What sucks is not Rodgers, what sucks is whenever someone argues against an idea that is unpopular it turns into an emotional conversation with exaggerated attack rather than staying objective and about the topic. I don't remember anytime saying I wanted anyone to concede that Rodgers sucks. Rodgers is the second best Qb in the league in my book and is already a top ten QB all time. I'm arguing he's not better than Tom Brady and thats because he's not.
Draft Brandin Cooks WR OSU!
I could do without the emoting tooOriginally Posted by PaCkFan_n_MD
but you're not the only one posting.
It's hard to argue with Brady being the best, based on the ultimate results, but I still think Cheat would drop him in a nanosecond if he could get Rodgers (because the prospect of Rodgers playing for another 8 years is better than Brady for another few years - and Rodgers has a more accurate ball, both deep and shallow, runs better, and has an iron will when it comes to TOs, etc.)
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
OK, give some examples. People of name and note.A-Rod's lack of clutch, signature moments are obvious to people who analyze qb play.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Funny, when I googled 4th quarter comeback percentages quarterbacks the VERY first article that comes is "Aaron Rodgers Mr. Irrelevant in the 4th quarter"
When I google Aaron Rodgers not clutch An espn article, a sporting news article,(among others) come up regarding the subject. I am kinda lazy so I'm not digging super deep but after the Cincy loss last season A-Rod was 5 out of 29 when he had the ball in the 4th quarter with the Packers trailing by a score or less. The Miami game and the Dallas game were great, but unfortunately those games seem to be the exception. Tony Romo had 5 4th quarter comebacks in the 2012 season alone. Again I just thought this was common knowledge, being mathematical and all.
OK, but that has nothing to do with: "A-Rod's lack of clutch, signature moments are obvious to people who analyze qb play."
Again, cite some people of name and note, who analyze QB play and see what they say about Rodgers' "lack of clutch, signature moments."
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
If writers at espn and sporting news aren't enough, cowherd,dilfer, stephen a, bayless, locally bob mcginn....just off the top of my head. I don't have specific quotes at the moment but i recall it being mentioned. I gave you the math. Google. It is a known concept, not a figment of my imagination. Are you arguing that by NFL standards he has been good in those spots? He hasn't. I kinda feel sorry for some of you guys. It really is denial at this point. He is not the only factor, the quarterback is a huge factor whenever a team fails or succeeds.
Nice straw men. You keep 'winning' these against people and arguments that are pure figments of your imagination. most of the analysis here of Rodgers has been sober and even-handed, looking for the truth - except it seems on your side. Plus, a lot of this has been discus here. I suggest you follow those leads PBmax suggested. How many late leads or ties engineered by a late Rodgers drive were given up by defense or special teams? (Hint, there was one in the last game).
Next, and again: Who are your analysts? If it's some ESPN article, who wrote it? Where's the link? Who of any note was cited, or was it just an ESPN Bob McGinn who wrote it? Did the same guy who wrote it vote for Rodgers for MVP?
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
I hear you, but those guys are idiots. Simply citing his 4th quarter comeback numbers ignores context.
The truth is in the middle - Rodgers has suffered from terrible luck early in his career, and some losses you can blame him for. But he's been much more successful in his late game comebacks as of late.
4th Quarter comebacks actually seem to be the ultimate in arbitrary measures. Who cares how many game you win late versus how many games you win overall?
You want a come from behind QB or a QB who wins 70% of the time by blowing out the opposition in Quarters 1-3?
At best, its one measure of a QB, immensely influenced by the Defense.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Damn but don't we all really want Aaron Rodgers to excel !
I want him to be NFL MVP for two more consecutive seasons just like Brett Favre.
I want him to lead the Packers to back to back Super Bowls just like Brett Favre did but win two more rings.
I want Aaron Rodgers to be awarded the Walter Payton Man Of The Year award.
I want him to be FEDEX NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award winner for the next three seasons.
** Since 2006 3 X Pro Pickem' Champion; 4 X Runner-Up and 3 X 3rd place.
** To download Jesus Loves Me ring tones, you'll need a cell phone mame
** If God doesn't fish, play poker or pull for " the Packers ", exactly what does HE do with his buds?
** Rather than love, money or fame - give me TRUTH: Henry D. Thoreau
well, we got our wish.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
You don't need any numbers other than Tom Brady has 4 game winning drives in the superbowl, 6 super bowl appearances, and 9 AFC title game appearances. What he did in the fourth quarter yesterday was legendary. No matter how much success he has he always wants more and that's I think the key to him being so great. He wants it more than everyone else. Rodgers has been the starter for 7 years. One superbowl, 2 NFC title game appearances. The game against Seattle won't get easier than that ever and he couldn't pull it off. Injured leg or not, he didn't make enough throws when it counted most. Brady almost always does.
