Originally Posted by JustinHarrell
I'd like to coin a new phrase - Partially correct.
I'd like to coin a new phrase - Partially correct.
HOFer
Look. Don't you think the "partial bashing" has gone on long enough?
What did he miss? Above average, below average? So, you split the "middle category" to accomodate those. If that's not the problem, then how many "elite" QB's do you think we have? What I read from all of this is that "partial is a fool" because he ranked Rodgers at 12, and several here think he's "top 8". So 4 spots takes you from genius to fool. Yeah.
I really have to laugh. When this whole "debate" started after the season, Partial commented that he saw Rodgers as about "top 12". He got summarily bashed for that. Yet, just a couple pages back in this very thread, his main "basher", said he thought Rodgers was "top 12".
Ironic? You decide.
HOFer
Actually, Partial had ARod around 18 originally, but has changed his tune slightly.
EDIT: I think he said around 18 originally, but I can't verify that. I could find where he said Rodgers was in the 12-17 range. Personally, I don't think that's even the point. It's the constant, ill-informed Rodgers bashing wherever possible that gets old. Since I had to show Partial how to throw a football, I don't take it too seriously though.
Partial bashing has probably gone too far, tis true.
It survives bc it is fun.
LEAVE PARTIAL ALONE!!!!
I bet Vince Young thinks so.
RG, I see a difference between saying his first year he was a top 12 QB and all of the other things Partial says.
Partial says his elite talent made Rodgers what he was last year
Then he says in 2007 that Favre made the offense elite
Partial says the Packers gave up on an average player for a great one
The stats and actions show they gave up a below average old player with a bad attitude for a really good young one with a good attitude.
My problem with Partials take is that he manipulates the evidence one way to prop up the guy he likes while manipulating the evidence the exact opposite way to knock down the guy he doesn’t like.
Using any set of statistical criteria, the evidence shows Rodgers is the better QB right now. Common sense says he’s going to get even better. He’s still making the case that the Packers screwed up in letting Favre go. We’ve put it to vote several times. Partial and a handful of others are the only ones that believe that so of course when he continues to perpetuate that argument you’re going to get a majority that oppose it. Looking at the votes of the past, it’s clear the minority is so small that maybe we’re not bashing but maybe it’s just that extreme and deserves to be called out as such.
Partial only runs into problems where BF and AR get discussed. Short of that he is a solid contributor to the forum. Unfortunately all we have atm is BF and AR stuff.
At some point he will mature (as will others) and admit TT did the right thing last year.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
HOFer
So do I, but I also see that the "other evidence" largely came as defenses to criticism that were taken out of context and applied in ways that were either inappropriate, or against things that he didn't consider. Then those led to other defenses, and those to other, and now there is "so much" material, you guys just pull it, regardless of the context and make point after point.
So, the Greg Jennings of 2007 is the same as the Greg Jennings of 2008? The Donald Drive of 2007 is the same as the Donald Driver of 2008? The Darryn Colledge of 2007 is the same as the Colledge of 2008? Spitz? Clifton? Tauscher? These players either regressed or improved between those year.
At a "base level" what do you say about the Packers offensive talent from 2007 to 2008? You've continually talked about "building from within" and that's the way to do it. Wouldn't an improvement of the talent be expected? Could you say Rodgers would have led the team to 13-3 in 2007? I can't. Could you say Favre would have led the team to 6-10 in 2008? I can't say that either. It might have been better, it might have been worse. But it isn't reasonable to say it'd be the same, is it?
I'm not sure you phrased the 1st sentence correctly. I think you'd maintain that it's the opposite. I'd say that the Packers gave up on a declining great player with limited to zero upside for an unproven player with great upside. We agree, that's what they "should have" done. But, is it really unreasonable to say that we "might" have had a better 2008 with favre? Yes, that has some long term implications, but, if your focus isn't long term is that really unreasonable?
I certainly wouldn't argue the attitude part, Favre has clearly shown us that he isn't the person we thought he was. Well, most of us, anyhow.
And, you and the rest of the band don't do this?
JH, you're a serious homer. You've had the blinders on since day one. Some of your beliefs have been spot on, and some have been downright foolish. You forget the foolish ones and focus on your "hits". You remember all of Partials foolish ones and forget the good.
