NFC North QBs

[HarveyWallbangers]

Choose one for this year.

Long-term, I'd say Rodgers because Kitna is old, Grossman stinks, and it's hard to be sold on Jackson.

[The Leaper]

For just this year? I'd take Kitna.

For the next 5 years? I'd take Rodgers.

[Brohm]

Funny our QB is still probably still best in the North if Farve is truely retired. :lol:

[BF4MVP]

Rodgers

[Freak Out]

Fucking no brainer Harv......Grossman! :lol:

[hoosier]

Rodgers. But I'm going to want a redo if he breaks in spring training or first few games of the season.

[Partial]

Kitna

[Lurker64]

1 and 2 are Rodgers and Kitna in some order. 3 and 4 are the Bears QB and the Vikings QB in some order.

[Freak Out]

Someone should start a poll regarding what game Rogers will get injured in. :lol:

Pre-season?
1-4?
5-8?
9-12?
13-16?
Playoffs?

[Harlan Huckleby]

you got a bad attitude, Freak Out.

I say Favre's consecutive games started record is going down. Arod, new man of steel.

[Lurker64]

Someone should start a poll regarding what game Rogers will get injured in. :lol:

Pre-season?
1-4?
5-8?
9-12?
13-16?
Playoffs?

I'm not sure if it's fair to label Rodgers as being fragile, the statistics do show that non-starting QBs get injured in NFL games with a dramatically higher (per snap) frequency than starting QBs. The theory that it has something to do with not being warmed up properly, or not being in game shape.

[Freak Out]

you got a bad attitude, Freak Out.

I say Favre's consecutive games started record is going down. Arod, new man of steel.

That would work just fine for me Smiley....I think I have a great attitude.....just a little dark humor mixed in.

[Brohm]

Someone should start a poll regarding what game Rogers will get injured in. :lol:

Pre-season?
1-4?
5-8?
9-12?
13-16?
Playoffs?

I'm not sure if it's fair to label Rodgers as being fragile, the statistics do show that non-starting QBs get injured in NFL games with a dramatically higher (per snap) frequency than starting QBs. The theory that it has something to do with not being warmed up properly, or not being in game shape.

I remember that article as well, and it makes a whole lot of sense. We;ll see this year. He will be getting the vast majority of snaps from here on in so "game shape" should not be a problem.

[Bretsky]

bunch of homers

[Freak Out]

bunch of homers

:lol:

So true. But one can dream right?

[Badgerinmaine]

I think the Leaper has it exactly right.

Just to throw a different argument out there: Grossman did look a lot better after he came in to replace Brian Griese than he did before; if he got his head screwed on straight, he could be better than people think (but I sure wouldn't want to have to wait on it for MY team).

And where's our favorite Bears fan in this thread, hmmm...? :P

[HarveyWallbangers]

bunch of homers

Not really. The division is just really weak. TJack hasn't shown me much, Grossman stinks, and Kitna is old and he's not nearly as good as his yardage numbers. More of a dig at the other QBs in the division. It's a pathetic division for QBs.

[b bulldog]

Rodgers

[Rastak]

bunch of homers

Not really. The division is just really weak. TJack hasn't shown me much, Grossman stinks, and Kitna is old and he's not nearly as good as his yardage numbers. More of a dig at the other QBs in the division. It's a pathetic division for QBs.



Now it will be a complete pathetic division of QBs.....



Just kidding Harv. Yea, I'm not overly impressed with any of them. I pretty much know what the deal is with Chicago and Detroit.


Minnesota: Jackson looked god awful for several games despite going 8-4 as a starter. He did look ok in the last half of the last game. Oh boy, how cool is that! (sarcasm). But he has the confidence of his teamates and the coaching staff and has the physical tools. Also, his recieving corps sucked beyond recognition last year. PLUS, a guy with his age and experience in the NFL should be improving at this point. We'll see.


Green Bay: Rodgers is a complete unknown. As you all point out, pre-season means nothing. Coming off the bench means more but not much more. Nobody is game planning for the guy. He is a surprise. So maybe Rodgers will be good, we'll see when he actually starts a few games. He certainly has the pedigree and the time with Green bay's offense to do well. The cards are in his favor.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Not being a homer, but I'd give Rodgers a better chance of being a good QB than Jackson. At least, this year.

First year, I thought ARod looked bad. Second year, he got considerably better. This year, I thought he looked like a young Matt Hasselbeck. It's not about meaningless preseason stats. It's about the types of throws he was completing, his escapability, and his body language. Rodgers had good stats in all three preseasons, but he looked like a different QB this preseason. I think my thoughts were somewhat validated by his play in the Dallas game.

I know Jackson had good stats this preseason, but to me he was completing a bunch of dink and dunk passes. Those are easy to complete--especially in the preseason. The last game of the year was the first time ever that I thought Jackson looked like a potential good starting QB, but that was in a meaningless game for both teams--a game in which both teams appeared to mail it in.