Don't want to talk about career achievements fine. Brady beat Seattle with greater pressure on him (losing by ten) and less help from his defense. Rodgers was given 5!!! turnovers...For all the bashing of the defense over the years as whats holding us back from winning more titles you can't blame them ay all this year. This did enough against Dallas and did more than enough against Seattle. Rodgers carried us over Dallas but couldn't against Seattle. Brady carried his team past Baltimore and again against Seattle. He's better...For his career and right now.
Draft Brandin Cooks WR OSU!
No offense, but this is a stupid ass thread. Who cares if we are giving arod a free pass, I am just so thrilled to have him on the packers, I am willing to give him more than one of them....
Would everyone stop getting Favre in my Rodgers thread?
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Rodgers vs. Brady. Who is better?
I have had this debate many times over the last 50 years; only with Bart Starr vs.______ (fill-in the blank).
It's not player stats, or championships won. Its not the quality of the defenses they played with or the relative strengths and weaknesses of the players around them, because they all play with varying levels of each. It's not injuries, because they all have and play with injuries at different times in their careers.
It really comes down to opinions based on watching the players in many, many different situations. How did they perform in those situations?
Bart Starr - having watched him play through out his career, one thing was very clear. No matter what the situation or conditions, no matter what had happened earlier, no matter who he was playing with or against, with the game on the line he was usually at his best. With the game on the line, he found ways to win more often than not. With the most miserable conditions that one could imagine, with the comfort of knowing he already had 4 championships in his pocket, with his team trailing by 3 he found a way to drive the field and score the game-winning TD, not the game-tieing FG.
Team mates have said that no one they ever played with wanted to win more than Bart Starr. I hear much the same about Tom Brady, and have seen the results.
For some players, odd things happen in clutch situations and they win. For others, odd things happen and they lose. Some become better players when the situation becomes tougher; for some, those "odd" things happen and they lose.
Faced with a final drive to win a game, with the pick of any QB I wanted, I would still pick Bart Starr. The drive to win the Ice Bowl was the norm for him. I always "knew" what would happen in those situations. Starr found ways to win, regardless.
My second choice very likely would be Tom Brady, or Joe Montana, or Johnny U.
Rodgers is a great QB. Peyton Manning is a great QB. However, neither has developed a reputation for being "clutch" in the most demanding situations. Have they engineered great comebacks? Of course they have, but they have also been on the field for more than their share of those "odd" situations that resulted in failures. I don't think it is a coincidence.
Oh, and in my opinion, Brett Favre deserves to be grouped with Manning and Rodgers in spite of the great wins he had during the season. I was never comfortable with my thoughts of how he would perform in the playoffs, until he became a Viking. Then I was very comfortable!
God love ya Patler!
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
This may be hard to determine because he was calling the plays, but I am assuming he had to follow his coaches game plan to some extent. If he didn't, I think its safe to assume bart would have been traded to the CFL.
Was Starr's greatest accomplishment getting Lombardi to dump the gameplan and go with what the players on the field (maybe only Starr with some input from offense) saw was working on the field?
Was Starr more John Elway with Dan Reeves than Johnny U with Weeb or Shula?
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
There were varying reports of what was said and done at that final timeout, but the one consistent thread through them all is that Starr told Lombardi what he intended to do and why. Many have said that when an assistant asked what Starr was calling, Lombardi said he had no idea.
The statement that one guy wants to win more than anyone else is mostly hogwash in professional sports. Sure, there may be some guys who can turn it off (Cutler). It's a quality that gains reverence only in retrospect, based on the final results of one player's career. Hell, if I were to bestow that mantle one someone, I'd give it to Jarrett Bush and all of those hardworking less glamorous guys. I'd give it to Butler, the guy who gave Brady's legacy an immediate boost by recognizing a play he got beat on in scout team practice.
Let's not forget that a healthy Rodgers-led team beat a healthy Brady-led team earlier in the season. But that doesn't count now because a couple of plays by bottom-roster players changed the entire narrative about "legacies".
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.
People 'casting the narrative' want to reduce the game to simplicities they can understand and stories that are easier to write. Like the distance runner kicking it in for the win in the final 400 yards. Trying to encapsulate the efforts of (at least) 22 players is confoundingly messy and requires too many brain cells to integrate. It also doesn't make for flashy magazine covers up close camera shots, and commercial spots. Imagine: "Bill Belichick takes his complex schemes with a mix of 3-4 and 4-3 under defensive fronts into Green Bay for a battle with Mike McCarthy's multiple vertical with underneath options and shotgun run audible offense." Or "Brady versus Rodgers!"
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote