Report: Vikes on verge of acquiring Rosenfels

[packers11]

The Houston Chronicle reports that the Vikings are on the verge of acquiring

Sage Rosenfels from the Texans in exchange for a fourth-round pick.
This trade was nearly made last year, but Houston balked when the Vikes offered only a third-round choice. The Texans wanted a second-rounder. Rosenfels, 31 in March, would immediately become the favorite to start in Minnesota if the deal is completed. The aggressive passer is considered a strong fit for the West Coast offense coach Brad Childress runs. Feb. 23 - 1:22 pm et

Source: Houston Chronicle

[packers11]

what the heck is up with teams looking for older veterans and not a QB that can play for the next 10-15 years...

These are short term answers, but will certain teams ever look for a franchise QB... aka (Favre,Manning)?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rosenfels isn't that old, but is he the answer? Maybe. He hasn't looked overwhelmed when he's been in there the last couple of years. Maybe not. As his 30-29 career TD-int ratio shows, he's far from a guarantee to fix their QB problems.

[Zool]

Can you really be worse than a Ferotte/Jackson/Booty trifecta? He's done OK with a fairly crappy line. Maybe with a decent line he'll be average or better.

[red]

the queens are built for a run right now

all they needs is a qb that can come in and win right now

[Guiness]

what the heck is up with teams looking for older veterans and not a QB that can play for the next 10-15 years...

These are short term answers, but will certain teams ever look for a franchise QB... aka (Favre,Manning)?

There are enough cases where 'older' QB's who languished in the league, then done well later. Every year there are a few guys that have that potential, and while most don't pan out there's always the chance the light can go on, and a guy can come in and do well, at least for a couple of years. Remember all the talk about Quinn Gray last year?

The Vikes would obviously continue looking for a 'franchise' guy, but those are few and far between. It's not like you can just pluck one in the next draft.

[packers11]

what the heck is up with teams looking for older veterans and not a QB that can play for the next 10-15 years...

These are short term answers, but will certain teams ever look for a franchise QB... aka (Favre,Manning)?

The Vikes would obviously continue looking for a 'franchise' guy, but those are few and far between. It's not like you can just pluck one in the next draft.

You gotta take a chance on one though.... (mainly in the first round)...

maybe you'll get one, maybe you won't...

Ex: Cutler / Rodgers (recently)

[mission]

I *kinda* agree with Red in that the Vikes might be poised for a run, but I can't help but getting an ugly Brad Childress vision pop into my head and think .... naaaaawww!

Don't think he'll be any better than Frerotte was ... he benefited from having arguably the best WR in the league. Even with this, his stats are nothing to get excited about.

[Fritz]

No wonder the Texans are mired in mediocrity. Last year they coulda had a third for a backup; now they might get a fourth.

[Patler]

No wonder the Texans are mired in mediocrity. Last year they coulda had a third for a backup; now they might get a fourth.

Chances are they will hold off until next year when they can get a 5th! :lol:

[Lurker64]

Anybody who is worried about Minnesota with Rosenfels at the helm is encouraged to watch the first Colts/Texans game of 2008, specifically the last five minutes.

[Fritz]

You're not a Sage man, are you Lurker?

http://www.instantrimshot.com/

[BF4MVP]

I'm glad they're getting Rosenfels. He sucks.

[Fritz]

I don't know why, but that cracked me up.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Several Vikes fans here in Minneapolis are underwhelmed to say the least with this move should it happen.

[Freak Out]

Why the hell not give Booty a shot? Considering how poorly the Dike starting QBs have played the past couple of years they have nothing to lose. Give him the starting slot form the start of training camp and see how he progresses.

[HarveyWallbangers]

"a younger Frerotte"

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-8-110/As-we-chat--Vikings-consider-Rosenfels.html

[TennesseePackerBacker]

I *kinda* agree with Red in that the Vikes might be poised for a run, but I can't help but getting an ugly Brad Childress vision pop into my head and think .... naaaaawww!

Don't think he'll be any better than Frerotte was ... he benefited from having arguably the best WR in the league. Even with this, his stats are nothing to get excited about.

I just don't think the Vikings are much better than a ten win team. Don't forget AP has an injury history and has been relatively free of injury his first two seasons. As horrible as it is to say I think he's due. Their offensive line is aging as is their defensive line. They still have a lot to desire in the secondary. I'm forgetting something......oh wait...a Quarterback!

The team that'll make the biggest jump this year is....the Detroit Lions. Not like I'm going out on a limb or anything but they'll atleast increase their win total by 25%(haha I know). I doubt anyone outside of the Packers next year in the NFC north can expect to win 4 more games next year than they did last.

[Rastak]

I *kinda* agree with Red in that the Vikes might be poised for a run, but I can't help but getting an ugly Brad Childress vision pop into my head and think .... naaaaawww!

Don't think he'll be any better than Frerotte was ... he benefited from having arguably the best WR in the league. Even with this, his stats are nothing to get excited about.

I just don't think the Vikings are much better than a ten win team. Don't forget AP has an injury history and has been relatively free of injury his first two seasons. As horrible as it is to say I think he's due. Their offensive line is aging as is their defensive line. They still have a lot to desire in the secondary. I'm forgetting something......oh wait...a Quarterback!

The team that'll make the biggest jump this year is....the Detroit Lions. Not like I'm going out on a limb or anything but they'll atleast increase their win total by 25%(haha I know). I doubt anyone outside of the Packers next year in the NFC north can expect to win 4 more games next year than they did last.


Tearing a ligament in your knee is fairly injury free?

I'd hate to see injury prone.

[Rastak]

Rosenfels isn't that old, but is he the answer? Maybe. He hasn't looked overwhelmed when he's been in there the last couple of years. Maybe not. As his 30-29 career TD-int ratio shows, he's far from a guarantee to fix their QB problems.


I'm not real thrilled.

For comparison:

1 year with the Vikes:

Frerotte 59.1% completion 2157 yards in 301 attempts 12 TDS 15 INTs

Rosnefels 66.7% completion 1431 yards in 174 attempts 6 TDs 10 INTs.


Picks certainly don't look too good.

[BF4MVP]

I *kinda* agree with Red in that the Vikes might be poised for a run, but I can't help but getting an ugly Brad Childress vision pop into my head and think .... naaaaawww!

Don't think he'll be any better than Frerotte was ... he benefited from having arguably the best WR in the league. Even with this, his stats are nothing to get excited about.

I just don't think the Vikings are much better than a ten win team. Don't forget AP has an injury history and has been relatively free of injury his first two seasons. As horrible as it is to say I think he's due. Their offensive line is aging as is their defensive line. They still have a lot to desire in the secondary. I'm forgetting something......oh wait...a Quarterback!

The team that'll make the biggest jump this year is....the Detroit Lions. Not like I'm going out on a limb or anything but they'll atleast increase their win total by 25%(haha I know). I doubt anyone outside of the Packers next year in the NFC north can expect to win 4 more games next year than they did last.


Tearing a ligament in your knee is fairly injury free?

I'd hate to see injury prone.
Oh, trust me, you don't want to see what injury prone looks like...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pNa8NuQNLPY/SPVsfJtiEpI/AAAAAAAAAOc/qnwd3ccSqr8/s320/Harrell2.jpg

:lol:

[Rastak]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[TennesseePackerBacker]

I *kinda* agree with Red in that the Vikes might be poised for a run, but I can't help but getting an ugly Brad Childress vision pop into my head and think .... naaaaawww!

Don't think he'll be any better than Frerotte was ... he benefited from having arguably the best WR in the league. Even with this, his stats are nothing to get excited about.

I just don't think the Vikings are much better than a ten win team. Don't forget AP has an injury history and has been relatively free of injury his first two seasons. As horrible as it is to say I think he's due. Their offensive line is aging as is their defensive line. They still have a lot to desire in the secondary. I'm forgetting something......oh wait...a Quarterback!

The team that'll make the biggest jump this year is....the Detroit Lions. Not like I'm going out on a limb or anything but they'll atleast increase their win total by 25%(haha I know). I doubt anyone outside of the Packers next year in the NFC north can expect to win 4 more games next year than they did last.


Tearing a ligament in your knee is fairly injury free?

I'd hate to see injury prone.

He only missed 4 games didnt he? And I thought it was only a slight or minor tear. The way he runs he'll miss the majority of a season soon, which I'd hate to see because I think he's the best RB we've seen since Barry Sanders.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I *kinda* agree with Red in that the Vikes might be poised for a run, but I can't help but getting an ugly Brad Childress vision pop into my head and think .... naaaaawww!

Don't think he'll be any better than Frerotte was ... he benefited from having arguably the best WR in the league. Even with this, his stats are nothing to get excited about.

I just don't think the Vikings are much better than a ten win team. Don't forget AP has an injury history and has been relatively free of injury his first two seasons. As horrible as it is to say I think he's due. Their offensive line is aging as is their defensive line. They still have a lot to desire in the secondary. I'm forgetting something......oh wait...a Quarterback!

The team that'll make the biggest jump this year is....the Detroit Lions. Not like I'm going out on a limb or anything but they'll atleast increase their win total by 25%(haha I know). I doubt anyone outside of the Packers next year in the NFC north can expect to win 4 more games next year than they did last.


Tearing a ligament in your knee is fairly injury free?

I'd hate to see injury prone.

He only missed 4 games didnt he? And I thought it was only a slight or minor tear. The way he runs he'll miss the majority of a season soon, which I'd hate to see because I think he's the best RB we've seen since Barry Sanders.


It was a grade 2 tear (3 being a total tear) and fairly significant. I think he was banged up a bit this year too with a hammy issue. He is tough as shit though and plays well injured. A good dose of Chester Taylor has also helped Peterson along the way.

