Excellent Analysis on Rodgers

[Partial]

Bedard did a really nice write up on Rodgers yesterday.

Whether you agree with it or not, its worth a read and brings up good points.

Just yesterday I read somewhere on this board that someone was comparing Rodgers' season to Peyton Manning's. I'm sorry, but that is simply hysterical. Like the 2007 Packers offense, the Colts offense attacks you. It's a down the field big play offense quarterback-predicated offense, not the dink and dunk receiver based offense the Packers run now. Hopefully this article opens a few eyes to see how average his year was.*

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/42530467.html

He basically says this:

- Stats don't tell the whole story when the offense is vanilla and designed to minimize mistakes and be efficient.

- Plenty of players have gotten more done with less ability and less talent around them

- Rodgers estimated trade value is probably no where near Jay Cutlers, because he hasn't shown nearly as much on the field

- Rodgers had 4 game killing interceptions last year, and he will not be looked at as a closer until he learns how to win

* I normally don't like Bedard, but this was a pretty good piece. I tend to agree that Rodgers has a lot of potential to be very good, but he needs to capitalize on that. I'm not confident that he will.

[SnakeLH2006]

Bedard did a really nice write up on Rodgers yesterday.

Whether you agree with it or not, its worth a read and brings up good points.

Just yesterday I read somewhere on this board that someone was comparing Rodgers' season to Peyton Manning's. I'm sorry, but that is simply hysterical. Like the 2007 Packers offense, the Colts offense attacks you. It's a down the field big play offense quarterback-predicated offense, not the dink and dunk receiver based offense the Packers run now. Hopefully this article opens a few eyes to see how average his year was.*

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/42530467.html

He basically says this:

- Stats don't tell the whole story when the offense is vanilla and designed to minimize mistakes and be efficient.

- Plenty of players have gotten more done with less ability and less talent around them

- Rodgers estimated trade value is probably no where near Jay Cutlers, because he hasn't shown nearly as much on the field

- Rodgers had 4 game killing interceptions last year, and he will not be looked at as a closer until he learns how to win

So Snake is pretty bright, but cloudy on a few key issues....

You are a Packer fan?? Yes or no?

SNAKE FACTS:

1) Favre is either retired or fading out the sunset regardless for some other team.

2) You like Cutler but he is now on a rival NFC North team.

3) WTF does this shit prove/disprove?

You make a snarky topic about how "bad" ARod is compared to a 12 year vet? How the hell does this contribute? It's not only asinine, but proves you have a one-way ticket to join DaBaddestBear for forum shame.

Do you support our team? If not, get the fuck out! I don't see how this contributes to ANY Packer logic/comraderie on this forum. Are you bitter we didn't send over half of the next decades' picks for Cutler? Really, how does this do any logical forwarding of this forum? Favre is done. Get over it. You may hate TT, but please get over that crap and contribute something intelligent and insightful.....Unbelievable BS. Go be a Bears fan while you still can. They'd prob. throw you off the bus, too, after listening to your childish rants every other day. Christ Almighty. Be gone fool. :evil:

[Fritz]

Some people think a QB is as good as his record. I believe a good QB makes his team better, but I also think that the talent that surrounds a QB (or the lack of talent) is pretty much out of the QB's hands; therefore, I don't put as much stock into QB won/loss records as others might. It's important, but I believe it's unfair to put too much stock into something one player cannot control.

I take issue with Bedard's assessment that Rodgers would garner no better than a late first round pick. If Thompson put Rodgers out on the market, he'd get more than that.

[MJZiggy]

Some people think a QB is as good as his record. I believe a good QB makes his team better, but I also think that the talent that surrounds a QB (or the lack of talent) is pretty much out of the QB's hands; therefore, I don't put as much stock into QB won/loss records as others might. It's important, but I believe it's unfair to put too much stock into something one player cannot control.

I take issue with Bedard's assessment that Rodgers would garner no better than a late first round pick. If Thompson put Rodgers out on the market, he'd get more than that.

And be called an idiot for trying to trade him. Partial, you say you don't hate him, prove it with your actions and get off his ass already. Geez.

