Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Bob McGinn was in the news this week for his unfortunately-timed article “Packers could win without Aaron Rodgers,” a story that ran two days before the All-Pro quarterback suffered a broken collarbone. Oops.
McGinn tempted fate, writing “Fools will cry that I'm jinxing Rodgers and the Packers” before inadvertently forecasting with stunning accuracy Rodgers’ going down “early Monday night against the Chicago Bears.” Oops.
Somewhat lost in the aftermath of McGinn’s column and Rodgers’ subsequent injury was the point that the Packers will be just fine without the 2011 NFL Most Valuable Player. How is that working out so far anyway?
They certainly weren’t fine against the Bears, who went on to defeat the Pack at Lambeau Field with journeyman Seneca Wallace at the helm. Wallace completed 11 of 19 passes for 114 yards with an interception and no touchdowns in the loss, dropping Green Bay to 5-3 on the season.
Wallace it turns out is one of the reasons McGinn insisted the club would be okay.
They've never had to make do without possibly the finest player in the league. Losing Rodgers to major injury would be the nightmare of all nightmares. He makes everyone's job easier.
Yet, no organization would be better equipped to handle it than Green Bay.
Having spent much of the week researching the long career of No. 2 quarterback Seneca Wallace and the brief career of practice-squad quarterback Scott Tolzien, the guess here is that even if the Packers were to lose Rodgers early Monday night against the Chicago Bears they'd find ways to finish 11-5.
That’s it, that was the crux of the argument. McGinn must not have spent too much of the week researching the long career of Seneca Wallace, because even a cursory glance reveals his record as a starter is 1-8 since 2009, 6-15 all time.
Assuming Rodgers were out for the remainder of the regular season, Wallace would have to go 6-2 the rest of the way to get the Packers to 11 wins. That sounds optimistic for a guy that wasn’t even on an NFL roster last season.
Football Outsiders would seem to agree that’s a tall order. Here’s the entry on Wallace in the 2013 Almanac while he 10th-year veteran was still in camp with the New Orleans Saints, one of three organizations he’s spent time with this year.
Seneca Wallace, NO: Seneca’s appearance in the Big Easy says more about the team’s uneasiness about having Luke McCown as the backup QB than any confidence in Wallace. If either player sees significant time behind center this season, 2013 will be even worse than the 2012 debacle.
With Wallace under center, the Packers are just another one-dimensional offense, the likes of which the Eagles have handled this season. Only two teams have scored more than 21 points against Philadelphia’s defense, and none in the past five games.
Of course, I risk pulling a McGinn by pointing this stuff out. Obviously the answer to the question “Can the Packers beat the Eagles without Aaron Rodgers?” is sure they could.
The Birds will have to sell out to stop Eddie Lacy and Green Bay’s second-ranked ground attack, and even that provides no guarantees. If Wallace can hit on just a couple of big plays to deep threats Jordy Nelson or James Jones, that might be just enough offense to win—especially if bad Nick Foles shows up.
But bad timing aside, this idea that the Packers are anywhere near as formidable without Rodgers in the lineup is absurd. On the contrary, Green Bay is teetering on the brink of disaster right now. The Eagles must take advantage.