[Rastak]

Not being a homer, but I'd give Rodgers a better chance of being a good QB than Jackson. At least, this year.

First year, I thought ARod looked bad. Second year, he got considerably better. This year, I thought he looked like a young Matt Hasselbeck. It's not about meaningless preseason stats. It's about the types of throws he was completing, his escapability, and his body language. Rodgers had good stats in all three preseasons, but he looked like a different QB this preseason. I think my thoughts were somewhat validated by his play in the Dallas game.

I know Jackson had good stats this preseason, but to me he was completing a bunch of dink and dunk passes. Those are easy to complete--especially in the preseason. The last game of the year was the first time ever that I thought Jackson looked like a potential good starting QB, but that was in a meaningless game for both teams--a game in which both teams appeared to mail it in.


I hear ya Harv, and you might be right....but Rodgers looked good in what starts? He doesn't have any. That's the real unknown. You and I know pre-season doesn't mean shit, despite what we say in August! So I'd say it's a pretty solid unknown for Green Bay going into the first regular season game. If I were you I'd be optomistic. We'll see.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I thought he looked really good in the preseason. Again, not because of his stats, but the type of throws he had to make. To me, it's not about managing the game and not making mistakes in the preseason--which I think is what Jackson did to get his decent preseason ratings. Rodgers made some tough throws that I haven't really seen Jackson make. Then, he played very well in a big game at Dallas--a tough place to play against a tough defense. Their 3-4 defense is tough with the talent they have--especially for a young QB. Jackson went 6 for 19 against Dallas.

Hey, that's my opinion. I didn't say ARod will be good and TJack won't. I've just liked what I've seen from Rodgers more than Jackson. Preseason does help in judging a QB. It helps you determine arm strength, accuracy, escapability, body language, etc. I knew Seattle was getting a good QB when we traded Hasselbeck, and I had absolutely no regular season play to base it on.

[RashanGary]

The best I've seen Arod was in the Cowboy game. He was getting the ball to his playmakers, avoiding rushes, throwing on the run, running for first downs. . .

He took what was there and didn't make mistakes. He looked poised and unaffraid.



He's going to take a year to really get in the swing though. This year will be an exciting year to be a Packer fan. Oh man that will be funny if we go from HOF QB to borderline probolwer and dominate the division for 30 years :lol: :lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Plenty of questions about Rodgers, but he has talent to succeed
By Jeremy Green, Scouts Inc.

Brett Favre's decision to retire was surprising, but now fans must get used to the idea of seeing No. 12 Aaron Rodgers under center for the Green Bay Packers instead of No. 4. But the big question is: What can Green Bay expect from Rodgers?

It's well-documented that Rodgers was a first-round pick in the 2005 draft and he flashed his potential on Nov. 29 when he replaced an injured Favre in Dallas, completing 18 of 26 passes for 201 yards with one touchdown and no interceptions and nearly rallying the Packers to a victory. And those who have watched Rodgers in practice have often come away impressed, but the bottom line is that's not really enough to go on.

One good thing is Rodgers has sat and learned from one of the best. Countless times last season, you could see Favre and Rodgers talking on the sidelines, going over what was happening on the field. There is something to be said for having some time to learn a system and get comfortable without all the pressure. I am a firm believer that QBs who sit, a la Tony Romo, can have great success because they did not have to learn on the go and could ease their way into the transition of playing in the NFL.

There is no question about Rodgers' physical tools. At 6-foot-2, 223 pounds, Rodgers has excellent size, a big-time arm and can make all the throws within the Packers' offense. He's mobile enough, but not creative, and right now, it's hard to tell if the imagination and creativity are there. He seems very regimented. For example, in that Dallas game Rodgers was very stiff and methodical with his reads. There was no improvisation. His performance was very mechanical.

Also using that Dallas game as the guide, the offense changed when Rodgers replaced Favre. It became a more conservative, West Coast-style offense. It worked in that game against Dallas, but can the Packers survive without the big play? Favre threw 79- and 82-yard TD passes to beat Denver last year. Without those, the Packers would have lost that game. Now they have to find out if Rodgers can throw the deep ball. Favre made so many big plays out of nothing that helped the Packers win. Can Rodgers do that?

Among other concerns are that Rodgers hasn't had success on a consistent basis and is prone to injury for a guy who doesn't play that much. And you also wonder if the newfound running attack the Packers featured last year can succeed with Rodgers at QB. Yes, the offensive line is one of the best in the league and RB Ryan Grant runs well in Green Bay's zone-blocking scheme, but for the first time in 18 years, the Packers will have to run against an eight-man front. No one dared put eight in the box against Favre because he was too good, too smart. Now we'll discover if the Packers can run against that defense because that's what Rodgers will face until he proves he can be a consistent NFL quarterback. And we may not learn if he can handle that defense until the regular season because that's not something opposing teams will show him in the preseason. They'll save that and make him prove himself when the games count.