[packrulz]

JSO sucks, I don't even read it anymore. More importantly, ARod is getting laid in Vegas! http://www.packersnews.com/ic/blogs/outofbounds/uploaded_images/scottblog2-775828.jpg
http://www.packersnews.com/ic/blogs/outofbounds/uploaded_images/rodgersvegas-701694.jpg
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/ic/blogs/outofbounds/index.shtml

[PlantPage55]

- Stats don't tell the whole story when the offense is vanilla and designed to minimize mistakes and be efficient.

- Plenty of players have gotten more done with less ability and less talent around them

- Rodgers estimated trade value is probably no where near Jay Cutlers, because he hasn't shown nearly as much on the field

- Rodgers had 4 game killing interceptions last year, and he will not be looked at as a closer until he learns how to win


I don't think these points are good at all. Some of them aren't even valid. Our offense is designed to minimize mistakes?! Which ones aren't?!

By the way, Favre made the most mistakes of any QB in the last 5 years in an offense that is inherently less mistake-prone?!

Vanilla? Aaron Rodgers led the league in passes over 40 yards!!! :evil:

Bedard basically bases his whole article on the "fact" that Jay Cutler has proven more, even though he hasn't had a winning season ever and has a losing record, as it currently stands. He blames it on the defense for Cutler.

Then, he downgrades Aaron Rodgers for being 6-10 and having a defense that blew it for him in the end, game after game after game. What sense does that make?

No, I think this is a piss-POOR article, yet again intended to cater to the JSO comment board frequents, because that's where all the detractors seem to aggregate. It's nothing but poorly thought out spinster garbage.

"learns how to win"? That's a vomit-inducing cliche. Aaron Rodgers "won" us the game time and again in the end and our defense blew it. I don't know how many times it has to be said.

I can't believe the idiots on the JSO board that actually write "Aaron Rodgers is 6-10" and then stand by that statement. As if the QB should be labeled with the wins and losses. That is tired and simplistic thinking generated by a media that loves the quarterback and pretends that the other positions do not exist.

[Fritz]

He's just having a nice chat with a young lady at the lemonade social.

[cpk1994]

Bedard did a really nice write up on Rodgers yesterday.

Whether you agree with it or not, its worth a read and brings up good points.

Just yesterday I read somewhere on this board that someone was comparing Rodgers' season to Peyton Manning's. I'm sorry, but that is simply hysterical. Like the 2007 Packers offense, the Colts offense attacks you. It's a down the field big play offense quarterback-predicated offense, not the dink and dunk receiver based offense the Packers run now. Hopefully this article opens a few eyes to see how average his year was.*

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/42530467.html

He basically says this:

- Stats don't tell the whole story when the offense is vanilla and designed to minimize mistakes and be efficient.

- Plenty of players have gotten more done with less ability and less talent around them

- Rodgers estimated trade value is probably no where near Jay Cutlers, because he hasn't shown nearly as much on the field

- Rodgers had 4 game killing interceptions last year, and he will not be looked at as a closer until he learns how to win

* I normally don't like Bedard, but this was a pretty good piece. I tend to agree that Rodgers has a lot of potential to be very good, but he needs to capitalize on that. I'm not confident that he will.Bedard is an assclown who is pushing his bosses anti-Packer agenda at MJS. I guess he has a lot in common with you, especially the assclown part. Becuase it comes from Bedard, its total trash.

[Fritz]

I like to think that if both Cutler and Rodgers stay healthy we will know a lot more about who's worth what, but oftentimes we keep our opinions and try to force reality to fit into them.

That's why I'm saying I'm gonna end up with Drew Barrymore!!

[Bossman641]

That was garbage

[sheepshead]

Brett Favre was 4-12 once.

[SkinBasket]

I usually don't take the time to write guys with poor football analytical skills about their blogs or tweets or whatever other means of distributing their special brand of stupid is, but I just wanted to drop you a line to say that your brain farts about Rodgers are pretty dumb from top to bottom and deserved the effort of derision. Have a great day and watch the games next season. It helps when you're trying to stumble your way through another dumb idea.

Sincerely

[sheepshead]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e102/heymike0308/Bedard_100.jpg

[SkinBasket]

I doubt you have permission to use that.

