This guy looks like a moron now

[RashanGary]

Nothing can be proven beyond doubt. There is enough evidence out there to believe whatever you want to believe. If I want to believe my coffee cup is god, I have that choice. I can give you reasons as to why it's god. You can accept them or deny them, but you cannot prove them.

Resorting to absolute proof is the tactic of someone on the ropes who can no longer present a preponderance of evidence to the jury (everyone but the handful of extremists). Nobody believes you Retail. Nobody believes Partial. Is the common sense view of the jury absolute fact beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope, but it's as close as we're going to get in this "coffee cup is god" world.

As far as keeping a tally, I've suggested a few times to keep a tally. I think we need to start a thread for when people disagree passionately about an issue, it can be tied down and the results can eventually be voted on. By our names, should sit our record and that record will define our relevancy as posters. I'm confident I would perform quite well but open to the possibility that I would fail. You may think you know my strengths. You may think you have me sized up. I look forward to the competition. I'll set something up.

[retailguy]

Nothing can be proven beyond doubt. There is enough evidence out there to believe whatever you want to believe. If I want to believe my coffee cup is god, I have that choice. I can give you reasons as to why it's god. You can accept them or deny them, but you cannot prove them.

Resorting to absolute proof is the tactic of someone on the ropes who can no longer present a preponderance of evidence to the jury (everyone but the handful of extremists). Nobody believes you Retail. Nobody believes Partial. Is the common sense view of the jury absolute fact beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope, but it's as close as we're going to get in this "coffee cup is god" world.

As far as keeping a tally, I've suggested a few times to keep a tally. I think we need to start a thread for when people disagree passionately about an issue, it can be tied down and the results can eventually be voted on. By our names, should sit our record and that record will define our relevancy as posters. I'm confident I would perform quite well but open to the possibility that I would fail. You may think you know my strengths. You may think you have me sized up. I look forward to the competition. I'll set something up.

Nobody believes me? About what exactly?

That I'm excited about Rodgers 2009 season?
That I don't think his career is defined yet?
That I think your viewpoint is the exact reverse of Partials?
That neither of you can be proven correct at this point?

Clue me in Justin. Where am I "unbelievable"? Ask your coffee cup. Maybe it has an "opinion" too.

[cpk1994]

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.

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?

But Partial doesn't stop at "ARod might not be a sure thing", He blamesd ARod for every loss even though the defense blew numerous last minute leads. Partial blames ARod for all the Packers problems despite the defense and special teams going from top 10 to bottom 10. Depsite doing what only one other qB has done in the history and he still says "ARod sucks". It's Partial's refusal to give ARod any credit for anything. T

hen you have in this thread where he agrees with the Fantasy footall guy who said "Aaron Rodgers would be a bust in 2008", which by the cnotext, fantasy football, that the guy was speaking from, he was TOTALLY wrong.

Partial brings it on himself because he is semmingly not willing to accept anything beyond "ARod sucks".

[retailguy]

What side of the aisle am I on???

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.

Partial has stated that he's optimistic about Rodgers and his growth too. Ranking him 12th, (hell, even 12th - 17th as Harvey stated) supports this.

How far off from Partials opinion about Rodgers are you then?

I'm right there with you. I'm cautiously optimistic that we've found "the guy" to replace Favre. I, however, remember Jay Fiedler, who had a pretty good opening season replacing Marino, though, and I know the jury is still out, but it's damn optimistic around here right now.

I think Partial shares that, but if he doesn't, who cares? Let him find out in due time, or let him rub it in if he's right.

[Bossman641]

those who repeatedly prove him wrong.

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 think most people bashing Partial are excited about Rodgers' future based on what we saw this year. Nobody, or at least nobody I've seen, thinks Rodgers is a finished product EXCEPT PARTIAL.

Partial has repeatedly stated that Rodgers is what he is (average or slightly above-average depending on how Partial is feeling that day) and that he probably won't improve much from here.