[Lurker64]

Since there are apparently purple fans reading this thread (reasonable, because it's kind of about their squad) I figure I ought to ask you guys something I've been wondering about:

Apparently, according to Peterson he plans on gaining weight without sacrificing speed this offseason, but the team isn't really on board with this. Considering that Peterson is already a big target, takes a lot of hits, and that being heavier just puts more stress on your body, is this at all worrisome? Peterson is already a really punishing runner, but the punishing runners tend to take a lot of abuse. Personally, I'd think that if Peterson is trying to be Brandon Jacobs (the second most valuable RB in the league after Peterson, probably) that's a mistake, but I don't follow this stuff as closely as the purple folks do.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Since there are apparently purple fans reading this thread (reasonable, because it's kind of about their squad) I figure I ought to ask you guys something I've been wondering about:

Apparently, according to Peterson he plans on gaining weight without sacrificing speed this offseason, but the team isn't really on board with this. Considering that Peterson is already a big target, takes a lot of hits, and that being heavier just puts more stress on your body, is this at all worrisome? Peterson is already a really punishing runner, but the punishing runners tend to take a lot of abuse. Personally, I'd think that if Peterson is trying to be Brandon Jacobs (the second most valuable RB in the league after Peterson, probably) that's a mistake, but I don't follow this stuff as closely as the purple folks do.

He seeems to think it will help him in his pass protection and with the wear and tear of an NFL season. The team seems surprised by this. I'm guessing there will be some middle ground found on this issue. Bevell said he looked "skinny" at the pro bowl....whatever that means. I can't imagine he would risk his speed or quickness for bulk so I guess ultimately time will tell. Personally I like the fella just the way he is..... with a solid back to share the load.

[Bossman641]

Since there are apparently purple fans reading this thread (reasonable, because it's kind of about their squad) I figure I ought to ask you guys something I've been wondering about:

Apparently, according to Peterson he plans on gaining weight without sacrificing speed this offseason, but the team isn't really on board with this. Considering that Peterson is already a big target, takes a lot of hits, and that being heavier just puts more stress on your body, is this at all worrisome? Peterson is already a really punishing runner, but the punishing runners tend to take a lot of abuse. Personally, I'd think that if Peterson is trying to be Brandon Jacobs (the second most valuable RB in the league after Peterson, probably) that's a mistake, but I don't follow this stuff as closely as the purple folks do.

He seeems to think it will help him in his pass protection and with the wear and tear of an NFL season. The team seems surprised by this. I'm guessing there will be some middle ground found on this issue. Bevell said he looked "skinny" at the pro bowl....whatever that means. I can't imagine he would risk his speed or quickness for bulk so I guess ultimately time will tell. Personally I like the fella just the way he is..... with a solid back to share the load.

Would bulking up really help his pass protection? I'd guess a guy as physical as AD would have no problem stoning a blitzing LB and that his problem is more technique and recognition.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Since there are apparently purple fans reading this thread (reasonable, because it's kind of about their squad) I figure I ought to ask you guys something I've been wondering about:

Apparently, according to Peterson he plans on gaining weight without sacrificing speed this offseason, but the team isn't really on board with this. Considering that Peterson is already a big target, takes a lot of hits, and that being heavier just puts more stress on your body, is this at all worrisome? Peterson is already a really punishing runner, but the punishing runners tend to take a lot of abuse. Personally, I'd think that if Peterson is trying to be Brandon Jacobs (the second most valuable RB in the league after Peterson, probably) that's a mistake, but I don't follow this stuff as closely as the purple folks do.

He seeems to think it will help him in his pass protection and with the wear and tear of an NFL season. The team seems surprised by this. I'm guessing there will be some middle ground found on this issue. Bevell said he looked "skinny" at the pro bowl....whatever that means. I can't imagine he would risk his speed or quickness for bulk so I guess ultimately time will tell. Personally I like the fella just the way he is..... with a solid back to share the load.

Would bulking up really help his pass protection? I'd guess a guy as physical as AD would have no problem stoning a blitzing LB and that his problem is more technique and recognition.

I've seen him make some really nice blocks and miss on some really bad blocks. He's still young so it's recognition.

[Waldo]

Doesn't help that guys blitzing are looking to beat AD up as much as, if not more than the QB. Comes with being the offense.

LOL @ Sage. Have the Vikes completely given up on having a decent QB?

They should draft Sanchez. He's real popular in LA, it'll help to ease them in. :D

[SnakeLH2006]

Anybody who is worried about Minnesota with Rosenfels at the helm is encouraged to watch the first Colts/Texans game of 2008, specifically the last five minutes.

LMAO!! Agreed. Texan fans are very happy over at the ESPN forums to get something for Sage, as they keep bringing that up. Perhaps Sage was acquired as a hunting partner/water fetcher for Brett as TJack was quoted as saying, "fuck that shit". :lol:

[Rastak]

Since there are apparently purple fans reading this thread (reasonable, because it's kind of about their squad) I figure I ought to ask you guys something I've been wondering about:

Apparently, according to Peterson he plans on gaining weight without sacrificing speed this offseason, but the team isn't really on board with this. Considering that Peterson is already a big target, takes a lot of hits, and that being heavier just puts more stress on your body, is this at all worrisome? Peterson is already a really punishing runner, but the punishing runners tend to take a lot of abuse. Personally, I'd think that if Peterson is trying to be Brandon Jacobs (the second most valuable RB in the league after Peterson, probably) that's a mistake, but I don't follow this stuff as closely as the purple folks do.


Sacrificing speed would be a big mistake in my mind. He'd still be elite but the homerun threat is what keeps 8 in the box and the safety cheating all the time.

[cpk1994]

Doesn't help that guys blitzing are looking to beat AD up as much as, if not more than the QB. Comes with being the offense.

LOL @ Sage. Have the Vikes completely given up on having a decent QB?

They should draft Sanchez. He's real popular in LA, it'll help to ease them in. :DThey are just biding their time until they make a Booty call. :lol:

[SMACKTALKIE]

Doesn't help that guys blitzing are looking to beat AD up as much as, if not more than the QB. Comes with being the offense.

LOL @ Sage. Have the Vikes completely given up on having a decent QB?

They should draft Sanchez. He's real popular in LA, it'll help to ease them in. :D


Those look like words to choke on.

Alot of people were "LOL"ing when the Cardinals signed Kurt Warner.

I for one am excited simply to see a new face under center. T Jack is not the answer right now and Frerrotte is a statue in the pocket.

[Zool]

Doesn't help that guys blitzing are looking to beat AD up as much as, if not more than the QB. Comes with being the offense.

LOL @ Sage. Have the Vikes completely given up on having a decent QB?

They should draft Sanchez. He's real popular in LA, it'll help to ease them in. :D


Those look like words to choke on.

Alot of people were "LOL"ing when the Cardinals signed Kurt Warner.

I for one am excited simply to see a new face under center. T Jack is not the answer right now and Frerrotte is a statue in the pocket.

I realize most fans are homers, but did you just compare Sage Rosenfels to Kurt Warner?

[SMACKTALKIE]

Doesn't help that guys blitzing are looking to beat AD up as much as, if not more than the QB. Comes with being the offense.

LOL @ Sage. Have the Vikes completely given up on having a decent QB?

They should draft Sanchez. He's real popular in LA, it'll help to ease them in. :D


Those look like words to choke on.

Alot of people were "LOL"ing when the Cardinals signed Kurt Warner.

I for one am excited simply to see a new face under center. T Jack is not the answer right now and Frerrotte is a statue in the pocket.

I realize most fans are homers, but did you just compare Sage Rosenfels to Kurt Warner?

Fuck no I did not just compare Sage to Kurt.

Can you Fucking Read???

[Zool]

Doesn't help that guys blitzing are looking to beat AD up as much as, if not more than the QB. Comes with being the offense.

LOL @ Sage. Have the Vikes completely given up on having a decent QB?

They should draft Sanchez. He's real popular in LA, it'll help to ease them in. :D


Those look like words to choke on.

Alot of people were "LOL"ing when the Cardinals signed Kurt Warner.

I for one am excited simply to see a new face under center. T Jack is not the answer right now and Frerrotte is a statue in the pocket.

I realize most fans are homers, but did you just compare Sage Rosenfels to Kurt Warner?

Fuck no I did not just compare Sage to Kurt.

Can you Fucking Read???

Apparently I cant. I guess you compared the Vikings interest in Sage to the Cards signing Warner.

Way to be a douche tho.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Doesn't help that guys blitzing are looking to beat AD up as much as, if not more than the QB. Comes with being the offense.

LOL @ Sage. Have the Vikes completely given up on having a decent QB?

They should draft Sanchez. He's real popular in LA, it'll help to ease them in. :D


Those look like words to choke on.

Alot of people were "LOL"ing when the Cardinals signed Kurt Warner.

I for one am excited simply to see a new face under center. T Jack is not the answer right now and Frerrotte is a statue in the pocket.

I realize most fans are homers, but did you just compare Sage Rosenfels to Kurt Warner?

Fuck no I did not just compare Sage to Kurt.

Can you Fucking Read???

Apparently I cant. I guess you compared the Vikings interest in Sage to the Cards signing Warner.

Way to be a douche tho.

Try reading the whole thread next time Zool. I'm comparing the sentiments of fans in regard to the signing of QB's.

Maybe too easy for you? No real fodder there unless you make it up..... again.

[Guiness]

Those look like words to choke on.

Alot of people were "LOL"ing when the Cardinals signed Kurt Warner.