[Partial]

You guys are nuts. Trash article because it makes valid points where a journeyman compares favorably to Rodg?

C'mon, dude hasn't shown anything except 6-10 w/ a big arm and a knack for throwing the game away when its all on the line.

Most deep passes in the league: Not surprised, Jenning is a stud and Rodgers throws a nice deep ball. They play it safe, and don't throw balls over the middle of the field. Our offense defined vanilla this year.

Losing record: Sure, Cutler has a losing record, but he's shown that when his team is in the game, he can close. That is an important quality that A-Rod has so far not displayed.

Makes excellent point of Rodgers still be injury prone. We'll see how that turns out. Hopefully he'll stay healthy. The article just makes a point that Rodgers shouldn't be annoited the king of Wisconsin yet, as we're not even close to knowing what we have in him as a long term starter. A lot of players look good throwing the ball to a Jennings entering his prime. How many QBs did Moss put in the pro bowl and MVP races??

Naturally, anything that you don't agree with is garbage, and Bedard is an ass clown. Right :roll: . It's refreshing to see someone who can see A-Rod for what he is. A 5th year player who hasn't been better than the 12th best person at his position in the league.

[KYPack]

No one hopped on the "Jay Fiedler" factoids in the article?

Jay was an OK hand for Miami for a bit, but he couldn't sustain shit, really.

I'd think the references to Fiedler taint the whole article to a pile of drivel.

Bedard can do a whole lot better. At least, I hope he can do a whole lot better than that buncha crap

[highlander]

Jay Fielder . That was one of the poorest arguements I have seen in a while, and I happen to like Bedard. What the heck has Cuter done, seriously what has he done any differently than Rodgers except 2 more years of #'s

Bedard is reaching here the only comparison I can agree with is they ea followed a great QB after that NO comparison

So with that argument Kyle Orton was a hell of lot better QB than Cutler Right? After all wins and losses are what counts

[Packnut]

Some people think a QB is as good as his record. I believe a good QB makes his team better, but I also think that the talent that surrounds a QB (or the lack of talent) is pretty much out of the QB's hands; therefore, I don't put as much stock into QB won/loss records as others might. It's important, but I believe it's unfair to put too much stock into something one player cannot control.

I take issue with Bedard's assessment that Rodgers would garner no better than a late first round pick. If Thompson put Rodgers out on the market, he'd get more than that.

Favre dis-proves your opinion. He won with less than stellar talent around him. He turned average players into good players. That is what a WINNING QB does.

Example- getting rid of the ball quick enough to avoid the sack while still making a play. This "talent" makes the o-line better at pass blocking.

Example- the art of "the audible". Changing the play after reading the D and finding the weak spot. This makes for a positive play and makes everyone around you look better because of it.

Example- hitting a WR in perfect stride allowing him an increase YAC.

Example- the ability to sustain long drives by having a good 3rd down percentage. This takes the heat off of the D and in turn makes them look better. They are on the field less and are not faced with a "short" field.

All these examples show how a QB makes the people around him better and results in a high winning percentage.

[sheepshead]

shouldn't the headline be "of" Rodgers?
We could all use LESS whinny sports writers. Objective criticism is fine and welcomed. Guys that just bitch are annoying and eventually get passed over by the reader.
Our esteemed rats colleague has a Brett Favre highlight reel in his head and until Aaron Rodgers duplicates that reel for 16 games, said colleague will never be happy as a Packer fan.

[SkinBasket]

You can find numbers to compare almost any two players out there. An honest piece would account for all the numbers, as well as the inherent and multiple differences between teams and opponents - not just the ones which are favorable to his stupid presumption. I guess when the company expects you to put out blogs in addition to your regular article workload, you get a little lazy sometimes.

[Bossman641]

Jay Fiedler? Let's get serious.

That was a terrible article, top to bottom. I love how Bedard diminishes Rodgers' stats because he plays in the WCO. Didn't Waldo or Patler mention how Rodgers had one of the highest amounts of passing yards solely through the air, not taking YAC into account, the other day?

