Even if an injured Aaron Rodgers becomes a "liabilty" on the field, the "alternative" is worse

As a  Packer fan who has stood by the team from the beginning—meaning since the bad old post-Lombardi years—there were only the rare moments of civic pride: the unforgettable 48-47 MNF win over the Redskins in 1983 that I viewed a week before I was shipped off to another 2-year “tour” of Germany when I was in the Army (it’s the only non-Favre game in the Packers’ Greatest Games DVD set), and kicker Chester Marcol catching and running in his own blocked field goal attempt for the winning touchdown against the Bears in 1980 (although coach Bart Starr was so incensed that he missed the chip-shot attempt that Marcol—who admitted he was high on cocaine on that play—was cut by the team four weeks later). But there was little else other than “hope”; Lynn Dickey was exciting to watch (if only because he was an even more high anxiety-inducing gunslinger than Favre ever was—or at least when he was ambulatory, which was rare), and Don Majkowski had that one “majic” season.  

But since 1992 the Packers have been expected to be at least playoff contenders every year, and anything less is considered a failed season. This season, like all the previous seasons figured to be a successful season behind a healthy Aaron Rodgers, reunited with the offensive coordinator (Joe Philbin) during the team’s most successful seasons in the Mike McCarthy/Rodgers era. The preseason betting line favored the Packers in 12 of 16 games this season, and three of their four projected losses (on the road against the Vikings, Seahawks and Rams) were close enough to be “pick-ems.” But the Packers have a problem that for some reason they have refused to solve since 2014: what to do if Rodgers is injured or only functioning 75 percent or less as he has been in the past two games. It was clear in this week’s loss to the Redskins’ that his mobility and overall play was getting worse as the game went on. After falling behind 28-10 at halftime in a game they were “projected” to win, there was no comeback special in the works, despite a touchdown drive in the first series of the second half and the Redskins offense doing little; Alex Smith threw for only six yards in the second half as the Redskins were held to just 3 points, yet the Packers could muster just that one score. 

According to my count, only 5 of Rodgers almost 30 pass attempts in the second half covered at least 10 yards of forward progress (not including a pass play that was actually a net loss due to a penalty). But if Rodgers is not playing, then what? He can still keep the team in the game as a pocket passer when he’s at least as ambulatory as the latter-day George Foreman, who could stand in one place and still knock unconscious George Cooney. But what if he doesn’t have a puncher’s chance to stay in the game? The Packers are still incomprehensibly relying on a backup quarterback whose “experience” does not inspire confidence. Yeah, Terry Bradshaw was awful for years and then quarterbacked four Super Bowl teams, and Jim Plunkett quarterbacked two Super Bowl-winning teams for the Raiders. But would anyone even put Deshone Kizer in the same “league” as Plunkett? Who was the last quarterback produced by Notre Dame who made a dent in the NFL? Some guy named Montana? While Matt Flynn at least had the pedigree of a national championship quarterbacking LSU, McCarthy decided to dump him in favor of a prospect (Brett Hundley) whose NFL-readiness draft experts were universally skeptical of, and as we saw last season, McCarthy could do little to mitigate the flaws in Hundley’s “game.” Why-oh-why didn’t the Packers bring in a veteran with proven ability—or keep the one they had?  With Rodgers becoming close to a liability on the field, the alternative is, unfortunately, much worse.