I for one am excited simply to see a new face under center. T Jack is not the answer right now and Frerrotte is a statue in the pocket.

I realize most fans are homers, but did you just compare Sage Rosenfels to Kurt Warner?

Fuck no I did not just compare Sage to Kurt.

Can you Fucking Read???

Apparently I cant. I guess you compared the Vikings interest in Sage to the Cards signing Warner.

Way to be a douche tho.

Try reading the whole thread next time Zool. I'm comparing the sentiments of fans in regard to the signing of QB's.

Maybe too easy for you? No real fodder there unless you make it up..... again.

I've read the whole thread, and thought you were comparing the Vikes going after Sage to the Cards going after Warner as well, FWIW.

[mission]

Doesn't help that guys blitzing are looking to beat AD up as much as, if not more than the QB. Comes with being the offense.

LOL @ Sage. Have the Vikes completely given up on having a decent QB?

They should draft Sanchez. He's real popular in LA, it'll help to ease them in. :D


Those look like words to choke on.

Alot of people were "LOL"ing when the Cardinals signed Kurt Warner.

I for one am excited simply to see a new face under center. T Jack is not the answer right now and Frerrotte is a statue in the pocket.

I realize most fans are homers, but did you just compare Sage Rosenfels to Kurt Warner?

Fuck no I did not just compare Sage to Kurt.

Can you Fucking Read???

Apparently I cant. I guess you compared the Vikings interest in Sage to the Cards signing Warner.

Way to be a douche tho.

Try reading the whole thread next time Zool. I'm comparing the sentiments of fans in regard to the signing of QB's.

Maybe too easy for you? No real fodder there unless you make it up..... again.

No he's right. You don't have to come up in here acting like an ignorant spaz.

[mngolf19]

Due to the limited options at QB for MN, what are they supposed to do? They have a better OL and running game than Hou did so maybe that helps him out. While I'm not going to predict great things for Sage, he may be better for this year than Jackson and Frerotte has already shown his limitations. I am ok with this attempt. And obviously Sanchez is not ready, won't be available to them at their pick, and no better than Booty so why do that?

[Rastak]

For whatever it's worth, the hosts on Sirius NFL Radio all seemed to love the move. Most mentioned his ball security issues but all stated his decisions and accuracy are his strong points. Something the Vikings sorely lacked, despite winning 10 games.

Not a bad guy to bring in I guess. Better insurance then the dinosaurs they've been going with lately.

[Lurker64]

Well, Sage is probably better than Gus or Tarvaris. He doesn't exactly break the streak of Has-beens, never-was's, never-will-be's, and guys named Daunte that have held the helm in Minny though.

You kind of wonder if, or when, Minnesota will get another Franchise QB. Sage is an upgrade, but it's like moving from a C+ to a B-: better, but not something you'd hang on your wall.

[Rastak]

Well, Sage is probably better than Gus or Tarvaris. He doesn't exactly break the streak of Has-beens, never-was's, never-will-be's, and guys named Daunte that have held the helm in Minny though.

You kind of wonder if, or when, Minnesota will get another Franchise QB. Sage is an upgrade, but it's like moving from a C+ to a B-: better, but not something you'd hang on your wall.


I would agree, but with what's in place, a caretaker for a couple years while somebody develops isn't a terrible option.

The year to year dinosaur thing while watching jackson stink up the joint has to end.
I'm pretty much convinced now he'll never have the field vision to succeed and his acuracy just isn't good enough. He shows flashes but it seems that's all he'll ever do.

[Patler]

You don't necessarily have to have a QB who will win a Super Bowl for you, you just need one that won't single-handedly lose it for you. The Vikings may be getting that.

[Freak Out]

So what are you Vike fans saying about Booty time? Not ready yet or never will be ready?

[Waldo]

It is startling what % of Superbowls have been won by 1st rd QB's.

Tom Brady and Tony Romo are leading lots of teams on the hunt for the near mythical, 1 in a 1000, non-premium pick QB.

TT knows how to get it done. Take the best QB you can get your hands on until you've got a franchise QB, just in case get another to back him up, and keep up the hunt yearly for the needle in a haystack guys.

IMO we're gonna get a lot of value for Flynn in a year or two. Kid just oozes "it".

[hoosier]

Due to the limited options at QB for MN, what are they supposed to do?

Jeff Garcia? Kurt Warner? Kerry Collins? Trade for Cassel?


They have a better OL and running game than Hou did so maybe that helps him out. While I'm not going to predict great things for Sage, he may be better for this year than Jackson and Frerotte has already shown his limitations. I am ok with this attempt. And obviously Sanchez is not ready, won't be available to them at their pick, and no better than Booty so why do that?

That's what people said about David Carr too, and look what happened to him.

[BallHawk]

That's what people said about David Carr too, and look what happened to him.

If David Carr became the QB of the Vikings next season he could take them into the playoffs, possibly deep into the playoffs.

David Carr is a good QB. An above average QB, for sure.

[hoosier]

That's what people said about David Carr too, and look what happened to him.

If David Carr became the QB of the Vikings next season he could take them into the playoffs, possibly deep into the playoffs.

David Carr is a good QB. An above average QB, for sure.

I think Carr's talent only comes to the surface when he's playing against the Vikings. Other than that he's just dazed and confused. If they signed him he'd have nobody to play well against and would immediately revert to his 2007 form when the threw five picks in four starts and had a passer rating under 60.0. :lol:

[Rastak]

So what are you Vike fans saying about Booty time? Not ready yet or never will be ready?

We're not sure, but looked just like Brohm last pre-season so we're sceptical!

He may turn out ok, it's too early to say.

[SnakeLH2006]

Doesn't help that guys blitzing are looking to beat AD up as much as, if not more than the QB. Comes with being the offense.

LOL @ Sage. Have the Vikes completely given up on having a decent QB?

They should draft Sanchez. He's real popular in LA, it'll help to ease them in. :D


Those look like words to choke on.

Alot of people were "LOL"ing when the Cardinals signed Kurt Warner.

I for one am excited simply to see a new face under center. T Jack is not the answer right now and Frerrotte is a statue in the pocket.

I realize most fans are homers, but did you just compare Sage Rosenfels to Kurt Warner?

Fuck no I did not just compare Sage to Kurt.

Can you Fucking Read???

Apparently I cant. I guess you compared the Vikings interest in Sage to the Cards signing Warner.

Way to be a douche tho.

LOL. Ya, Snake gives his approval Zool, and thought that too. So I'm curious though, what was the mythical reference to Warner a reference to, then?? I'm stumped.


It is startling what % of Superbowls have been won by 1st rd QB's.

Tom Brady and Tony Romo are leading lots of teams on the hunt for the near mythical, 1 in a 1000, non-premium pick QB.

TT knows how to get it done. Take the best QB you can get your hands on until you've got a franchise QB, just in case get another to back him up, and keep up the hunt yearly for the needle in a haystack guys.

IMO we're gonna get a lot of value for Flynn in a year or two. Kid just oozes "it".

LOL, Waldo, I was gonna say what about Dilfer, but forgot he was a top pick at QB. LOL. Good point though bro! :D

[Zool]

That's what people said about David Carr too, and look what happened to him.

If David Carr became the QB of the Vikings next season he could take them into the playoffs, possibly deep into the playoffs.

David Carr is a good QB. An above average QB, for sure.

I think Carr's talent only comes to the surface when he's playing against the Vikings. Other than that he's just dazed and confused. If they signed him he'd have nobody to play well against and would immediately revert to his 2007 form when the threw five picks in four starts and had a passer rating under 60.0. :lol:

Dazed and confused is right. That guy's been hit more than a $30 hooker.

[sheepshead]

Where's Partial? Why isnt he calling for TT to make this move?

[cpk1994]

Where's Partial? Why isnt he calling for TT to make this move?Excellent question. Wish I had the answer. Especially since he thinks Carr is such a stud and Rodgers sucks. :lol:

[Guiness]

Due to the limited options at QB for MN, what are they supposed to do?
Jeff Garcia? Kurt Warner? Kerry Collins? Trade for Cassel?

Ouch. I would hate to see any of those names on Minnesota. I don't think KW will end up there, and Cassel is a longshot.

Garcia in particular I would not like to see over there, but Collins would do well too.

[hoosier]

You don't necessarily have to have a QB who will win a Super Bowl for you, you just need one that won't single-handedly lose it for you. The Vikings may be getting that.

Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Check out the "Rosencopter" at just before 2:00 into the video. Too funny. :lol:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80b65b45

[Patler]

You don't necessarily have to have a QB who will win a Super Bowl for you, you just need one that won't single-handedly lose it for you. The Vikings may be getting that.

Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Check out the "Rosencopter" at just before 2:00 into the video. Too funny. :lol:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80b65b45

Maybe he can single handedly lose games! A ten point lead with less than 4 minutes left, and he loses two fumbles and an interception to give the game away!

[mngolf19]

Vikes are not going to pay $15M for Warner at his age. Collins, may only be another Frerotte or an older Rosenfels. At least Rosenfels at 31 could last awhile if he turns out any good. Cassel, not going to spend a bunch of picks on a guy that had one Scott Mitchell year. Garcia is the only one I would have considered and yet he goes from team to team every year. Can't help but wonder why. And Chilly is already familiar with him while with the Eagles so I assume he knows what he would get with him. I'm not doing cartwheels over Rosenfels but I'm glad their trying.

[hoosier]

Vikes are not going to pay $15M for Warner at his age. Collins, may only be another Frerotte or an older Rosenfels. At least Rosenfels at 31 could last awhile if he turns out any good. Cassel, not going to spend a bunch of picks on a guy that had one Scott Mitchell year. Garcia is the only one I would have considered and yet he goes from team to team every year. Can't help but wonder why. And Chilly is already familiar with him while with the Eagles so I assume he knows what he would get with him. I'm not doing cartwheels over Rosenfels but I'm glad their trying.