Should we diminish Marino's stats because he played in warm weather? I say we divide his total TD's by 1.1 and multiply his INT's by 1.1 as a result. How about decreasing E. Smith's rushing totals because he played behind one of the greatest lines ever ( I actually wouldn't mind this)? They had to be good for at least an extra 250 yards and 2 TD every year. Favre played in the WCO his whole career. Imagine if the gunslinger had played in an offense that wasn't "safe." I think we should multiply his INT totals by 1.15 as a result. Plus, he had an awful lot of TD passes from the red zone. Remember the year Bubba had like 8 TD's and none were longer than a yard or 2? We should definitely decrease Favre's TD totals as he didn't really earn those TD passes.

Bedard and Partial can break out all the BS they want to try and diminish Rodgers' stats, until they do it for every other player as well, stats are all we have to go on.

[Partial]

Ok, you win Bossman, Rodgers is every bit as good as Peyton Mannning. He's the 2nd best player in the NFL :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

The stats say so!

[Bossman641]

Ok, you win Bossman, Rodgers is every bit as good as Peyton Mannning. He's the 2nd best player in the NFL :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

The stats say so!

You win Partial.

Rodgers is average. Vince Young is god.

[Brandon494]

You guys are nuts. Trash article because it makes valid points where a journeyman compares favorably to Rodg?

C'mon, dude hasn't shown anything except 6-10 w/ a big arm and a knack for throwing the game away when its all on the line.

Most deep passes in the league: Not surprised, Jenning is a stud and Rodgers throws a nice deep ball. They play it safe, and don't throw balls over the middle of the field. Our offense defined vanilla this year.

Losing record: Sure, Cutler has a losing record, but he's shown that when his team is in the game, he can close. That is an important quality that A-Rod has so far not displayed.

Makes excellent point of Rodgers still be injury prone. We'll see how that turns out. Hopefully he'll stay healthy. The article just makes a point that Rodgers shouldn't be annoited the king of Wisconsin yet, as we're not even close to knowing what we have in him as a long term starter. A lot of players look good throwing the ball to a Jennings entering his prime. How many QBs did Moss put in the pro bowl and MVP races??

Naturally, anything that you don't agree with is garbage, and Bedard is an ass clown. Right :roll: . It's refreshing to see someone who can see A-Rod for what he is. A 5th year player who hasn't been better than the 12th best person at his position in the league.

Did Aaron snub you on a autograph or something because you are totally bias against him. Yes he is a 5th year player who had to sit behind a legend his first 3 seasons which is not a bad thing. His first season starting he a 93.8 passer rating and rushed a over 200 yards with 4 TDS. Pretty good for someone who had not seem live game action very much since coming out of college. Now the guy has more experience and maybe MM will open the playbook up alittle more this season, but you can't blame MM for toning down some of the play calling when you go from Brett Favre to a 1st year starter. That being said ARod still threw 28 TDs and only 13 INT and like you said he has a good deep ball. So what I don't really understand is why do not get the guy the credit he deserves. I would have loved to see the way Cutler would have handled himself during the whole Favre saga.

Here is a article I read awhile back with some good stats I think you should take a look at.

Attention grabbing stats
March 7, 2009
Written by Bob Fox - PackerChatters Staff

It's nice to see the Green Bay Packers finally get off the schneid and sign their first free agent, S Anthony Smith from the Pittsburgh Steelers. It's not exactly an earth shattering signing, but Smith has experience in the 3-4 defense, has started 10 games for the Steelers at safety in 2007 as well and played under Darren Perry in Pittsburgh in 2006, who will now be his position coach again in Green Bay.

We shall see what Ted Thompson does with other potential free agents and also what he does in the NFL draft in late April, but for now I wanted to put out some stats that were attention grabbing by four Packers in 2008, and should also bode well for the future.

Aaron Rodgers

Much has been said about Rodgers trying to replace the legendary Brett Favre in 2008, but Rodgers had a fantastic year overall, except for winning more games. But let's look at what he did do. Rodgers threw for 28 TDs to just 13 interceptions for 4,038 yards and a 93.8 QB rating. Rodgers also scored 4 TDs rushing the ball and rushed for 207 yards overall. Rodgers also had 8 games in which he had a QB rating of over 100.0, which was second in the NFL. Rodgers was also only the second player ever in NFL history to throw for more than 4,000 yards in a season in the first season he started a game. Kurt Warner in 1999 was the first.