You maginfy the good and minimize the bad. The OL has stunk for the past 3 years. You think it got a lot better at the end of last year and it's fine now. I'm not so sure. I'm no where near as enamoured with Colledge as most of the "crowd" around here. Does that make me an idiot?
Except for one. Favre has a track record of blowing games, but he also has a track record for finding ways to win. Rodgers doesn't have that.
To effectively compare Rodgers to ANYONE, you need more data than ONE year. Any statistician will tell you that. Any mathematical analysis is inherently flawed right now because there isn't enough data. It's simply flawed. Your belief on the "promise", your belief on the "potential" aren't mathematically viable in a statistical analysis.
You have to factor in "intangible" analysis to state that Rodgers is the better quarterback. 3 years from now if Rodgers "flops" Partial will be right. If he doesn't, you'll be right. Neither of you is "right" today from a statistical viewpoint.
SO WHAT? How do you know it's wrong? It is possible that the Packers would have been a better team in 2008 with Favre leading the offense.
Long term it clearly wasn't, but short term? It might have been. I don't like the impact that having Favre in 2008 would have created in the long term, but we might have sniffed a playoff berth with him? maybe not, but NO ONE knows for certain.
This whole "community vote" thing is ridiculous. Just because 12 believe it and 2 don't doesn't matter. It just makes it easier to "gang up" on someone. That's all it proves. 6-10 ought to prove that you guys aren't geniuses either. Go back and look at the 2008 prediction thread. You're fallible too.
And I agree. Those of us who make an attempt at using our knowledge to predict the future are going to be wrong.
I predicted 9-7 last year because I thought the DL would struggle. I also thought the ST’s would be dominate. I was wrong about the ST’s (VERY VERY wrong) and my prediction suffered. I’ll agree that I am fallible but as wrong as partial consistently? No way.
I’m still going to have opinions. If I believe strongly enough in them, I’ll bet on them. If I’m wrong I’ll admit it. The reason you don’t see anyone ganging up on me is because when I’m wrong, I admit it and move on.
HOFer
Are you sure that knowledge is the correct word? I'd substitute passion for knowledge. There are few and far between on here that have true football "knowledge". Plenty have passion and experience from the fan perspective, Partial included.
I understand why you used the word "knowledge". You wanted to illustrate a level of difference between your analysis and Partials. I actually see them as similar, just on opposite sides of the issue.
When I think of "knowledge" three names come to mind. Patler, KY and Harvey (I'm confident there are others). Patler is the "best" of the three from my perspective as he has the uncanny ability to separate his passion and enthusiasm for "his team" and discuss issues from a rational perspective. Few of the rest of us can even attempt that. That would, probably by your own admission, not be a skill of yours. Not a skill of mine either.
Again, another "intangible" comment. Would be interesting to "tally" those opinions over the last 4 years and really look at those "predictions". My guess is neither of you would get a passing grade. Nor would I.
You should have opinions, but so should Partial. If your opinions were "scrutinized" and "criticised" as much as his, you'd be gone. I don't think you could take it.
Manning up, hasn't been my experience with you. I don't think you man up about the big stuff. The little stuff? Sure. You aren't ready to throw in the towel on big issues yet.
You've got a bunch of excuses, and rationalizations about the OL still to this day. It stunk over the last 3 years. The improvement is far from a sure thing yet today. Ted's ability to make it "world class"? Today? Clearly in doubt in my mind. A success in yours. Time will tell, won't it?
If it "flops" this year, will we see your "mea culpa" stickied to the top of the forum for a week? Or, like the New York Times, will we find it buried on page 42? Again, time will tell.
The real problem is that Partial will never admit to when he is wrong. In fact to prove he isn't wrong he was willing to argue the definition of "grooming". Until some one quoted him from Websters.
This is funny.
There's an easy way for people to let up on Partial. He should stop repeatedly continuing to be a broken record and repeatedly making ridiculous false assertions and insinuations that Rodgers is a bust - which he clearly is not. He's done it repeatedly in the past and repeatedly been creamed for it. He continues to repeat this activity it at every opportunity - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He repeatedly makes assertions that are quickly and easily incontrovertibly denounced with facts to the contrary, and he repeatedly ignores those facts and repeatedly jumps to another illogical criticism of Rodgers, while repeatedly denigrating those who repeatedly prove him wrong.