Why not? It's not like they're built for the long haul. Warner has a couple of productive years left. That should just about do it for the Vikings core players. The Williams and that OL aren't going to stay in one piece forever.

[Freak Out]

You don't necessarily have to have a QB who will win a Super Bowl for you, you just need one that won't single-handedly lose it for you. The Vikings may be getting that.

Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Check out the "Rosencopter" at just before 2:00 into the video. Too funny. :lol:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80b65b45

Maybe he can single handedly lose games! A ten point lead with less than 4 minutes left, and he loses two fumbles and an interception to give the game away!

Maybe the Vikes do want this guy... :lol:

Ugh...that was the PackerRats game week loss to the damn dirty birds wasn't it?

[Partial]

Where's Partial? Why isnt he calling for TT to make this move?Excellent question. Wish I had the answer. Especially since he thinks Carr is such a stud and Rodgers sucks. :lol:

What? Carr is a stud? Carr who? I think Rodgers is AVERAGE, not suck. He's in the middle of the road, not the bottom of the road. Don't put words in my mouth.

Why would we bring in a backup when we already have two promosing young quarterbacks and an average starter?

[Chevelle2]

Where's Partial? Why isnt he calling for TT to make this move?Excellent question. Wish I had the answer. Especially since he thinks Carr is such a stud and Rodgers sucks. :lol:

What? Carr is a stud? Carr who? I think Rodgers is AVERAGE, not suck. He's in the middle of the road, not the bottom of the road. Don't put words in my mouth.

Why would we bring in a backup when we already have two promosing young quarterbacks and an average starter?

LOL @ "average starter"

[Partial]

How many good, above average, average, below average, and bad starters are there, then?

I was in the midst of proving this last week before my hiatus, but 3/4 of the league is not a good or average starter, ya know?

[mission]

my hiatus

Such a great time at PR it's been ... :cry:

[Lurker64]

How many good, above average, average, below average, and bad starters are there, then?

I was in the midst of proving this last week before my hiatus, but 3/4 of the league is not a good or average starter, ya know?

Well, let's look at this a bit shall we? Let's go as "above average" means "more than one standard deviation above the mean." You may want to have a less strict definition of "above average" such as "more than one half of the standard deviation above the mean", but we'll go with something clearcut. Statistically nothing outside of one standard deviation of the mean is average, in fact everything either above or below a standard deviation from the mean is significantly not-average.

Of the 32 NFL QBs who averaged 14 passes/game (the NFL's standard for qualifying for statistical records) the average passing yardage was 3132.375 (median 3241.5) with a standard deviation of 872.2638201.

For TD passes, the mean was 17.84 and the median was 15.5 with a standard deviation of 7.22.

For QB rating, the mean was 82.28 and the median was 85.7. The standard deviation was 15.78 (QB ratings are fairly evenly distributed.)

So in order to be significantly above average in terms of "yardage" you needed to throw for more than 4004 yards. Five quarterbacks accomplished this feat: Brees, Warner, Cutler, Rodgers, and Rivers.

In order to be significantly above average in terms of "touchdown passes" you needed to throw for 26 or more. Six quarterbacks accomplished this feat: Brees, Rivers, Warner, Rodgers, Manning, Romo.

In order to be significantly above average in terms of QB rating, you needed to finish the season with a QB rating above 98. Only one QB accomplished this feat: Rivers.

Of the three most important statistics for a QB, one QB is significantly above average in all three categories: Phillip Rivers. Three are significantly above average in two categories: Brees, Warner, and Rodgers. Three QBs are significantly above average in one category: Manning (Peyton), Cutler, and Romo. So if you asked me "who were the above average QBs in 2008", I would give you: Rivers, Brees, Warner, Rodgers, Manning (Peyton), Cutler, and Romo. That's about 7/32, which is about the number you were predicting, right?

There may be a lot of average QBs in the league, but the statistics clearly point to "Rodgers, at least in 2008, is not one of them." You don't end up more than one standard deviation above the mean in terms of "Yards" and "Touchdowns" and fall into the "average" category. Now he may end up being average over the totality of his career, but neither you nor I can see the future and speculating as to whether or not he will is sort of pointless. The fact of the matter though, is that Rodgers has given us nothing statistically in the 2008 season to indicate that he is an "average" QB. He finished top 10 in practically every significant statistic, and he was more than one standard deviation above average in terms of the "production" statistics.

[Partial]

Oye, here we go again. Stats tell a small fraction of the tale. Wins matter WAY more than stats, but one cannot completely ignore stats.

By in large, this team was very healthy this year. Only major injuries were Tausch (late in the year), Jenkins (injured year before throughout and was by in large ineffective, so I'm not sure if this is even anything more than a minor loss), Barnett (devestating blow), and Al for a few weeks (had a severely injured/hampered Chuck for much of last year).

Despite a more consistent running game, the offense struggled in the second half of games.

Overall, similar teams with very different records.

Harv, stating that one scout ranked Rodgers 19th is retarded and ignorant. It was 4-5 scouts on record averaging him out to be about at that level. The only thing stupid or misleading about it is you asinine conspiracy theory, that the scouts are out to "get" Rodgers because his success makes them look bad for overlooking him.

I'm not going to get into it again, but it would be tough to argue that Rodgers is a top 8 QB in the NFL. If he's not in the top 8, he certainly isn't in the good category.

[Lurker64]

Partial-

Drew Brees lead his team to an 8-8 season. Would you say that he did not have a fantastic year simply because "wins tell the story?" If Green Bay wins that game in New Orleans, he would have had a 7-9 season, but Brees individually, would have still had a fantastic season.

Wins are a team statistic, team statistics don't weigh in on how good individual players are. If Crosby wasn't 0/2 on game winning kicks after Rodgers had lead the team down to field goal range to win the game as time was expiring, Rodgers would have lead his team to an 8-8 record, the same as Brees. Certainly you can't blame Crosby's miss at Minnesota and block at Chicago on Rodgers.

All sorts of things could have broken slightly differently this year which would have changed the record significantly (Steve Smith not catching that long pass at the end of the Carolina game, winning the coin toss in overtime against Tennessee, Crosby making either potentially game winning kick, the defense holding against Houston on their game winning drive, someone landing on Garrard's fumble in the game winning drive in the Jacksonville game, etc.) which had nothing to do with Rodgers. In fact, go and read the recaps for each Packer game from NFL.com or the AP, statements like The defense was the Packers' biggest problem (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap?game_id=29743&displayPage=tab_recap&season=2008&week=REG15), Green Bay's last-minute special teams and defensive breakdowns ruined what could have been a signature win for Rodgers (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap?game_id=29710&displayPage=tab_recap&season=2008&week=REG13), and The Packers played shorthanded on defense -- and it showed. (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap?game_id=29592&displayPage=tab_recap&season=2008&week=REG5) abound.

Everybody except you seems to realize that it's unreasonable to pin all of the losses on Rodgers. Certainly, yes, if Rodgers had thrown for an extra couple of touchdowns in each of those games (making it 60 on the year) they would have won a lot more games. But the fact of the matter is that you can name basically any player on the roster and for any game we didn't just get blown out in, you can basically say "if he had performed better, we would have won." We would have probably won three more if Crosby was a better kicker, we probably would have won quite a few more if Green was in his 2007 form, the secondary dropped a lot of INTs last year, etc

Rodgers had an outstanding year, the team as a whole had a poor one.

[cpk1994]

How many good, above average, average, below average, and bad starters are there, then?

I was in the midst of proving this last week before my hiatus, but 3/4 of the league is not a good or average starter, ya know?The only thing you proved is getting your arguments owned. Everytime someone shot your argument down, you changed it. You are the only one who says Rodgers is average. You took the words of one scout as fact. You will never Rodgers a fair shake becuase you are butt hurt that TT didn't kiss Lord Favre's ring. You hate Rodgers, we get it.

[Bossman641]

Oye, here we go again. Stats tell a small fraction of the tale. Wins matter WAY more than stats, but one cannot completely ignore stats.

By in large, this team was very healthy this year. Only major injuries were Tausch (late in the year), Jenkins (injured year before throughout and was by in large ineffective, so I'm not sure if this is even anything more than a minor loss), Barnett (devestating blow), and Al for a few weeks (had a severely injured/hampered Chuck for much of last year).

Despite a more consistent running game, the offense struggled in the second half of games.

Overall, similar teams with very different records.

Harv, stating that one scout ranked Rodgers 19th is retarded and ignorant. It was 4-5 scouts on record averaging him out to be about at that level. The only thing stupid or misleading about it is you asinine conspiracy theory, that the scouts are out to "get" Rodgers because his success makes them look bad for overlooking him.

I'm not going to get into it again, but it would be tough to argue that Rodgers is a top 8 QB in the NFL. If he's not in the top 8, he certainly isn't in the good category.

I'm not gonna get into it with you again regarding the Rodgers stuff because you obviously are gonna stick with your viewpoint no matter how many holes are shot through it, but I'm wondering how you can say that Jenkins was a minor loss? He was playing lights out when he got injured, and that end spot turned into a revolving door of garbage once he got hurt. If you don't think having Jenkins lined up there instead of Montgomery or Hunter was a big deal then I have to wonder what games you were watching.

[sheepshead]

Where's Partial? Why isnt he calling for TT to make this move?Excellent question. Wish I had the answer. Especially since he thinks Carr is such a stud and Rodgers sucks. :lol:

What? Carr is a stud? Carr who? I think Rodgers is AVERAGE, not suck. He's in the middle of the road, not the bottom of the road. Don't put words in my mouth.