Greg Jennings

Jennings truly became the Packers go to guy at WR in 2008. Jennings was 6th in receiving yards (1,292) in the entire NFL, tied for 2nd in 20-plus yard catches (21) and 1st in 40-plus yard catches (8). Overall, Jennings caught 80 passes, and had a 16.2 yard average. Jennings was named a first alternate at WR for the NFC in the Pro Bowl. Thompson needs to make sure that Jennings gets a long term deal done this off-season.

Charles Woodson

Woodson proved again in 2008, that he is the second best free agent signing in Packer history, behind only Reggie White. In his Packer career, Woodson has intercepted 19 passes in only three years, compared to 17 in eight years as an Oakland Raider. In 2008, Woodson was named a Pro Bowl starter for the NFC and was named second team All-Pro by the Associated Press for his performance. Woodson had 7 interceptions for 169 yard and two of the picks were returned for TDs. Woodson now has 4 interception returns for TDs in his Packer career. Woodson also had 3 sacks, and forced a fumble and recovered a fumble as well.

Nick Collins

Part of the reason for the signing of Anthony Smith was for the Packers to protect themselves in 2010 because Collins and Atari Bigby could be free agents. Like Jennings, Thompson has to make signing Collins to a long term deal a priority. The light definitely came on for Collins in 2008, as he, like Woodson, was named as a starter for the Pro Bowl for the NFC and was named second team All-Pro from the Associated Press. Collins had 7 picks for a whopping 295 yards and returned 3 of the picks for TDs.

[mission]

Ok, you win Bossman, Rodgers is every bit as good as Peyton Mannning. He's the 2nd best player in the NFL :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

The stats say so!

Good come back.

My ex girlfriend did the same thing when she had nothing of substance to say... she'd roll her eyes, say something like "ok, you're right, you're always right" or "you win, tony" ... very similar. Im sure you've had a girlfriend who did the sa---ahhh, probably not, sorry.

[3irty1]

I certainly entertain the thought that he's not as good as his numbers indicate but I don't buy the criticism that he craps his pants at the end of games or somehow has bad nerves. He's been at his best in some of the biggest games of his life.

I definitely don't buy the injury prone criticism either. That was unwarranted from the beginning. You can't call someone injury prone until they at least miss a start. If anything he's shown that he'll play through pain. This talk is only brought up to provide contrast with Brett Favre. Everyone is injury prone compared to Brett.

[Patler]

My first inclination was to list all the inaccuracies in Bedards rant, but many of you beat me to the punch. So I will discuss just one aspect that jumped out at me, and emphasized what I discussed in another thread, that Bedard seems to be failing to do his background work, and bases his "opinions" on feeble foundations.

One of those "game killing" interceptions that Bedard referred to apparently came in the 2nd quarter, because that was the only interception Rodgers threw in that game. After that "game killing interception" Rodgers drove the team to a fourth quarter TD to take a one point lead, only to have the defense turn it into a 7 point deficit on a TD & 2 point conversion; after which Rodgers drove the team to a TD to tie it, only to have the defense give it away on a field goal to lose. Too bad Rodgers killed that game with his interception in the 2nd quarter. :roll:

Another of his "game killing" interceptions came in a 4th quarter in which he lead the team on an 80 yard TD drive before the interception and a 72 yard TD drive after the interception. The last TD came with 2 minutes left, after which ST failed to execute the onside kick, and the defense couldn't get the ball back to the offense even though they had 1:55 and two timeouts to work with. The defense gave up 10 points in the 4th quarter, largely negating Rodgers' comeback attempts. Yup, another one "killed" by Rodgers.

One did end the Packer chances, coming at the 0:46 mark. But it was in a 4th quarter in which Rodgers had lead the team to the go ahead score with 5:35 remaining, only to have the defense give it back the next series on an 80 yard drive.

In one he threw 3 second half interceptions, effectively eliminating any chances the Packers had. I'll give Bedard this one.

Bedard looks only at the surface. His analysis is extremely shallow.