I don't get your point RG. You seem to say that because Rodgers has only started 16 games we can't label his career a success. Nobody here is trying to do that. Nobody here is analyzing the "unknown," only the known, what we saw this year. The whole Rodgers thing with Partial hasn't been about how good they think he will turn out in the future, only how well he did this year. I think the vast majority of people would say they are still in wait and see mode with Rodgers but are optimistic by what they have seen. Partial appears to be the only one who has already made up his mind regardless of the data and facts provided.

[retailguy]

But Partial doesn't stop at "ARod might not be a sure thing", He blamesd ARod for every loss even though the defense blew numerous last minute leads. Partial blames ARod for all the Packers problems despite the defense and special teams going from top 10 to bottom 10. Depsite doing what only one other qB has done in the history and he still says "ARod sucks". It's Partial's refusal to give ARod any credit for anything. T

hen you have in this thread where he agrees with the Fantasy footall guy who said "Aaron Rodgers would be a bust in 2008", which by the cnotext, fantasy football, that the guy was speaking from, he was TOTALLY wrong.

Partial brings it on himself because he is semmingly not willing to accept anything beyond "ARod sucks".

I see your point CPK, but you don't stop before "ARod is great, either". Truthfully, where do you and the rest of the gang talk about the risks of ARod not improving?

Where do you give any credit whatsoever to the other viewpoint?

You expect Partial to bend his opinion, but, you don't bend yours. Not one bit.

You've both "dug in" on the mountain. Neither of you is willing to give ground, even those of you who know you should.... (on both sides)

Both sides are really ridiculous here. We should all be optimistic and excited about the "potential" that Rodgers has in front of him.

Instead, one side is talking about how "great he already is" and the other side is "talking about how much better he could be". You guys differ on two or three issues and agree on about 15. Yet on and on and on you argue, belittle, criticize, complain, and mock.

It is truly nuts.

[Lurker64]

I would be much more comfortable if the mob were more inclined to attack the stupid things that Partial says (habitually) rather than Partial himself.

[Zool]

Actually you sticking up for another poster this vehemently is kinda nuts.

[cheesner]

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.

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?

Sure it is passionate Packer fans - they see Rodgers as a great Packer in the making and they support him. It takes a bit of NFL acumen to analyze a player, a team, a GM, a coach, etc. Can Rodgers continue his success? I see no reason to think otherwise. I will read any post and consider it carefully and it potentially could sway my opinion. My opinions on issues have changed based upon intelligent debates on this board.

As far as Partials take on things, I don't see much intelligent thought in his posts when it comes to Rodgers. He certainly seems to have an agenda and is in a constant battle to bend or ignore the facts to match his ideas.

This does not make for very informative threads.

Is Aaron Rodgers a perennial pro-bowler at this point? Nope. But he is much farther ahead after one year of starting than most QBs in the history of the NFL. I can't point to a stat like passing yards, or TDs or anything like that, to 'prove' he will be great, just as you can't point to the W/L record to prove that he won't. I can, however, tell you he has some qualities that may make him elite. He has the leadership skills, the athletic ability, intelligence and the dedication that may indeed propel him to the top of NFL QBs. Personally, I am loving the potential and look forward to excellent QB play for the next decade for the Packers.

So for Partial, he could just as well make the same argument for Adrian Peterson. Is he a bust? Could be. He only has 2 seasons under his belt and I am sure there are other players who have performed well for 2 seasons and then failed. But to make that argument, you just look foolish and ignorant.

[retailguy]

I don't get your point RG. You seem to say that because Rodgers has only started 16 games we can't label his career a success. Nobody here is trying to do that. Nobody here is analyzing the "unknown," only the known, what we saw this year. The whole Rodgers thing with Partial hasn't been about how good they think he will turn out in the future, only how well he did this year. I think the vast majority of people would say they are still in wait and see mode with Rodgers but are optimistic by what they have seen. Partial appears to be the only one who has already made up his mind regardless of the data and facts provided.