Why would we bring in a backup when we already have two promosing young quarterbacks and an average starter?

He's average like Michelson is a duffer.

[KYPack]

Not this happy horseshit again?!?

[sheepshead]

Partial, I think it's fair to say that as Packer fans we do not want ANY "average" player on our team. ESPECIALLY at the very important quarterback position. Thus it is fair to assume, that anyone you can convince that Aaron Rodgers is "average" would also have to agree that he should be replaced as soon as possible. Why don't you take some time and write a little blurb about who should we should go after either/both in the draft or free agency or trade. Take some time. Give us your reasons why that guy or guys would be a better choice than Rodgers. Let's really have a discussion rather than , what I think this really is, idol moronic bitching from someone who is looking for attention. This reminds me of the famous mouthbreathing knuckle draggers that used to frequent JSO.

[Tarlam!]

This reminds me of the famous mouthbreathing knuckle draggers that used to frequent JSO.

For which you Sheepdip are totally infamous.

[sheepshead]

This reminds me of the famous mouthbreathing knuckle draggers that used to frequent JSO.

For which you Sheepdip are totally infamous.

Go fuck yourself, I dont know what rock YOU crawled out from out of-but if all you can do is pop on here and continue personal attacks, then you sir need to get some serious help-back where ever it is you came from please.

[hoosier]

Oye, here we go again. Stats tell a small fraction of the tale. Wins matter WAY more than stats, but one cannot completely ignore stats.

By in large, this team was very healthy this year. Only major injuries were Tausch (late in the year), Jenkins (injured year before throughout and was by in large ineffective, so I'm not sure if this is even anything more than a minor loss), Barnett (devestating blow), and Al for a few weeks (had a severely injured/hampered Chuck for much of last year).

Despite a more consistent running game, the offense struggled in the second half of games.

Overall, similar teams with very different records.

Harv, stating that one scout ranked Rodgers 19th is retarded and ignorant. It was 4-5 scouts on record averaging him out to be about at that level. The only thing stupid or misleading about it is you asinine conspiracy theory, that the scouts are out to "get" Rodgers because his success makes them look bad for overlooking him.

I'm not going to get into it again, but it would be tough to argue that Rodgers is a top 8 QB in the NFL. If he's not in the top 8, he certainly isn't in the good category.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v169/Greyskye/forcefieldcatz.jpgImpervious to logic

[Partial]

I'm not gonna get into it with you again regarding the Rodgers stuff because you obviously are gonna stick with your viewpoint no matter how many holes are shot through it, but I'm wondering how you can say that Jenkins was a minor loss? He was playing lights out when he got injured, and that end spot turned into a revolving door of garbage once he got hurt. If you don't think having Jenkins lined up there instead of Montgomery or Hunter was a big deal then I have to wonder what games you were watching.

When has Jenkins been more than an average to below average contributor? Last year, he was injured. Two years ago, the coaches ripped on him for being an ineffective player all year when injured. The year before? He had a solid end of the year, and an below average beginning of the year.

Guy has been a walking injury throughout his career. One has to be able to tell the difference between production and potential. He has all the potential in the world. Love him as a prospect outside of the injury history. Hate him as a productive player. Always hurt, can't play through injuries (according to coaches), and a perennial tease.

Hey Hoosier, where is the logic exactly that Rodgers is better than average? Surely plenty of quarterbacks have nice stats, but how many good quarterbacks lead a team chock full of talent to a 6-10 record? Ron Wolfe is even on record as saying he doesn't think Rodgers is a winner. Say what you want, but Ronnie Wolf has a pretty solid track record and I'll trust HIS judgement over yours.

[cpk1994]

I'm not gonna get into it with you again regarding the Rodgers stuff because you obviously are gonna stick with your viewpoint no matter how many holes are shot through it, but I'm wondering how you can say that Jenkins was a minor loss? He was playing lights out when he got injured, and that end spot turned into a revolving door of garbage once he got hurt. If you don't think having Jenkins lined up there instead of Montgomery or Hunter was a big deal then I have to wonder what games you were watching.

When has Jenkins been more than an average to below average contributor? Last year, he was injured. Two years ago, the coaches ripped on him for being an ineffective player all year when injured. The year before? He had a solid end of the year, and an below average beginning of the year.

Guy has been a walking injury throughout his career. One has to be able to tell the difference between production and potential. He has all the potential in the world. Love him as a prospect outside of the injury history. Hate him as a productive player. Always hurt, can't play through injuries (according to coaches), and a perennial tease.

Hey Hoosier, where is the logic exactly that Rodgers is better than average? Surely plenty of quarterbacks have nice stats, but how many good quarterbacks lead a team chock full of talent to a 6-10 record? Ron Wolfe is even on record as saying he doesn't think Rodgers is a winner. Say what you want, but Ronnie Wolf has a pretty solid track record and I'll trust HIS judgement over yours.Show us the quote. I highly doubt Ron Wolf said anything of the kind. You probably spun it that way. Give us the quote or you are full of BS.

EDIT: Gotta slow down so I can spell better.

[Freak Out]

Hey fuckers....this thread is about Sage! Show the man some respect.

[Tarlam!]

This reminds me of the famous mouthbreathing knuckle draggers that used to frequent JSO.

For which you Sheepdip are totally infamous.

Go fuck yourself, I dont know what rock YOU crawled out from out of-but if all you can do is pop on here and continue personal attacks, then you sir need to get some serious help-back where ever it is you came from please.

Charming. You know you were a shit stirrer at JSO. So do I. I was merely pointing out the truth. You, on the other hand, have chosen to personally attack me. Typical Sheepdip.

[Bossman641]

I'm not gonna get into it with you again regarding the Rodgers stuff because you obviously are gonna stick with your viewpoint no matter how many holes are shot through it, but I'm wondering how you can say that Jenkins was a minor loss? He was playing lights out when he got injured, and that end spot turned into a revolving door of garbage once he got hurt. If you don't think having Jenkins lined up there instead of Montgomery or Hunter was a big deal then I have to wonder what games you were watching.

When has Jenkins been more than an average to below average contributor?

This year, before he got hurt.

I'm not disagreeing with you that he is injury prone, but as far as what we are actually discussing here - his effectiveness, yes he was very effective before he got injured.

Does he need to stay healthy? Yes

Was he playing well this year? 12 tackles, 2.5 sacks, and 1 FF in roughly 3.25 games. Yes!!

[Freak Out]

This reminds me of the famous mouthbreathing knuckle draggers that used to frequent JSO.

For which you Sheepdip are totally infamous.

Go fuck yourself, I dont know what rock YOU crawled out from out of-but if all you can do is pop on here and continue personal attacks, then you sir need to get some serious help-back where ever it is you came from please.

Charming. You know you were a shit stirrer at JSO. So do I. I was merely pointing out the truth. You, on the other hand, have chosen to personally attack me. Typical Sheepdip.

How was the Narren parade this year bro?

[hoosier]

Hey fuckers....this thread is about Sage! Show the man some respect.

Good point. All this petty bickering is dissing the Rosencopter. Speaking of which, did you see that the Vikings are rumored to be interested in acquiring Mike Vick after his scheduled July release from federal prison?

"We need to put somebody in place that will push him and compete with him," Childress said. "I think competition is the nature of the game."

Childress wouldn't confirm or deny interest in Vick.

"I really don't get into hypotheticals because I think there's too much water that's got to happen. :lol: :lol: I'd cross that bridge when I come to it."


http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=520018

[Tarlam!]

How was the Narren parade this year bro?

I'm a total carnival nerd. But I hear it was very political.

[Lurker64]

Partial, I think it's fair to say that as Packer fans we do not want ANY "average" player on our team. ESPECIALLY at the very important quarterback position. Thus it is fair to assume, that anyone you can convince that Aaron Rodgers is "average" would also have to agree that he should be replaced as soon as possible. Why don't you take some time and write a little blurb about who should we should go after either/both in the draft or free agency or trade. Take some time. Give us your reasons why that guy or guys would be a better choice than Rodgers. Let's really have a discussion rather than , what I think this really is, idol moronic bitching from someone who is looking for attention. This reminds me of the famous mouthbreathing knuckle draggers that used to frequent JSO.

I think you hit on something here, which I will try to expand upon without invectives.

Teams do not evaluate which players to release or replace based on "he fails to fall within some arbitrary fuzzy linguistic hedge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic) for excellence at his position. Certainly, they tend to try to identify and replace the bad players, but NFL rosters, even on good teams, are chock full of average players. You don't decide to replace somebody because "he's average, and we need more than an average player at that position."

What NFL GMs actually do, and should do, is evaluate each position: Is there someone better out there that's available in free agency? In the draft? What would it cost to get him? Would the cost be justified by the upgrade of quality in the position?

To wit, it doesn't fucking matter whether Rodgers is elite, great, average, poor, whatever if there's nothing out there to get that's better than Rodgers. There's no QB in the draft this year or next that I think is more promising than Rodgers, there's no QB available in free agency of via trade (within reason, if you traded 50 first round picks to Indianapolis, they might give you Peyton) that's more promising than Rodgers. Rodgers is better than anything we're going to get any time soon. So it doesn't matter whether or not he's above or below average. What matters is whether or not he can put the team in position to win football games, and whether enough other guys on the team can make plays to compensate for his "acute averageness" in order to win those games. We really are spoiled at QB, we get a guy who throws for 4000 yards, 28 TDs, and only 13 INTs despite having an injured throwing arm for all but four games, and some people want to run him out of town...

