Skip to content

McCarthy says Packers content without a veteran backup quarterback

B+J+Coleman+Chattanooga+v+Nebraska+_n9qNPWbbs7l Getty Images

Shortly after the Browns drafted Brandon Weeden, reports surfaced that the Packers were interested in trading for Colt McCoy to serve as a backup to Aaron Rodgers.

Nothing came of it before the end of the draft, although McCoy’s future in Cleveland certainly remains in some doubt. The Packers went on to draft B.J. Coleman from Tennessee-Chattanooga in the seventh round and coach Mike McCarthy said that the team doesn’t feel a need to go after a veteran backup.

“I don’t think you just say, ‘Hey, I need a veteran backup,’ ” McCarthy said, via Bob McGinn of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “We have the MVP in Aaron Rodgers as our No. 1, and I feel like we have really three candidates to compete for two spots or possibly three. The roster will shake that out. It’s our job as coaches to make sure they’re trained and they’re ready to go, regardless of how many years of experience they have.”

There are plenty of veterans available on the market, although no one that would make you think all would be well if something happened to Rodgers.

Coleman joins Graham Harrell and Nick Hill on the depth chart behind Rodgers. Harrell has spent 12 games on the active roster over the last two years without playing in a game and Hill is an Arena Football League vet. That’s not a lot of experience behind Rodgers, but Matt Flynn didn’t have much more before getting thrown into the fire in 2010.

That worked out well enough for the Packers to feel comfortable about trying again.

Permalink 19 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill
19 Responses to “McCarthy says Packers content without a veteran backup quarterback”
  1. kathyisintheroom says: Apr 29, 2012 11:02 AM

    “McCarthy says Packers content without a veteran backup quarterback”

    ****************************************

    Bill Polian thought the same thing.
    Look what happened to the Colts.
    And look what happened to Bill Polian.

    Maybe McCarthy wants the #1 pick next draft???

  2. ShimSham says: Apr 29, 2012 11:04 AM

    They haven’t had a real veteran backup QB for many years, it seems to have worked out okay for them.

  3. noeffinway says: Apr 29, 2012 11:36 AM

    Seems like an odd stance to take especially when you have proven vets out there, like Favre, that are unsigned.

  4. v2the4 says: Apr 29, 2012 11:36 AM

    well, Green Bay has only played three qb’s since 1992, Favre, Rodgers and Flynn…..Favre never missed a game to injury…Rodgers has only missed one game to injury so far, and sat the last game of the 2011, where Flynn threw for 500 yards and six tds vs the Lions..

    Green Bay should have traded for colt mccoy or they better bring a veteran in to back up Rodgers….unless they have that much confidence in Graham Harrell, who put up pinball machine numbers in Mike Leach’s Tx Tech offense…..

    we will soon find out…Green Bay plays all first place teams this year(Giants, 49ers, Saints, and Texans) plus their rivals chicago, detriot and minny

  5. sndmn331 says: Apr 29, 2012 11:52 AM

    I think they’ll be fine with Graham Harrell. I think he’s going to surprise some people.

  6. anarchopurplism says: Apr 29, 2012 11:58 AM

    Superbowl or bust.

    Makes sense to me if I run the Pack.

  7. glowingstone says: Apr 29, 2012 12:32 PM

    I think McCarthy and Ted Thompson have earned the trust of their fan base. If McCarthy says the Pack are good to go, I’ll take their word for it.

  8. desertviking64 says: Apr 29, 2012 12:37 PM

    green bays luck has run out, Rodgers will go down this year with injury.

  9. wisbadgers says: Apr 29, 2012 1:11 PM

    Good point @desertviking64.
    I mean seriously, Rodgers isn’t Christian Ponder. And McCarthy isn’t Fraizer.
    Rodgers and McCarthy are proven winners whereas Ponder and Friazer are…well, the Vikings.

  10. purpleguy says: Apr 29, 2012 1:26 PM

    At some time, the Pack’s luck will run out on the QB health front. We saw what happened to the Bears when a lousy back-up played following Cutler’s injury. The question I have is why risk it when they’ve got a roster with SB talent?

  11. chazzmon says: Apr 29, 2012 1:50 PM

    Curious why the Pack didn’t pick a RB this draft? Running game or lack there of, still seems like weakness.

  12. toolkien says: Apr 29, 2012 2:15 PM

    If only teams could sign a veteran QB when the need arises. Oh wait….

  13. desertviking64 says: Apr 29, 2012 2:31 PM

    @wisbadgers not knocking the honchos, just that statisticly the Packers are due for a QB injury. At one time McCarthy was like Fraiser and not long ago they wanted to run Ted out on a rail.

  14. toolkien says: Apr 29, 2012 2:36 PM

    Curious why the Pack didn’t pick a RB this draft? Running game or lack there of, still seems like weakness.
    —————————–

    Because they scored the second most points in NFL history in 2011? Because defenses can’t hit the QB or receivers? Because they have running backs who can pick up yards when they need them? The Packers are only one to three teams to field Super Bowl caliber teams the last three years in a row just as they are built? Because their washouts in 2009 and 2011 weren’t because of the lack of a running game? There’s enough things keep working, there’s no need to “fix” a low priority for your team.

    Further, if you’re not aware, expected points from the running back position is rock bottom in this day and age. Teams that have nice running games don’t fare all that well anymore. So many people still want to hang on to some notion that a strong defense and a strong running game is the way to go. The NFL simply isn’t built like that anymore. They’ve done their level best to turn it into arena football and they are almost there.

  15. stavreafavre says: Apr 29, 2012 3:31 PM

    It’s a long way to the regular season. If McCarthy doesn’t feel like one of his backups is good enough, there will be time and vet QBs on the street that he can sign. Talk about a non-issue.

  16. borderline1988 says: Apr 29, 2012 3:41 PM

    The concept of backup QB is stupid when you’re at GB’s level.
    The Packers aren’t going anywhere if Rodgers gets injured (for the season); it doesn’t matter who’s next on the depth chart to back him up.

    The only reason why they’d want a backup QB is if Rodgers gets injured for a game or 2, and it would be nice to steal a game with a backup QB. Kind of like when Matt Flynn came out of nowhere for 6 TDs. But you can’t sign a Matt Flynn, you have to get lucky with him.

    The Packers already have a sleeper backup QB.
    Colt McCoy isn’t going to do any better than anyone else they have.

    So let’s shore up the defense instead.

  17. chazzmon says: Apr 29, 2012 4:23 PM

    Good points Mr. Toolkien seems like many backs are around now to pick up blitzes, be the check down safety valve guy, and maybe short yardage situations. The 3 best teams last year (Giants, Pats, & Pack) had no running game to speak of.

  18. teal379 says: Apr 29, 2012 6:00 PM

    Curious – those so quick to say GB’s screwed if Rodgers goes down and that they need a vet back up etc are the same guys stating that Rodgers is just a system QB, that any QB (like Flynn) can come in and produce etc.

    So which is it? Rodgers is an MVP and possible HOF QB and basically irreplacable or he’s a product of a system where anyone can come in and be a super QB?

  19. majikwen says: Apr 29, 2012 7:05 PM

    Colt McCoy will be waived, then sign him to a back-up QB money. If you trade for him you pay him his contract ( which is probably too much, after watching him last year ) as is.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!