In this thread, he didn't say that Rodgers is top 12. He said that the guy who predicted Rodgers to be his big bust for the year is "not far off point." Then when reminded that the guy predicted Rodgers to be his biggest bust of the year, he retorted, "How was he not?"
I'm sure Partial remembers the responses he receives when he continously attacks Rodgers' play at every opening. Yet he continues to do it - repeatedly.
HOFer
So, if I read this right, Partial should just accept "the wisdom" he is being offered from right minded folk like you, right Vince?
This would be the same "right minded folk" who can say based off of ONE season that Rodgers isn't a "bust".
Doesn't it take more than one season to determine that?
Rodgers played a damn good 16 game season last year. That doesn't make a career. Do you think that Culpepper is a better QB than Rodgers? Clearly not, though Viking fans were saying that after his "break out" season a few years back, weren't they? What are they saying now? Hmm. Is Partial receiving "right minded advice" or "kool-aid goggled homerism", or something in-between? I'd say the jury is still out on that, but the information we have today is very favorable. But NOT guaranteed.
Maybe if your advice to Partial wasn't presented as a "sure thing", his wouldn't be presented back to you as the same "sure thing"...Just a thought Vince, do with it what you will.
HOFer
Re-read this Vince. Prove? Really? Proof? Are you sure?
Please explain to me EXACTLY what 16 games "prove"? I really, really don't get that part. You, and others like you are presenting Rodgers career like it is "past tense". It is just beginning, and there is much more that is not known than there is that is "known".
Neither, you, nor Partial, nor JH have "proof". It hasn't been written yet. Not to argue about what you're arguing about anyhow.
I also agree to disagree with your point. THe way I'm looking at it, it was right to move on after Favre becuase Rodgers was ready. IF you stick with Favre 1-2 more years, Rodgers is gone, basically devoloping a Qb for another team at no cost to them, and you have ??? as your own QB. Splitting with Favre early at least stablizes the most important postion for the forseeable future.
HOFer
Couldn't that be said about a lot of folks on your side of the aisle too Dan?
Seriously. Think about that. That's my whole point. Again, you guys talk about Rodgers like it's "past tense". You got 16 games, THAT'S IT.
Are you positive you want to stand on that mountain with 16 games of data? Really?
But just the same, shouldn't Partial give Rodgers more time instead of calling him a "bust" before he even took a snap as a starter? How about giving ARod a chance instead of constantly bashing him and not giving him any credit, but giving him all the blame? This street goes both ways you know.So, if I read this right, Partial should just accept "the wisdom" he is being offered from right minded folk like you, right Vince?
This would be the same "right minded folk" who can say based off of ONE season that Rodgers isn't a "bust".
Doesn't it take more than one season to determine that?
Rodgers played a damn good 16 game season last year. That doesn't make a career. Do you think that Culpepper is a better QB than Rodgers? Clearly not, though Viking fans were saying that after his "break out" season a few years back, weren't they? What are they saying now? Hmm. Is Partial receiving "right minded advice" or "kool-aid goggled homerism", or something in-between? I'd say the jury is still out on that, but the information we have today is very favorable. But NOT guaranteed.
Maybe if your advice to Partial wasn't presented as a "sure thing", his wouldn't be presented back to you as the same "sure thing"...
HOFer
Precisely. Where do you see the vast majority saying that Rodgers might not be a sure thing? You read the same posts by Vince and JH that I did.
Where does it say the jury is still out? How are their posts different from Partials, other than they have the opposite opinion?
What I see is people saying "if Partial shuts up FIRST, then I'll shut up". Am I the only one that sees this as either the funniest thing of the offseason, or 10 five year olds pitching a temper tantrum?
What side of the aisle am I on???Couldn't that be said about a lot of folks on your side of the aisle too Dan?
Seriously. Think about that. That's my whole point. Again, you guys talk about Rodgers like it's "past tense". You got 16 games, THAT'S IT.
Are you positive you want to stand on that mountain with 16 games of data? Really?
I have stated time after time that I am excited about Rodgers' potential future based on his 2008 season. Hell even JH came after me during the year for being too hard on Rodgers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