Bossman, I disagree that "no one" here is trying to label Rodgers a "success". That is the primary way, other than mocking, to "refute" Partials perspective.

These "defenses" are largely presented as follows - "he wildly succeeded this year, so, OF COURSE, he'll succeed next year". Plenty have come into these threads and ranked Rodgers "no lower" than top 8.

How much more of a guarantee do you get than top 8? Hell, at top 15, you've got a damn good QB. Top 8? After one season?

The vitriole on both sides has gotten damned biased. I do think that the Arod lovers have lost just as much reality in their viewpoints as they think Partial has lost.

Is Partial pessimistic? Sure, at times he is. Damned straight. But the other side is equally biased in their homered optimism.

It isn't any different. There's just more of you picking on him, then there are picking on you. That's the ONLY difference.

[retailguy]

Actually you sticking up for another poster this vehemently is kinda nuts.

It is the point of the discussion Zool, not partial. Try to follow along.

(That's my best Tyrone impersonation)... :P

[cpk1994]

I don't get your point RG. You seem to say that because Rodgers has only started 16 games we can't label his career a success. Nobody here is trying to do that. Nobody here is analyzing the "unknown," only the known, what we saw this year. The whole Rodgers thing with Partial hasn't been about how good they think he will turn out in the future, only how well he did this year. I think the vast majority of people would say they are still in wait and see mode with Rodgers but are optimistic by what they have seen. Partial appears to be the only one who has already made up his mind regardless of the data and facts provided.

Bossman, I disagree that "no one" here is trying to label Rodgers a "success". That is the primary way, other than mocking, to "refute" Partials perspective.

These "defenses" are largely presented as follows - "he wildly succeeded this year, so, OF COURSE, he'll succeed next year". Plenty have come into these threads and ranked Rodgers "no lower" than top 8.

How much more of a guarantee do you get than top 8? Hell, at top 15, you've got a damn good QB. Top 8? After one season?

The vitriole on both sides has gotten damned biased. I do think that the Arod lovers have lost just as much reality in their viewpoints as they think Partial has lost.

Is Partial pessimistic? Sure, at times he is. Damned straight. But the other side is equally biased in their homered optimism.

It isn't any different. There's just more of you picking on him, then there are picking on you. That's the ONLY difference.

Labeling Rodgers in the Top 8 does not = guarantee. That's ludicrous. That's where I ranked him based on last year's performace. That changes as his performace changes. And nowhere did ANYONE label ARod as perfect, so speaking for myself I cede that there are risks.

[Bossman641]

I don't get your point RG. You seem to say that because Rodgers has only started 16 games we can't label his career a success. Nobody here is trying to do that. Nobody here is analyzing the "unknown," only the known, what we saw this year. The whole Rodgers thing with Partial hasn't been about how good they think he will turn out in the future, only how well he did this year. I think the vast majority of people would say they are still in wait and see mode with Rodgers but are optimistic by what they have seen. Partial appears to be the only one who has already made up his mind regardless of the data and facts provided.

Bossman, I disagree that "no one" here is trying to label Rodgers a "success". That is the primary way, other than mocking, to "refute" Partials perspective.

These "defenses" are largely presented as follows - "he wildly succeeded this year, so, OF COURSE, he'll succeed next year. Plenty have come into these threads and ranked Rodgers "no lower" than top 8.

How much more of a guarantee do you get than top 8? Hell, at top 15, you've got a damn good QB. Top 8? After one season?

The vitriole on both sides has gotten damned biased. I do thing that the Arod lovers have lost just as much reality in their viewpoints as they think Partial has lost.

Is Partial pessimistic? Sure. Damned straight he is. But the other side is equally biased in their homered optimism.

It isn't any different. There's just more of you picking on him, then there are picking on you. That's the ONLY difference.

We will have to agree to disagree then on how Rodgers is labeled.

Speaking for myself, I do think Rodgers will succeed this year based on last year. I can't think of a reason why he wouldn't, apart from a rash of injuries. The talent around him should be just as good, if not better. He will have more experience and has gotten better every year. I think those are pretty good indicators of future success. Apart from the physical attributes, I've been impressed by his mental make-up as well. He shows up for the OTA's, has taken the other QB's under his wing, takes care of his teammates (as evidenced by taking them to the Derby and having them over for dinner), and takes personal responsibility and says the right things IMO. Until we see any red flags raised, I see no reason not to assume he will continue to improve.

I would love to have an actual discussion of his negatives and reasons why he won't improve but Partial claiming that Rodgers only throws to the sidelines without any stats to back him up or because Partial says so aren't reason enough for me.

[vince]

those who repeatedly prove him wrong.

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 didn't take issue with the general notion that Partial thinks Rodgers is and/or will be "average" over the course of his career, nor did he make that argument in this thread - at least in the beginning. He started out by saying the guy in the original video wasn't far "off point" and that he "didn't say Rodgers would be bad or anything like that." Well actually, that's pretty much EXACTLY what the guy said in the video. He called Rodgers one of his biggest busts of the year. I'd say that's a pretty strong statement that he won't exactly be good. Partial was EXACTLY wrong there, and for the umpteenth time demonstrated that he hears and processes only what he wants to. That's his right, but if you're trying to make sense out of something, I'd say you might want to take it all in first.

Then I took issue with his specific allegations he used to support his written contention that Rodgers was a bust last year.

Partial's argument to support his accusations of Rodgers having been a bust last year was that he racked up his stats in the middle of the field, which clearly implies that Rodgers did not help the team score points.

Well.. how was he not [a bust]? Quarterbacks are ultimately judged on wins and losses, not pretty stats in the middle of the field.

That's wrong. There is no other way to say it EXACTLY. Only three quarterbacks in the league threw for more touchdowns than Rodgers did last year, and his efficiency in the red zone was far better than his efficiency outside of the red zone. He excelled in that area. His accusation in his attempt to support his repeated opinion is, was and always will be FALSE. EXACTLY.

He then proceeded to ignore that point and move on to others in the apparent hope they would stick, which others reputed as well.

When Partial stops making statements and ignoring facts which prove one of his positions wrong, he will probably stop getting ripped as hard as he does. He just goes on and on talking out of both sides of his mouth depending on which side supports his prestated position and rarely if ever acknowledges any arguments contrary to his own. One post he says you can't look at stats to judge performance, and the next he throws stats all over the place and gleefully pronounces himself victorious in some debate contest. Then he continues to spew illogical arguments in a seemingly never-ending attempt to find every opportunity to attempt to make his points. Again and again and again and again and again and again.

[LEWCWA]

I think many of you miss the point here. Thing is the Packers probably made the right decision. My only concern is if the Packers suck or are mediocre for the next 5 years, I would have rather watched Favre for 1 or 2 more years...Brett is a once in a generation type player and I will never get enough of watching him play. I hope Rodgers leads this team to a superbowl and "great success", but chances are he will end his career as an average to slightly above average quarterback for one reason or another and we will have missed out on Favre finishing his career here for us.

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.

Maybe, Maybe not! Rodgers looks like he should be a very capable QB, but we know nothing. Cutler has looked pretty good-his team gave up on him. Someone mentioned Mirer in here somewhere. He looked real good his rookie year and well ended up sucking, Culpepper looked like he was on the verge of great things and well we know his story, Carson Palmer has looked great at points and well he isn't amounting to much, Marc Bulger looked to be very good and has done very little. This is my whole point, the QB position and the NFL has a way of chewing up and spitting out talented players very quickly. Rodgers could be a journeyman QB, an avg. QB, a slightly better than avg. QB, or a great QB. My opinion right now is that he has a shot and that is all you can ask for. My experience watching NFL football has shown that most fall by the wayside and very few live up to expectations. Thats just the nature of the beast! I would say Rodgers has a better chance of being "Jake the snake" than Peyton Manning! Nothing wrong with "Jake the snake's" career, but personally I would rather watch Brett for 2 years than Jake for 6! I am in now way saying Rodgers will end like this for sure, but like I said more do than don't.

