If Rodgers Was Playing, Would Packers Still Have Lost to the Eagles Today?

[BusSport]

If Aaron Rodgers was playing, do y'all think the Packers would still have lost to the Eagles today?

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Definitely think the Packers probably would win, but the game has already been played. That's really all there is to it for now.

 

[Southieinnc]

If Aaron Rodgers was playing, do y'all think the Packers would still have lost to the Eagles today?

If the Patriots had not lost so many to injuries, they would be......

"If" in one hand.....

 

[cwood]

If the Patriots had not lost so many to injuries, they would be......

"If" in one hand.....

The Patriots don't even begin to compare to the number of injuries the Packers have suffered.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Who knows, but the Eagles took advantage of this game and they beat a team that is still pretty solid - the gap between Aaron Rodgers and the other Packers QB's isn't even close though, so of course they'd have a much better chance

Packers have to weather the storm and hope they haven't lost too much ground by the time he comes back

 

[broncosmitty]

If Aaron Rodgers was playing, do y'all think the Packers would still have lost to the Eagles today?

In this scenario, would he be playing corner, or quarterback? Or both?

 

[Gooch1034]

I think its safe to say the outcome of the score would have been different had Rodgers been playing.

 

[CarlSr]

I doubt it. The opportunities were there for Green Bay, but the execution was not. Even so, their 3rd string QB, practically off the street, could move the ball against the Eagles defense.

 

[ForkEmBucky]

And you don't think Aaron Rodgers would have executed a back shoulder toss in the endzone better than Scott Tolzien? Call me a homer, I guess.

 

[Jim Rome is Flaming]

Yes, they most likely would have won. Unfortunately for them, they didn't have a capable backup QB. Same thing has happened to the Bears the past 2 years when Cutler went out. And yes, Rodgers is more of a loss than Cutler. But when a team's offensive line allows as much pressure as the Packers line does, they need to have a better backup plan than Seneca Wallace.

 

[ForkEmBucky]

I love that argument. Having a capable backup qb is one of the hardest things to accomplish in football. We had a good situation for a few years. Impossible to maintain unless you find a Charlie Batch out there, who was willing to hang around Pittsburgh for so long and who actually played very well when needed.

 

[wings-pens2166]

I love that argument. Having a capable backup qb is one of the hardest things to accomplish in football. We had a good situation for a few years. Impossible to maintain unless you find a Charlie Batch out there, who was willing to hang around Pittsburgh for so long and who actually played very well when needed.

a bit funny you mention this. I was thinking this exact thought, the Steelers were very fortunate to have a guy like Batch (and Leftwich), yesterday while watching the Philly-GB game.

Of course, maybe given Ben's reckless style of play coupled with a porous O-line, they knew they needed to make sure they had a serviceable backup

 

[The Derski]

No the Packers are 7-2 right now if Rodgers doesn't get injured.

 

[Jim Rome is Flaming]

No the Packers are 7-2 right now if Rodgers doesn't get injured.

A lot of teams could claim better records if they didn't have significant injuries. That doesn't change the fact that injuries happen, and those teams didn't have a capable backup. Same thing happened to the Bears the last 2 years with Cutler, and this year with Cutler, Briggs & Melton.

 

[wiskyisgood12]

Simply put, no.

We have no pass rush, so Foles or Josh McCown last week have time to sit back there and pick apart the defense. The defense doesn't get off the field consistently. The score may have been closer, but the problems are far greater than the starting quarterback being injured

 

[Stevein2012]

GB moved the ball all day with Tolzien and the guy has like no real life game experience ever. Rodgers probably would have shredded that Philly D. Lacy also would have had a bit more room to run because I doubt the Eagles stack the line like that against Rodgers.

 

[Bulldog]

If Aaron Rodgers was playing, do y'all think the Packers would still have lost to the Eagles today?

Woulda coulda shoulda..............Probably not, but he didn't and they did. Let it go it's over and done with.

 

[Stevein2012]

Simply put, no.

We have no pass rush, so Foles or Josh McCown last week have time to sit back there and pick apart the defense. The defense doesn't get off the field consistently. The score may have been closer, but the problems are far greater than the starting quarterback being injured

There are no problems even slightly greater than the difference between Rodgers and Tolzien let alone far greater.

 

[Breaker99]

There are no problems even slightly greater than the difference between Rodgers and Tolzien let alone far greater.

Well there is one other problem. The fact that if one of three players goes down on your roster the season is over.

 

[wiskyisgood12]

There are no problems even slightly greater than the difference between Rodgers and Tolzien let alone far greater.

Let's follow that train of thought. Let's say Rodgers plays and the offense moves the ball as effectively as it did and is able to score more points. Can you realistically tell me that you'd trust the defense to stop the Eagles offense? Offensive Philly was doing whatever they wanted for large chunks of that football game. Philly hit us on some deep passes because there was no pass rush, and the secondary got torched.

Scott Tolzien will never be Aaron Rodgers, but Tolzien was able to move the ball effectively against the Eagles. As concerning as it is to be without Aaron Rodgers, the defense is an even bigger issue. With more practice time with 1's, Scott Tolzien can at least turn himself into an effective quarterback that can get us through these games until Aaron comes back.