And... to bring this discussion back to the original point of the thread, this is why the Vikings move was reasonable. Is Sage better than Gus or Tarvaris? Unquestionably to my mind. Did they spend much to upgrade the position? No, only a fourth round pick, you would be hard pressed to find a player that would improve Minnesota more in the fourth round than Rosenfels will. Rosenfels probably falls within whatever "mythic average" category that Partial is concerned about, but he's still going to help that team over there win games better than whatever he's replacing. So, if we want to harp on Rodgers, please find me a better QB that's going to be available.

[cpk1994]

Partial, I think it's fair to say that as Packer fans we do not want ANY "average" player on our team. ESPECIALLY at the very important quarterback position. Thus it is fair to assume, that anyone you can convince that Aaron Rodgers is "average" would also have to agree that he should be replaced as soon as possible. Why don't you take some time and write a little blurb about who should we should go after either/both in the draft or free agency or trade. Take some time. Give us your reasons why that guy or guys would be a better choice than Rodgers. Let's really have a discussion rather than , what I think this really is, idol moronic bitching from someone who is looking for attention. This reminds me of the famous mouthbreathing knuckle draggers that used to frequent JSO.

I think you hit on something here, which I will try to expand upon without invectives.

Teams do not evaluate which players to release or replace based on "he fails to fall within some arbitrary fuzzy linguistic hedge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic) for excellence at his position. Certainly, they tend to try to identify and replace the bad players, but NFL rosters, even on good teams, are chock full of average players. You don't decide to replace somebody because "he's average, and we need more than an average player at that position."

What NFL GMs actually do, and should do, is evaluate each position: Is there someone better out there that's available in free agency? In the draft? What would it cost to get him? Would the cost be justified by the upgrade of quality in the position?

To wit, it doesn't fucking matter whether Rodgers is elite, great, average, poor, whatever if there's nothing out there to get that's better than Rodgers. There's no QB in the draft this year or next that I think is more promising than Rodgers, there's no QB available in free agency of via trade (within reason, if you traded 50 first round picks to Indianapolis, they might give you Peyton) that's more promising than Rodgers. Rodgers is better than anything we're going to get any time soon. So it doesn't matter whether or not he's above or below average. What matters is whether or not he can put the team in position to win football games, and whether enough other guys on the team can make plays to compensate for his "acute averageness" in order to win those games. We really are spoiled at QB, we get a guy who throws for 4000 yards, 28 TDs, and only 13 INTs despite having an injured throwing arm for all but four games, and some people want to run him out of town...Only Partial wants to run him out of town.

[Fritz]

So how 'bout that Sage Rosenfels guy, huh?

[sharpe1027]

So how 'bout that Sage Rosenfels guy, huh?

Sage who? I am starting to think that the Vikings are going to sign Rodgers.

[Fritz]

So how 'bout that Sage Rosenfels guy, huh?

Sage who? I am starting to think that the Vikings are going to sign Rodgers.

Ah, he's only average.

[sheepshead]

Partial, I think it's fair to say that as Packer fans we do not want ANY "average" player on our team. ESPECIALLY at the very important quarterback position. Thus it is fair to assume, that anyone you can convince that Aaron Rodgers is "average" would also have to agree that he should be replaced as soon as possible. Why don't you take some time and write a little blurb about who should we should go after either/both in the draft or free agency or trade. Take some time. Give us your reasons why that guy or guys would be a better choice than Rodgers. Let's really have a discussion rather than , what I think this really is, idol moronic bitching from someone who is looking for attention. This reminds me of the famous mouthbreathing knuckle draggers that used to frequent JSO.

I think you hit on something here, which I will try to expand upon without invectives.

Teams do not evaluate which players to release or replace based on "he fails to fall within some arbitrary fuzzy linguistic hedge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic) for excellence at his position. Certainly, they tend to try to identify and replace the bad players, but NFL rosters, even on good teams, are chock full of average players. You don't decide to replace somebody because "he's average, and we need more than an average player at that position."

What NFL GMs actually do, and should do, is evaluate each position: Is there someone better out there that's available in free agency? In the draft? What would it cost to get him? Would the cost be justified by the upgrade of quality in the position?

To wit, it doesn't fucking matter whether Rodgers is elite, great, average, poor, whatever if there's nothing out there to get that's better than Rodgers. There's no QB in the draft this year or next that I think is more promising than Rodgers, there's no QB available in free agency of via trade (within reason, if you traded 50 first round picks to Indianapolis, they might give you Peyton) that's more promising than Rodgers. Rodgers is better than anything we're going to get any time soon. So it doesn't matter whether or not he's above or below average. What matters is whether or not he can put the team in position to win football games, and whether enough other guys on the team can make plays to compensate for his "acute averageness" in order to win those games. We really are spoiled at QB, we get a guy who throws for 4000 yards, 28 TDs, and only 13 INTs despite having an injured throwing arm for all but four games, and some people want to run him out of town...

And... to bring this discussion back to the original point of the thread, this is why the Vikings move was reasonable. Is Sage better than Gus or Tarvaris? Unquestionably to my mind. Did they spend much to upgrade the position? No, only a fourth round pick, you would be hard pressed to find a player that would improve Minnesota more in the fourth round than Rosenfels will. Rosenfels probably falls within whatever "mythic average" category that Partial is concerned about, but he's still going to help that team over there win games better than whatever he's replacing. So, if we want to harp on Rodgers, please find me a better QB that's going to be available.

As I have pointed out to Partial, this isn't fantasy football. He has this Brett Favre highlight reel running in his head. There will likely not be another Brett Favre in our lifetime. I think TT and his group have brought in a talented guy and nurtured him properly and I couldnt be more pleased with our QB. Where his stats end up will be fodder for discussion on boards like this for years to come. He's following a legend and so far I like what I see.

[cpk1994]

As I have pointed out to Partial, this isn't fantasy football. He has this Brett Favre highlight reel running in his head. There will likely not be another Brett Favre in our lifetime. I think TT and his group have brought in a talented guy and nurtured him properly and I couldnt be more pleased with our QB. Where his stats end up will be fodder for discussion on boards like this for years to come. He's following a legend and so far I like what I see.I agree. Sums up my thoughts as well.

[hoosier]

Hey Hoosier, where is the logic exactly that Rodgers is better than average? Surely plenty of quarterbacks have nice stats, but how many good quarterbacks lead a team chock full of talent to a 6-10 record? Ron Wolfe is even on record as saying he doesn't think Rodgers is a winner. Say what you want, but Ronnie Wolf has a pretty solid track record and I'll trust HIS judgement over yours.

I would look at three things in evaluating a quarterback: individual performance, consistency, and how much the QB helps his team (by making others around him better and by winning games or at least not losing them). I think Lurker's post showed pretty clearly that Rodgers first year as a starter was statistically much better than the herd of statistically competent QBs you refer to. We don't have a long career to evaluate him on yet, but I didn't see anything last year that would lead me to think that his first year was a fluke or that he was just padding his stats. The 6-10 record certainly doesn't help make Rodgers case, but I hardly think any reasonable observer would say that 6-10 was his fault. True, he might have performed more last-minute heroics and won another game or two, but the close ones were lost by late special teams and defensive breakdowns, not by QB errors. In contrast to Favre, I would say that Rodgers is not as adept at making those around him better (yet), but nor does he cost the Packers games the way Favre did.

[Waldo]

As I have pointed out to Partial, this isn't fantasy football. He has this Brett Favre highlight reel running in his head. There will likely not be another Brett Favre in our lifetime. I think TT and his group have brought in a talented guy and nurtured him properly and I couldnt be more pleased with our QB. Where his stats end up will be fodder for discussion on boards like this for years to come. He's following a legend and so far I like what I see.

It could be argued that there are several right now.

Peyton has as many MVP's, as many rings, and will likely end his career with better stats than Brett. His single best season is better than Brett's single best season.

Brady has many more rings than Brett. His end career stats won't be as good, aside from maybe wins. His single best season is better than Brett's single best season.

Big Ben now has more rings than Brett. He also plays on a team built to run whose line is awful at pass blocking and lacks elite WR threats (Holmes and Ward are good though). Making plays amongst getting beat up is his game.

Brees has had a better statsitical season than Brett has ever had.

Warner has as many rings, 2 MVP's, and played in more superbowls.

Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Cutler, and Rodgers have a lot of career left to show they are to be mentioned in the same breath.

[sheepshead]

As I have pointed out to Partial, this isn't fantasy football. He has this Brett Favre highlight reel running in his head. There will likely not be another Brett Favre in our lifetime. I think TT and his group have brought in a talented guy and nurtured him properly and I couldnt be more pleased with our QB. Where his stats end up will be fodder for discussion on boards like this for years to come. He's following a legend and so far I like what I see.

It could be argued that there are several right now.

Peyton has as many MVP's, as many rings, and will likely end his career with better stats than Brett. His single best season is better than Brett's single best season.

Brady has many more rings than Brett. His end career stats won't be as good, aside from maybe wins. His single best season is better than Brett's single best season.

Big Ben now has more rings than Brett. He also plays on a team built to run whose line is awful at pass blocking and lacks elite WR threats (Holmes and Ward are good though). Making plays amongst getting beat up is his game.

Brees has had a better statsitical season than Brett has ever had.

Warner has as many rings, 2 MVP's, and played in more superbowls.

Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Cutler, and Rodgers have a lot of career left to show they are to be mentioned in the same breath.

Sorry, what I meant was in a packer uniform, knocking down all the records, 17 seasons etc etc.

[SnakeLH2006]

Wow..this has been the most surreal topic Snake has seen in some time. Hard to type with all amazing logic about ARod being average, LMAO!!