[RashanGary]

LEWCWA makes solid points. Again, I don't agree but at least it makes sense and is backed up with truths.

I think QB's in winning situations tend to look better. Jake the Snake (had he had the #1 defense, #1 ST's and #1 surrounding talent on offense) may have been able to get a SB too. It's tough when you're never on a SB caliber team.

I think some of the things Favre has done are amazing (the consecutive starts record, the long career, etc. . )

I don't buy into the hype that great QB's make great teams. I don't buy that Brett brought us a SB. I think it's the other way around. I think a good, stable QB (Aikman, Starr) can win more SB's than spectacular but inconsistent QB's (Favre, Cutler). I especially believe it if the surrounding team is better with the stable QB.

I'm not here go get in a huge fight about it. If anyone wants to disagree with what I said, great. Do it. Anyone who wants to make it into a big fight, I will not respond.

[PlantPage55]

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 agree. Partial has some awesome insight on most things. I find myself agreeing with him on most things. I just can't figure out how he can miss on this particular topic so badly.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Actually you sticking up for another poster this vehemently is kinda nuts.

It is the point of the discussion Zool, not partial. Try to follow along.

(That's my best Tyrone impersonation)... :P

Actually, you should try and follow along.

The guy in the video said Arod would be a bust in 08, and it was in relation to Fantasy.

The guy was wrong. There is no argument.

What about that don't you get? Arod was not a bust.

Partial makes ridiculous statements, and is getting called on it.

You, yourself, have stated that the oline was bad the past 3 years...partial thinks the line is good.

Partial thinks we have "unbelievable talent" on offense. We have "phenomenal" receivers.

Partial has said that Arod's success was due to this talent and compared his success to Randall Cunningham's...that he was a journeyman until he got great receivers (blue chip), Moss, etc. This is factually incorrect.

Cunningham was first a pro bowler in 88, with such a rookie Cris Carter catching 39 and rookie pro bowler TE Keith Jackson catching 81. No other receiver had more than 22.

In 89: leading receiver was FB Byars, Jackson had 63, and Carter had 45. No other receiver even had 20 catches. Yet, Cunningham was pro bowl.

In 90: leading receiver was FB Byars, jackson had 50, and 23 and 24 year old receivers Fred Barnett and Cal Williams had 37 and 36. Carter didn't play for the eagles. So, another pro bowl year without blue chip receivers.

Do i really care about Cunningham. No. But, this is the type of BS that he lays down to support his arguments.

Yet, if last year's pack had unbelievable talent that made Arod...shouldn't we then say the same thing about Brett? Especially during the SB run(s)? If last year's rost had unbelievable talent what would we call a crew that consisted of Chewy, Jackson, Brooks, Free, Rison, Edgar, Dorsey, Desmond?

Would ANYONE ON THIS BOARD SAY THAT THE SB TEAMS HAD WORSE TALENT THAN LAST YEAR'S TEAM. Come forward, please.

No. That would be because of Brett. You can't use that criteria on Brett.

It is Partials flopping and moving criteria that gets him in trouble.

Stats are used to support a position, but only when it suites him. QB rating means nothing...wins and losses are what defines a QB, cept when he doesn't want it to....clearly Rex Grossman led his team to the SB...he must be a great QB...nope, look at his stats.

[falco]

uh oh, kool aid man is on his high horse again

[Tyrone Bigguns]

uh oh, kool aid man is on his high horse again

Are you suggesting at some point in time he dismounted?