Skip to content

Packers cut B.J. Coleman, Aaron Rodgers currently has no backup

B.J. Coleman Getty Images

And then there was one: Aaron Rodgers is the only quarterback on the Packers’ 53-man roster.

The Packers released quarterback B.J. Coleman, the Green Bay Press-Gazette reports. With the Packers having previously released Graham Harrell and Vince Young, they’re now down to only Rodgers on the 53-man roster. Quarterback Scott Tolzien is on the practice squad.

Green Bay obviously isn’t going to go into Week One against the 49ers with Rodgers as their only quarterback suited up, so they must be planning to sign some other quarterback who was let go by some other team in the last few days.

A 2012 seventh-round draft pick, Coleman did not play particularly well during the preseason, so it isn’t a huge surprise that he has been released. But it does remain an open question what would happen to the Packers’ offense if Rodgers were to suffer an injury. Whoever Rodgers’ backup is, he’s not on the Packers’ roster right now, and the season opener is six days away.

UPDATE 10:10 a.m. ET: The Packers have signed Seneca Wallace to back up Rodgers.

Permalink 38 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Green Bay Packers, Rumor Mill
38 Responses to “Packers cut B.J. Coleman, Aaron Rodgers currently has no backup”
  1. doall24 says: Sep 2, 2013 9:57 AM

    ted thompson is definately up to something. look for something, a trade or a pickup in the works.

  2. Rick Spielman is a Magician says: Sep 2, 2013 10:00 AM

    Well, at least they have a plan.

  3. leftygun says: Sep 2, 2013 10:00 AM

    Trade for Kellen Moore

  4. Rick Spielman is a Magician says: Sep 2, 2013 10:00 AM

    I think they were hoping the Vikings would release Joe Webb.

  5. trollhammer20 says: Sep 2, 2013 10:02 AM

    Brady Quinn.

  6. mrengmano says: Sep 2, 2013 10:02 AM

    Clausen is coming to town

  7. zipnyc says: Sep 2, 2013 10:04 AM

    It’s very surprising that the Packers find themselves in this situation. Not having a back up QB one week before the opener demonstrates poor personnel management by the front office.

  8. dlbpatsfan says: Sep 2, 2013 10:04 AM

    Title scared me for a moment, all I seen was “Packers cut BJ Coleman, Aaron Rodgers…”

  9. kansacity88 says: Sep 2, 2013 10:04 AM

    Russian roulette must be a popular game up in Green Bay!

  10. cobibones13 says: Sep 2, 2013 10:05 AM

    Tebow Time

  11. redskinsroost says: Sep 2, 2013 10:05 AM

    #1 to Washington for Cousins.

  12. vgferenzi says: Sep 2, 2013 10:06 AM

    They now have aka Seneca Wallace a.k.a. Vince Young without the potential!

  13. Norseman says: Sep 2, 2013 10:08 AM

    Why bother with a backup QB anyway. If #12 goes down, the Packers are done. Period.

  14. yarda4 says: Sep 2, 2013 10:09 AM

    flynn back to green bay?

  15. coltzfan166 says: Sep 2, 2013 10:12 AM

    Tebow

  16. brenenostler says: Sep 2, 2013 10:16 AM

    They’re gonna say they should have brought in VY earlier but then sign Seneca Wallace now? He’s in a worse boat now than VY would be.

  17. jrocknstuff says: Sep 2, 2013 10:21 AM

    Tebow is available ;-)

  18. beerbratscheese says: Sep 2, 2013 10:22 AM

    They brought in Seneca Wallace. It’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for ‘em.

  19. seandconner says: Sep 2, 2013 10:25 AM

    WTH is going on up in Green Bay? Unless they are bringing back VY I can’t see who they would bring in that would get up to speed fast enough for the start of the season. Maybe Favre is the unofficial secret backup lol. I am kidding so limit the thumbs down. Again, am I missing something as to the plan that TT has for this team because I just don’t see it other than the VY scenario

  20. aldante66 says: Sep 2, 2013 10:30 AM

    Not a BJ Coleman fan but when I read the headlines I had to think WTWTWTWT WTF………?

  21. pickleweedpaul says: Sep 2, 2013 10:31 AM

    They’re gonna say they should have brought in VY earlier but then sign Seneca Wallace now? He’s in a worse boat now than VY would be.

    _______________________________

    Insiders say that Vince Young was unable to make real progress learning the offense. Apparently they think Wallace has a better chance.

  22. trollhammer20 says: Sep 2, 2013 10:53 AM

    Wallace is Vince Young, but without the propensity to throw those soul-crushing, back-breaking INTs.

  23. thegonz13 says: Sep 2, 2013 11:06 AM

    They should have cut him earlier and kept Vince Young instead.

    “Because it’s all part of the plan…”

  24. biercamp77 says: Sep 2, 2013 11:06 AM

    it is either Tebow or bringing Young back. My bet is Young he at least knows some of the plays and has played more in the NFL.

  25. dmc31400 says: Sep 2, 2013 11:07 AM

    Brady Quinn

  26. tkuchelmeister says: Sep 2, 2013 11:10 AM

    So-o-o-o-o you get rid of all your backups, then try to find someone who could step in if Rogers goes down? Any bets Rogers gets hurt first game and is out for the season??? No back up with ANY knowledge of the system in place. Geeee’s

  27. crappygovernment says: Sep 2, 2013 11:14 AM

    Tebow!

  28. nydemocrats says: Sep 2, 2013 11:23 AM

    TT has got his weinie caught in his zipper. This is the season when all those past memories will go away and everyone will realize that he just got lucky and is not an NFL Guru.

  29. hdburcham says: Sep 2, 2013 11:32 AM

    Green Bay you need Tebow!!! He has the ability to win and win big!! HE ALSO CAN BRING A LOT OF MONEY TO A TEAM WITH HIS FOLLOWING!! SIGN HIM!!

  30. trapshoot says: Sep 2, 2013 11:34 AM

    Why him? Brady Quinn would be better.

  31. poolplayer8698 says: Sep 2, 2013 11:36 AM

    Why morons always say if Rodgers goes down GB is done?? I can name 20 teams just off the top of my head that if the starter goes down they are screwed….

  32. crappygovernment says: Sep 2, 2013 11:54 AM

    It feels like Gaza if we can’t watch Tebow play QB!

  33. larry1957 says: Sep 2, 2013 12:14 PM

    Hahaha…they sign Seneca Wallace. A Drama Queen for the locker room. Just what the Pack needs. I’m a Bears fan. I don’t want to see Rodgers hurt. But hey, if he goes down with a hangnail, well maybe Tebow might be called

  34. crappygovernment says: Sep 2, 2013 1:04 PM

    Would Israel treat its favorite athlete this way? Probably not!

  35. rtothel says: Sep 2, 2013 3:02 PM

    This is overconfidence at its worst. Whoever they bring onto the team, this late in the preseason, still has to learn the playbook. And now that Coleman is gone, if Rodgers gets injured on his first snap, what plays is the new quarterback gonna run? Is he gonna draw plays in the dirt? This is just CRAZY. Big, BIG mistake. They should have kept Vince until they found another backup and got him familiar with the playbook!

  36. arjaysomer says: Sep 2, 2013 3:49 PM

    It behooves the Green Bay Packers to look at Tebow as a backup quarterback. A fast learner, he is in ideal candidate for Aaron’s backup. Go ahead Packers. You’ll never regret it.

  37. donsjohnson says: Sep 2, 2013 5:11 PM

    Norseman says: Sep 2, 2013 10:08 AM

    Why bother with a backup QB anyway. If #12 goes down, the Packers are done. Period.
    ——

    In terms of contending for the Lombardi trophy, yes, you’re right. But such is the case with almost every team in the league, given the conditions for league-wide parity (e.g., salary cap) which have made it such a popular sport.

    But here’s the difference:

    If some teams had lost their starting rb, like the Packers just did, losing DuJuan Harris for the season, it certainly doesn’t help their chances, but they still aren’t totally out of contention as long as they have Rodgers behind center.

    Yet if your Vikings lose Adrian Peterson, then even with your starting QB your season is most definitely done. But then again, as long as you have the QB you do, your season is “done” even with Adrian Peterson, that is, at least, in terms of seriously contending for the Lombardi Trophy, as distinct from trying to beat the Packers once a year (= your Super Bowl). How bout dem apples?

    P.S.: Given you’re a Vikings fan, I shouldn’t assume you know what a “Lombardi Trophy” is. Fyi, it’s the trophy awarded to a team which actually wins a Super Bowl, as distinct from losing a Super Bowl (and/or losing multiple ones), or winning the Division championship, or having the #1 rated running back in the league, or the rare occurrence of beating their division rival once a year, etc., etc.

  38. thesconnienation says: Sep 3, 2013 10:23 AM

    Worth a re-post.

    In terms of contending for the Lombardi trophy, yes, you’re right. But such is the case with almost every team in the league, given the conditions for league-wide parity (e.g., salary cap) which have made it such a popular sport.

    But here’s the difference:

    If some teams had lost their starting rb, like the Packers just did, losing DuJuan Harris for the season, it certainly doesn’t help their chances, but they still aren’t totally out of contention as long as they have Rodgers behind center.

    Yet if your Vikings lose Adrian Peterson, then even with your starting QB your season is most definitely done. But then again, as long as you have the QB you do, your season is “done” even with Adrian Peterson, that is, at least, in terms of seriously contending for the Lombardi Trophy, as distinct from trying to beat the Packers once a year (= your Super Bowl). How bout dem apples?

    P.S.: Given you’re a Vikings fan, I shouldn’t assume you know what a “Lombardi Trophy” is. Fyi, it’s the trophy awarded to a team which actually wins a Super Bowl, as distinct from losing a Super Bowl (and/or losing multiple ones), or winning the Division championship, or having the #1 rated running back in the league, or the rare occurrence of beating their division rival once a year, etc., etc.

Leave a Reply

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