Every time I think about who should be our back up QB, I think about last year, and how the Packers did not have a competent back up when Rodgers was injured. If you're going to keep a guy as the back up he should either be capable of winning games, or have the potential to become a solid QB through coaching and playing time. In either case, this bodes well for the team today, and tomorrow.
Last year, with Hundley, the Packers had neither. They had a guy who certainly wasn't capable of winning now, and offered little to no upside for the future. The real option was probably Taysom Hill.
Why Hill? Totally inexperienced. What's the difference? Putting someone like Hundley on the field, you know you're going to get beat. He's predictable, and quite honestly, not talented enough to show improvement that would make me believe he can be a real field leader. On the other hand, despite his inexperience, Taysom Hill showed at least a flicker of leadership capability, and the raw talent needed to develop at least into a reasonably decent substitute, on a long term basis.
For the Packers to even think they have such a good team, and every other facet of the game so well covered that no matter who is at QB, they'll still win is ridiculous. They are a team that wins solely on the ability of Rodgers to generate enough offense to put points on the board that is higher than that of the opponent. Without him, our production is cut in half, and we're going to lose most of the time.
It makes sense that any back up they have today should be a player with a "hopeful future," not someone who will make you feel doomed the moment he takes the field.
To me, based on what I see so far in camp, I'd keep Rodgers, Kizer, and Boyle on the roster, and quit angling to go with two guys. Who knows? Maybe Boyle has that raw talent to become a #1, and end up being a viable replacement for Rodgers down the road. You just don't know until you give the guy a chance.