OK, Bob McGinn has some 'splaining to do.
Deadspin spotted something rather interesting regarding the Green Bay Packers at the moment. It has little to do with the actual play on the field and everything to do with the creepy prognosticating going on in The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel by McGinn.
On Saturday, Nov. 2, McGinn posted a column on the eerie subject of Aaron Rodgers going down with injury. The only thing more creepy would be the columnist offering up what might happen had the Packers QB gone down in the first drive of Monday night's game against the Chicago Bears.
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.
Fools will cry that I'm jinxing Rodgers and the Packers by writing about this.
Yes, that is McGinn calling me a fool from the past like some Back to the Future, Matrix Oracle-type stuff right here.
As we know, you never talk about a pitcher in the middle of a no-hitter. Apparently, that well-known rule extends to getting rather chatty about your star quarterback going down.
As ESPN reports, Rodgers went down with an injury to his left, non-throwing shoulder in the first drive of Monday Night's loss to the Bears, 27-20.
All of this is to say, we may have some idea as to how the Packers will do the rest of the season:
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
The Packers are now 5-3, but the gloomy idea that Rodgers would be out for a major portion of the season seems to have been averted.
ESPN's Adam Schefter reports sources revealed a small fracture to the quarterback's collarbone, likely forcing Rodgers to miss three weeks.
For the moment, the Pakers will rely heavily on backup QB Seneca Wallace, an athlete who gets quite the praise from McGinn in the column.
Things were, well, rough for Wallace in his duties as Rodgers' understudy. He was 11-of-19 passing for 114 yards and one interception in the loss.
So what does this all mean? Nothing, because it's pure coincidence.
However, if you do buy into McGinn's ability to jinx or prognosticate, you can savor the last line in his column: "If Aaron Rodgers weren't available, the Packers possess the coaching, the personnel, the chemistry and the backup quarterback to win. Nothing would come easy, but by now this organization should be used to that."
Snark aside, McGinn did cover a great deal of the hypothetical aspects of Wallace under center. In fact, there is an entire section that covers Wallace and how he has been scouted as a starting quarterback in the league.
If you are looking for something wonderfully peculiar, it's the fact that a column posted this past weekend is extremely topical at the moment.
Now, someone ask McGinn for the lottery numbers, quickly.
Hit me up on Twitter: