Lets keep it real with the "unbelieveable talent" comment. They have good recievers. That's it.Originally Posted by Partial
They have unbelievable talent. With a good QB, the Pats went 18-1 last year and went to the Super bowl. They had slightly better talent at wideout. If they ranked #1, we're still very good and ranked in the top 5. Pats had an unreal combo of blue chip receiver and blue chip QB. This allowed them to throw the ball and dominate. Look at the #s Welker put up as a result. Why didn't he do anything close to that ever in Miami?!?
Blue chip receivers have made average quarterbacks look good quite often. Take a look at the Brad Johnson and Randall Cunningham led Vikes. These guys were journeymen until they had the superstar receiver, then they were pro bowlers.
Is it possible at all that Rodgers play was improved due to the phenomenal receiving corps? I certainly think that it was.
GMen faded last year when Eli was forced to win without his star wideout (who would compete with Driver for the #2 spot on our team).
Despite top 5 offensive talent around him (imo), he still only went 6-10, including two wins against the pathetic Lions. Not so hot.
Their line has been average at best and at times last year was horrible (IMO they were the start of the collapse, but that's a different topic). The Tampa game, the Atlanta game, the second Minnesota game, Rodgers was running for his life the entire game.
Grant's played well at times but nobody is going to confuse our RBs or TE's with probowlers any time soon.
Theres a big difference between having unbelievable talent and having a good recieving corp. I would say that the Cowboys had unbelievable talent on offense. Yet Rodgers had a higher QB rating than Romo. How did that happen?
Reply With Quote