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k47/mcgeeznutz/FearLoathing.jpg


BTW, hey Tarlam, nice to see you posting again buddy! I see you still have you keen, tactful social graces intact. :lol: Snake feels brute honesty > misguided fanboyism anyday homey. Hope to see more of ya bud.

[Gunakor]

How many good, above average, average, below average, and bad starters are there, then?

I was in the midst of proving this last week before my hiatus, but 3/4 of the league is not a good or average starter, ya know?

Well, when you consider that there are 32 starting QB's in the NFL, the 16th rated QB would be considered average. To get an average you have to include the best QB, the WORST QB, and EVERYONE inbetween.

You can't have 5 above average and 5 average and 22 below average - the numbers don't add up. So try this one:

The top 10 starting QB's in the NFL are above average.
The bottom 10 starting QB's in the NFL are below average.
The 12 starting QB's inbetween are average.
If you absolutely need to break this down further, you could say that the top 3 are "elite" and the bottom 3 are "garbage".

So ask yourself - and be realistic here - is Rodgers really not a top TEN quarterback right now? Can you really name TEN quarterbacks that are better than Rodgers today?

[Partial]

I agree 100% gunk. No, I don't think Rodgers is top 10. I have said NUMEROUS times he's around 12. I have listed guys countless times to support my case, and many here have been ya, he's probably right around 10.

If he is ranked 9th or 10th by that scale, he is barely above average, what I have said that he is numerous times as well.

I don't hate on ARod, I just call it like I see it. He's not a great player yet. He has the potential to be with his phyiscal attributes, but going into his 5th year I'm sure he is what he is.

Can you win with that? Well, sure, given the right situation. As Wist and I have pointed out, we're a pass predicated offense. If we switch from finesse to physical and start pounding the ball and ask ARod to do less, we can certainly be a playoff team and contend.

MM talks about how he wants to be a run first team but he has never stuck to it. If and when he does, Rodgers could easily lead to a team to a 12-4 11-5 record annually.

[Gunakor]

I agree 100% gunk. No, I don't think Rodgers is top 10. I have said NUMEROUS times he's around 12. I have listed guys countless times to support my case, and many here have been ya, he's probably right around 10.

If he is ranked 9th or 10th by that scale, he is barely above average, what I have said that he is numerous times as well.

I don't hate on ARod, I just call it like I see it. He's not a great player yet. He has the potential to be with his phyiscal attributes, but going into his 5th year I'm sure he is what he is.

Can you win with that? Well, sure, given the right situation. As Wist and I have pointed out, we're a pass predicated offense. If we switch from finesse to physical and start pounding the ball and ask ARod to do less, we can certainly be a playoff team and contend.

MM talks about how he wants to be a run first team but he has never stuck to it. If and when he does, Rodgers could easily lead to a team to a 12-4 11-5 record annually.

You have said numerous times that he's merely average, that's what I remember. He's definitely not in the elite catagory yet, but he's definitely not merely average either. That's what I was getting at, and I apologize if I misinterpreted the multiple times you described AR as merely average to mean you thought AR was merely average. I promise I won't accuse you of that anymore, now that you've cleared that up.

If the key to AR becoming elite is a better running game, you can't really put that on AR himself. His stats might get better with a better running game, but he isn't going to be any more or less talented because of it. Either he's a top 10 talent or he isn't. Without considering stats, and simply looking at individual qualities such as arm strength, throwing accuracy, athleticism, decision making and leadership, I'd say he most definitely is a top 10 talent regardless of what kind of offense he's running. A better running game isn't going to make AR a better QB, but it will make the Packers a better football team.

[Freak Out]

I really think the Vikes should have gone after the Sex Cannon.

[MJZiggy]

I thought he wanted to go to the Lions?

[Waldo]

I agree 100% gunk. No, I don't think Rodgers is top 10. I have said NUMEROUS times he's around 12. I have listed guys countless times to support my case, and many here have been ya, he's probably right around 10.

If he is ranked 9th or 10th by that scale, he is barely above average, what I have said that he is numerous times as well.

I don't hate on ARod, I just call it like I see it. He's not a great player yet. He has the potential to be with his phyiscal attributes, but going into his 5th year I'm sure he is what he is.

Can you win with that? Well, sure, given the right situation. As Wist and I have pointed out, we're a pass predicated offense. If we switch from finesse to physical and start pounding the ball and ask ARod to do less, we can certainly be a playoff team and contend.

MM talks about how he wants to be a run first team but he has never stuck to it. If and when he does, Rodgers could easily lead to a team to a 12-4 11-5 record annually.

Ask AR to do less :shock:

No running team averages as many yds/play as Aaron's arm does.

His accuracy is easily top 3 in the NFL. Accuracy goes a long way. He has the physical tools to be one of the best QB's the NFL has ever seen. His accuracy is beyond elite on all routes, his arm strength is well above average, he's mobile, throws well on the run, and his release is ridiculously compact and quick (he has no Leftwich wind up). He's not a dump off to the RB in the flat QB for his stats, he makes very difficult throws look easy (several that were NOT part of Favre's repertoire later in his career). Aaron's passing tree is bigger than most QB's. There are a few routes that he can use that maybe 5 QB's in the NFL can use. The deep post-corner and nod audilble seam are two of the most difficult and dangerous passes possible, Brett didn't throw them, Aaron does.

[SkinBasket]

How many good, above average, average, below average, and bad starters are there, then?

I was in the midst of proving this last week before my hiatus, but 3/4 of the league is not a good or average starter, ya know?

Well, let's look at this a bit shall we? Let's go as "above average" means "more than one standard deviation above the mean." You may want to have a less strict definition of "above average" such as "more than one half of the standard deviation above the mean", but we'll go with something clearcut. Statistically nothing outside of one standard deviation of the mean is average, in fact everything either above or below a standard deviation from the mean is significantly not-average.

Of the 32 NFL QBs who averaged 14 passes/game (the NFL's standard for qualifying for statistical records) the average passing yardage was 3132.375 (median 3241.5) with a standard deviation of 872.2638201.

For TD passes, the mean was 17.84 and the median was 15.5 with a standard deviation of 7.22.

For QB rating, the mean was 82.28 and the median was 85.7. The standard deviation was 15.78 (QB ratings are fairly evenly distributed.)

So in order to be significantly above average in terms of "yardage" you needed to throw for more than 4004 yards. Five quarterbacks accomplished this feat: Brees, Warner, Cutler, Rodgers, and Rivers.

In order to be significantly above average in terms of "touchdown passes" you needed to throw for 26 or more. Six quarterbacks accomplished this feat: Brees, Rivers, Warner, Rodgers, Manning, Romo.

In order to be significantly above average in terms of QB rating, you needed to finish the season with a QB rating above 98. Only one QB accomplished this feat: Rivers.

Of the three most important statistics for a QB, one QB is significantly above average in all three categories: Phillip Rivers. Three are significantly above average in two categories: Brees, Warner, and Rodgers. Three QBs are significantly above average in one category: Manning (Peyton), Cutler, and Romo. So if you asked me "who were the above average QBs in 2008", I would give you: Rivers, Brees, Warner, Rodgers, Manning (Peyton), Cutler, and Romo. That's about 7/32, which is about the number you were predicting, right?

There may be a lot of average QBs in the league, but the statistics clearly point to "Rodgers, at least in 2008, is not one of them." You don't end up more than one standard deviation above the mean in terms of "Yards" and "Touchdowns" and fall into the "average" category. Now he may end up being average over the totality of his career, but neither you nor I can see the future and speculating as to whether or not he will is sort of pointless. The fact of the matter though, is that Rodgers has given us nothing statistically in the 2008 season to indicate that he is an "average" QB. He finished top 10 in practically every significant statistic, and he was more than one standard deviation above average in terms of the "production" statistics.

This post should be stickied and referred to as the "reality check" thread.

[Bretsky]

IMO this move should help the Vikings a lot; they've just become harder to beat

[Rastak]

IMO this move should help the Vikings a lot; they've just become harder to beat


Scouts inc did a nice writeup.....the real problem is the dude runs hot and cold. He's really accurate, which is great...but he takes lots of chances which causes turnovers.

Frerotte's problem was he's a statue. Jackson's problem(s) were seeing the field and his terrible accuracy.

Rosenfels is accurate and sees the field well from what I've read...if they can reign in the risk taking, he may work out well.

[Bretsky]

IMO this move should help the Vikings a lot; they've just become harder to beat


Scouts inc did a nice writeup.....the real problem is the dude runs hot and cold. He's really accurate, which is great...but he takes lots of chances which causes turnovers.

Frerotte's problem was he's a statue. Jackson's problem(s) were seeing the field and his terrible accuracy.

Rosenfels is accurate and sees the field well from what I've read...if they can reign in the risk taking, he may work out well.


No matter how it shakes out, or how people feel about the Vikings, I find it hard for anybody to argue he's not an upgrade over Jackson.

IMO the Vikings were never winning anything of substance with Jackson; this guy gives them a shot

[Partial]

How many good, above average, average, below average, and bad starters are there, then?

I was in the midst of proving this last week before my hiatus, but 3/4 of the league is not a good or average starter, ya know?

Well, let's look at this a bit shall we? Let's go as "above average" means "more than one standard deviation above the mean." You may want to have a less strict definition of "above average" such as "more than one half of the standard deviation above the mean", but we'll go with something clearcut. Statistically nothing outside of one standard deviation of the mean is average, in fact everything either above or below a standard deviation from the mean is significantly not-average.

Of the 32 NFL QBs who averaged 14 passes/game (the NFL's standard for qualifying for statistical records) the average passing yardage was 3132.375 (median 3241.5) with a standard deviation of 872.2638201.

