8 reminds me of the lost years of mediocrity. Prefer the higher pick. Lose valiantly and 7-9 is my choice. We need every break we can get this draft. Pass Rushers, OL, WR, and TE, nearly every round.
Doug Niemczynski
December 28, 2017 at 05:51 pm
Give me whichever QB gives us the best chance to lose.
I agree with Mojo I mean one spot moved up in the 2018 draft could make a huge difference. You just never know
Doug Niemczynski
December 28, 2017 at 05:55 pm
I hope Michael Clark has a big game that would be cool. And he's only 22 years old.
FAN24583
December 28, 2017 at 06:01 pm
Why on earth does anyone believe that if Joe Callahan looked better in practice he would be ahead of Hundley?? That’s not how it works in GB.
packergal
December 29, 2017 at 07:26 am
Agree, Georgia. Many here insist that BH outperforms JC in practices and that's why he's designated as AROD backup. So Reggie Gilbert finally gets a chance and does what? Records 3 pressures and 2 sacks. How does this work in Green Bay?
carlos
December 28, 2017 at 06:27 pm
Hey, theVor, agree with you. Love your analogy. Made me laugh.
4zone
December 28, 2017 at 06:37 pm
It's not about giving him a chance, it's about giving him some real game experience just in case, some time down the road, a playoff spot depends on him winning a game or two. If he's not worth that, then can him and let Cobb be your backup to Hundley.
Packer_Pete
December 28, 2017 at 07:31 pm
What QB controversy? Brett Hundley is my QB...
FAN24583
December 28, 2017 at 08:07 pm
I think it’s a good idea to get all players on the 53 playing time and real game experience so they are ready when the need arises. If they are really not worthy of playing time then they shouldn’t be on the roster. Just my opinion. It’s called grooming
MarkinMadison
December 28, 2017 at 08:12 pm
Hundely has had 3 games with over a 100 rating, including against Pittsburgh. A good showing against the Lions might make him trade bait. Hate all you want, but he has been improving.
pacman
December 28, 2017 at 10:31 pm
No team is going to offer anything good for him. At best, he improves enough to remain on the team as a backup. Too many other positions of need to draft a qb this year. And he only had 100+ rating because he had touchdowns to wide open receivers. The ratings number isn't always an accurate barometer.
4thand1
December 28, 2017 at 08:36 pm
Why don't we have a defensive co-ordinator controversy? Back ups, were talking back ups. No team goes into a season saying our back up QB will take us to the promised land.
Big Moe
December 29, 2017 at 05:47 am
yep Dom must go!
FAN24583
December 28, 2017 at 08:43 pm
Hundley got a few passes on busted coverage yes but he has missed way more when receivers have been wide open. Can’t read defenses has no pocket awareness And again looked good in practice against our defense. I don’t buy what TT and MM have been selling. He’s not the guy nor is he a good backup.
4thand10
December 29, 2017 at 12:38 am
We need a Favre /Pedersen type situation like what we had in the past. Just fast forward and give Rodgers a quality Vet backup. The rookie QB school is why I'm questioning that philosophy ...hasn't worked. Brohm,Tolzine ,Graham Harrell... etc.just get a vet and use that 3rd rookie as a project . When I watch these rookies I feel like I'm going to a casino and losing. They should be playing at higher level. With a back up Vet... yrs there is a risk,but at least they can possibly get a couple of games and have veteran presenta with out hurting the team to badly
JohnnyLogan
December 29, 2017 at 10:18 am
That's funny. Favre never missed a game. We don't know what we had in Pederson. I'm sure he was better than Hundley though. So am I.
Big Moe
December 29, 2017 at 05:57 am
First l agree BH is at best a backup here, but one good game and some team will overpay for him. JC is what he is, inexperienced. If we are losing at the half, I throw JC in just to see how he performs. Now the real issue, get rid of Capers now! today! god! I can't take any more crappy Dom Capers defenses anymore!
Dr.Rodgers
December 29, 2017 at 07:07 am
I miss the good old days when we had real controversies. I bet Rodgers is already looking at a west coast move for his next contract. Maybe he’ll retire and unretire and demand to be traded. Hundley has proven he is the next stud to keep the Packers at 10-6 or 9-7 with an occasional wild card spot.
chuckv
December 29, 2017 at 08:19 am
give it to Joe and let McCarthy coach him .. he has had such little success with Hundley so far this season .. and besides if a QB can't find Nelson he isn't for Green Bay .. and with Adams out Hundley is screwed as he does not know how to find others (yes a few but look at the stats)
go with Joe
DD
December 29, 2017 at 09:17 am
Blah, blah, blah. Season is done Sunday with a lose. QB? McMike still runs his predictable, non creative, no change offense. So it doesn't matter who's QB. And we have still have Capers schemes and philosophy. So any changes? Not very likely. Sorry. Bowed to vikes twice, and now the Lions twice. If there are not major changes be prepared for cellar dwellers next year and no playoffs again, even with Rodgers. The other three division teams have or are building defenses fans!! Sorry to be so negative, just speaking from what I've visually been seeing.
dobber
December 29, 2017 at 09:39 am
"The other three division teams have or are building defenses fans!! Sorry to be so negative, just speaking from what I've visually been seeing."
Yeah, that 27th-ranked Detroit defense--behind the Packers in yd/game and pt/game--is a killer. I'm in a Lions market and I've been watching it all season.
DD
December 29, 2017 at 09:51 am
Bobber: Your stats are misleading. The Packers rank 32nd in situational defense!! I take it you know what situational defense is? So if lions are worse defensively we should then win in Detroit based on your comment? May want to watch more closely.
JohnnyLogan
December 29, 2017 at 10:23 am
Gilbert was one of the 3 best players I saw in spring. He didn't get a chance, not one chance, til last week. That's what we're dealing with in Green Bay. Practice means nothing to McCarthy and Capers. We're crapping the bed week after week and they don't want to see what we've got in reserve. I'd play Callahan. He looked better than Hundley and I believe he is. Hundley's not an NFL Qb, not even a backup. The gum is there to try to quiet his nerves. Doesn't work.
lou
December 29, 2017 at 10:40 am
Here is what everyone including the Packers decision makers have missed, we could have brought back Flynn two years ago at the vets minimum and kept him in the #2 role like we did year after year with Pedersen behind Favre. At 32 we could still do this for several more years knowing we had someone who could hold the fort as he did before if Rodgers goes down. WHY WASN'T THIS CONSIDERED ?????