That said, this team is talented enough to win against an eight-man front. The offensive line is quick and athletic, though a little older at the tackle spots. And facing an eight-man front may open up some things in the passing game with Greg Jennings and Donald Driver seeing more single coverage. But Rodgers will have to prove he can make the plays.

Expect to see the Packers focus more on establishing the run. They won't have the mind-set that if they can't run, they'll throw the ball 40 times. You can do that with Favre. You can't with Rodgers. Green Bay will become a more old-school, West Coast offense team. There will be more three-step drops. More quick passes. The focus will change from Favre making his receivers better to the Green Bay receivers now needing to make plays to make Rodgers better.

Rodgers' success is also critical to the Packers' defense. While some may point to the fact Favre made turnovers that put the defense in bad spots, it's hard to think that Rodgers won't make some mistakes as well. What the Packers can't afford is for Rodgers not to be able to move the offense and regularly have three-and-outs that leave the defense on the field too long.

It will take awhile for the Packers to replace Favre's leadership. He didn't just lead the offense. He led the team. Every one of those players followed and fed off Favre. Short of Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, there isn't any other player who is his team's unquestioned leader like Favre was in Green Bay. Finding a new leader will be a process.

But for now, Green Bay is Rodgers' team. No questions asked. The Packers, after all, still are a playoff team and still have high hopes for 2008. They need to bring in an experienced backup, but not someone to challenge Rodgers for the job. There's enough pressure on him. He doesn't need to be in a QB battle. A guy like Kelly Holcomb or Gus Frerotte would be a good fit to come in as they both understand the West Coast offense, are smart players and could help Rodgers. The Packers will also likely draft a QB in the second day of the draft. Again, he wouldn't be someone to challenge Rodgers, but they do need to add a guy to develop if Rodgers is not the guy.

Favre will always be remembered as one of the top five QBs in NFL history. Rodgers has big shoes to fill, but I think he will fill them. It will take time because even though he has been in the NFL for several years, you can't translate years into experience. The Packers took a step back Tuesday, but their future remains bright. Aaron Rodgers will never be Brett Favre, but with time to develop, he will be good enough.

Jeremy Green, director of pro scouting for Scouts Inc., has been an NFL scout for more than 10 years.

[Rastak]

I thought Denny Green's kid was thought to be an idiot around here? That's the distinct impression I got for Jeremy as well as all ESPN writers.


:wink:


Well, you have to admit it's true.

[Bretsky]

Not being a homer, but I'd give Rodgers a better chance of being a good QB than Jackson. At least, this year.

First year, I thought ARod looked bad. Second year, he got considerably better. This year, I thought he looked like a young Matt Hasselbeck. It's not about meaningless preseason stats. It's about the types of throws he was completing, his escapability, and his body language. Rodgers had good stats in all three preseasons, but he looked like a different QB this preseason. I think my thoughts were somewhat validated by his play in the Dallas game.

I know Jackson had good stats this preseason, but to me he was completing a bunch of dink and dunk passes. Those are easy to complete--especially in the preseason. The last game of the year was the first time ever that I thought Jackson looked like a potential good starting QB, but that was in a meaningless game for both teams--a game in which both teams appeared to mail it in.

If the question is for this year, the logical answer is Kitna

Not sure if it's right or not but that would seem to be the practical answer all bias aside

[RashanGary]

Hopefully he can be like a stronger armed Jeff Garcia.

[HarveyWallbangers]

If the question is for this year, the logical answer is Kitna

Not sure if it's right or not but that would seem to be the practical answer all bias aside

Kitna threw 18 TDs with 20 picks last year (21 TDs with 22 picks the year before).
Jackson threw 9 TDs with 12 picks.
Grossman threw 4 TDs with 7 picks.

He better be better than these guys. Technically, he's the only starter in the division who threw more TDs than interceptions last year.

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=724776


Two executives in personnel for other National Football League teams said the Packers stand a fighting chance with Rodgers.

The NFC personnel man said he'd take Rodgers over other young quarterbacks such as Cleveland's Derek Anderson, San Francisco's Alex Smith, Arizona's Matt Leinart, Minnesota's Tarvaris Jackson, Buffalo's Trent Edwards and J.P. Losman, the New York Jets' Kellen Clemens, Miami's John Beck and Chicago's Rex Grossman.

The scout said he'd take Denver's Jay Cutler and Tennessee's Vince Young over Rodgers.

"He's probably a top-20 guy," the personnel man said. "Why would they be worried about Rodgers? When he's healthy, he's performed in excellent fashion. The problem is he hasn't played to say he's the guy."

The AFC scout said he'd take Rodgers over Grossman, Jackson and Beck, and that he'd take Anderson, Edwards, Clemens, Cutler, Leinart, Young and Houston's Matt Schaub over Rodgers.

[Badgerinmaine]

That story Harv quoted also had the AFC scout calling Craig Nall worthless...I don't think Nall is a lock for the roster in '08.