For TD passes, the mean was 17.84 and the median was 15.5 with a standard deviation of 7.22.

For QB rating, the mean was 82.28 and the median was 85.7. The standard deviation was 15.78 (QB ratings are fairly evenly distributed.)

So in order to be significantly above average in terms of "yardage" you needed to throw for more than 4004 yards. Five quarterbacks accomplished this feat: Brees, Warner, Cutler, Rodgers, and Rivers.

In order to be significantly above average in terms of "touchdown passes" you needed to throw for 26 or more. Six quarterbacks accomplished this feat: Brees, Rivers, Warner, Rodgers, Manning, Romo.

In order to be significantly above average in terms of QB rating, you needed to finish the season with a QB rating above 98. Only one QB accomplished this feat: Rivers.

Of the three most important statistics for a QB, one QB is significantly above average in all three categories: Phillip Rivers. Three are significantly above average in two categories: Brees, Warner, and Rodgers. Three QBs are significantly above average in one category: Manning (Peyton), Cutler, and Romo. So if you asked me "who were the above average QBs in 2008", I would give you: Rivers, Brees, Warner, Rodgers, Manning (Peyton), Cutler, and Romo. That's about 7/32, which is about the number you were predicting, right?

There may be a lot of average QBs in the league, but the statistics clearly point to "Rodgers, at least in 2008, is not one of them." You don't end up more than one standard deviation above the mean in terms of "Yards" and "Touchdowns" and fall into the "average" category. Now he may end up being average over the totality of his career, but neither you nor I can see the future and speculating as to whether or not he will is sort of pointless. The fact of the matter though, is that Rodgers has given us nothing statistically in the 2008 season to indicate that he is an "average" QB. He finished top 10 in practically every significant statistic, and he was more than one standard deviation above average in terms of the "production" statistics.

This post should be stickied and referred to as the "reality check" thread.

Why? When you look at his stats, and realize that he has insane talent around him...

any QB in the league would look great with his supporting cast.

He is around the 12th best quarterback in the league in my opinion. I don't care if you agree of not, but give me:
Brees - Showed he can guide a team to the playoffs multiple times
Romo - Showed he is clutch in the regular season and get a team a high seed
Brady - Mr playoffs
Manning - Showed he can beat the best team ever in the clutch of a game
Manning - Beat a very good bears team in the super bowl, best RS QB ever
Rivers - Taken teams to the championship game, gutted it out with torn ACL
Warner - super bowl champion, has been there 3 times
Ryan - As a rookie, he easily outperformed our 4th year veteran
Roethlisberger - Won the big one, is clutch, has carried team on back in gutsy game
McNabb - dynamic player, been to the big game, took eagles to championship game consistently early in his career despite only mediocre offensive talent


Cutler/Palmer/Hasselbeck/Flacco/Rodgers are in the next tier down. I'd choose one of those guys on any given day over Rodgers.

I agree that its not fantasy football. They need to keep trying to upgrade the position like they do every other position. They probably won't win a superbowl with Rodgers unless they make a serious change to the way they play offense (think Vikings).

[swede]

Why? When you look at his stats, and realize that he has insane talent around him...

any QB in the league would look great with his supporting cast.

He is around the 12th best quarterback in the league in my opinion. I don't care if you agree of not, but give me:
Brees - Showed he can guide a team to the playoffs multiple times
Romo - Showed he is clutch in the regular season and get a team a high seed
Brady - Mr playoffs
Manning - Showed he can beat the best team ever in the clutch of a game
Manning - Beat a very good bears team in the super bowl, best RS QB ever
Rivers - Taken teams to the championship game, gutted it out with torn ACL
Warner - super bowl champion, has been there 3 times
Ryan - As a rookie, he easily outperformed our 4th year veteran
Roethlisberger - Won the big one, is clutch, has carried team on back in gutsy game
McNabb - dynamic player, been to the big game, took eagles to championship game consistently early in his career despite only mediocre offensive talent


Cutler/Palmer/Hasselbeck/Flacco/Rodgers are in the next tier down. I'd choose one of those guys on any given day over Rodgers.

I agree that its not fantasy football. They need to keep trying to upgrade the position like they do every other position. They probably won't win a superbowl with Rodgers unless they make a serious change to the way they play offense (think Vikings).

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z236/dsteenswede44/folksayinfun_48fb6cd016fde.jpg

[Partial]

Well, like I said, I disagree. You're entitled to your opinion.

I do think it'd be pretty tough to dispute that the guys listed above Rodgers are better options for winning a game tomorrow.

[cpk1994]

Well, like I said, I disagree. You're entitled to your opinion.

I do think it'd be pretty tough to dispute that the guys listed above Rodgers are better options for winning a game tomorrow.No it wouldn't. I'd take Rodgers over Flacco and any of those types. Besides, calling a QB who throws for ovew 4000 yards average shows true ignorance. I'm not going to bother debating with your ignorance.

BTW, I am still waiting for you to back up your BS claim about ROn Wolf saying Rodgers is not a winner. I guess I wwon't hold my breath as you don't have the proof anyway and as usual are making crap up.

[falco]

hasn't rodgers only played one year? hard to compare him to guys with a half or whole career behind them already

[Rastak]

Why don't you guys start a Rodgers thread and quit clogging up the Rosenfels thread.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[falco]

Why don't you guys start a Rodgers thread and quit clogging up the Rosenfels thread.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

why don't you start your own viker forum and leave us alone troll!!!! j/k ras, you good in my book

[falco]

interesting - seems the broncos are trying to get rid of cutler

[Partial]

Well, like I said, I disagree. You're entitled to your opinion.

I do think it'd be pretty tough to dispute that the guys listed above Rodgers are better options for winning a game tomorrow.No it wouldn't. I'd take Rodgers over Flacco and any of those types. Besides, calling a QB who throws for ovew 4000 yards average shows true ignorance. I'm not going to bother debating with your ignorance.

BTW, I am still waiting for you to back up your BS claim about ROn Wolf saying Rodgers is not a winner. I guess I wwon't hold my breath as you don't have the proof anyway and as usual are making crap up.

Jon Kitna threw for over 4k yards in 2007. Is he better than average? I certainly don't think so.

They play the audio clip on WSSP several times an hour from Ron Wolf. You can listen online here. Click "Listen Live".

http://www.sportsradio1250.com/

[Fritz]

Why don't you guys start a Rodgers thread and quit clogging up the Rosenfels thread.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

I just like that the Vikings got a guy who is named after an herb.

Is he by any chance married to a woman named Rosemary?

:rs:

[Patler]

Cutler/Palmer/Hasselbeck/Flacco/Rodgers are in the next tier down. I'd choose one of those guys on any given day over Rodgers.


Sounds like Cutler is available. Would you trade even up for Rodgers?

[mission]

Cutler/Palmer/Hasselbeck/Flacco/Rodgers are in the next tier down. I'd choose one of those guys on any given day over Rodgers.


Sounds like Cutler is available. Would you trade even up for Rodgers?

I wouldn't. Southern frat boys with the swoop haircut annoy the shit outta me.

[Fritz]

Me either. I'd take Rodgers. Straight up.

[]{ilr]3]

Cutler/Palmer/Hasselbeck/Flacco/Rodgers are in the next tier down. I'd choose one of those guys on any given day over Rodgers.


Sounds like Cutler is available. Would you trade even up for Rodgers?

I wouldnt either. Cutler has a hell of an arm, but he seems to be unstable. We're talking Ryan Leaf unstable. I know he has had some health issues, but it seems like he cannot handle being an NFL QB.

[mission]

{ilr]3]


Cutler/Palmer/Hasselbeck/Flacco/Rodgers are in the next tier down. I'd choose one of those guys on any given day over Rodgers.


Sounds like Cutler is available. Would you trade even up for Rodgers?

I wouldnt either. Cutler has a hell of an arm, but he seems to be unstable. We're talking Ryan Leaf unstable. I know he has had some health issues, but it seems like he cannot handle being an NFL QB.

I'm tellin ya!! SFS, better known as Southern Fratboy Syndrome... whiny little kids with rich parents and popped-collared Polo shirts. They're everywhere with their silver platters.

[Partial]

Cutler/Palmer/Hasselbeck/Flacco/Rodgers are in the next tier down. I'd choose one of those guys on any given day over Rodgers.


Sounds like Cutler is available. Would you trade even up for Rodgers?

Hell yes.

[Patler]

Cutler/Palmer/Hasselbeck/Flacco/Rodgers are in the next tier down. I'd choose one of those guys on any given day over Rodgers.


Sounds like Cutler is available. Would you trade even up for Rodgers?

Hell yes.

I think Denver would give the same answer to my question.

[SnakeLH2006]

[quote=Partial]
Cutler/Palmer/Hasselbeck/Flacco/Rodgers are in the next tier down. I'd choose one of those guys on any given day over Rodgers.


Sounds like Cutler is available. Would you trade even up for Rodgers?

Hell yes.

I think Denver would give the same answer to my question.[/quote'''

Hard to say as hardcore Denver fan or even one in the ranks with Denver would prob. say no. Check my latest topic, but Snake's closest vote would go to Cutler, if I didn't say Arod vs. system.

With the system, Cutler..Upside is moot, but according to topic. Arod by a bit...knowing the system.

Vote here:

http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=16915

[cpk1994]

Me either. I'd take Rodgers. Straight up.I'd take Rodgers too.

[Partial]

Homers :D Cutler put up similiar numbers with their best receiver being our third receiver, with a painfully slow TE, and without a solid back like Grant. Cutler is a much better player imo.