It's awfully hard to disagree with any of this. It's certainly hard to argue that the Packers aren't contenders without Aaron Rodgers. But the defensive play in recent weeks makes it impossible to believe they can contend even with Rodgers. Except... the last four weeks the defense has stunk it up is the four games the Packers have played without Rodgers.
I know it's not supposed to be this way, but it appears losing their potential future Hall of Fame quarterback sapped the life of the defensive unit. And I'm sure Mike McCarthy and anybody associated with the team, or with NFL football, would likely laugh that notion off. But I offer this small shred of evidence. The Packers defense played much better against the Vikings once Matt Flynn was inserted at quarterback. Coincidence? Or confidence?