[Pugger]

This attitude towards Rodgers by some is a head scratcher. Did he mess up the ends of games? Yes, but good grief, he was first year starter who probably tried to do too much when his D and ST fell flat on their faces. When BF tried to do too much to win the game and failed a lot of folks didn't get on Favre too much cuz he was just trying to win the game. What in the hell do you think Rodgers was trying to do at the end of some of those games?? :roll:

[Partial]

Ok, you win Bossman, Rodgers is every bit as good as Peyton Mannning. He's the 2nd best player in the NFL :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

The stats say so!

You win Partial.

Rodgers is average. Vince Young is god.

Never said he was. Said he was a good, solid winner. Both have shown that to be the case. Young with his pro bowl, roty, and playoff appearance.

[Zool]

Ok, you win Bossman, Rodgers is every bit as good as Peyton Mannning. He's the 2nd best player in the NFL :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

The stats say so!

You win Partial.

Rodgers is average. Vince Young is god.

Never said he was. Said he was a good, solid winner. Both have shown that to be the case. Young with his pro bowl, roty, and playoff appearance.

And splinters after quitting on the team.

[Gunakor]

How many QBs did Moss put in the pro bowl and MVP races??

Not Andrew Walter, that's for sure.

[Patler]

Sorry, I just have to bring up another of Bedard's rather strange supporting arguments that almost made me laugh out loud.

Rodgers did so well because he played in an offense in place in GB basically since Holmgren which minimizes mistakes.

Favre played in that offense and threw more interceptions than any QB ever.

MY GOD! How many interceptions would Favre have thrown if not for the offense that minimizes interceptions????

[bobblehead]

Bedard did a really nice write up on Rodgers yesterday.

Whether you agree with it or not, its worth a read and brings up good points.

Just yesterday I read somewhere on this board that someone was comparing Rodgers' season to Peyton Manning's. I'm sorry, but that is simply hysterical. Like the 2007 Packers offense, the Colts offense attacks you. It's a down the field big play offense quarterback-predicated offense, not the dink and dunk receiver based offense the Packers run now. Hopefully this article opens a few eyes to see how average his year was.*

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/42530467.html

He basically says this:

- Stats don't tell the whole story when the offense is vanilla and designed to minimize mistakes and be efficient.

- Plenty of players have gotten more done with less ability and less talent around them

- Rodgers estimated trade value is probably no where near Jay Cutlers, because he hasn't shown nearly as much on the field

- Rodgers had 4 game killing interceptions last year, and he will not be looked at as a closer until he learns how to win

* I normally don't like Bedard, but this was a pretty good piece. I tend to agree that Rodgers has a lot of potential to be very good, but he needs to capitalize on that. I'm not confident that he will.

4 game killing interceptions?? Do you mean 4 times after he gave us the lead and the defense blew it in the closing minutes he was forced to make desperate throws and got picked off? 90% of QB's do that. The other 10% have names like Montana and Brady. In time ARod will get to 50/50 in late comebacks where half the time we win and half the time he gets picked. I would say that puts him on par with other very good (not great) QB's like Favre and Marino.

My only hope is that we have a better team and he doesn't get put in that position too often. One record I don't cherish is being behind in the 4th so often that people talk about your huge number of 4th quarter comebacks....although with a good D (and a good kicker) Rodgers would already have a few of those. (maybe even five)

[Partial]

Ok, you win Bossman, Rodgers is every bit as good as Peyton Mannning. He's the 2nd best player in the NFL :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

The stats say so!

Good come back.

My ex girlfriend did the same thing when she had nothing of substance to say... she'd roll her eyes, say something like "ok, you're right, you're always right" or "you win, tony" ... very similar. Im sure you've had a girlfriend who did the sa---ahhh, probably not, sorry.

Not really. Some joker the other day literally compared Rodgers to Peyton Manning. Not even joking. I literally had projectile pepsi max launching from my mouth when I read that.

[Dylan McKay]

Holy crap this forum is still arguing about the whole Favre split from the Packers? I like the second post from this thread. I think if you all are really Packer fans you will get over Favre leaving and not being allowed to return, and realize that the Packers starting QB is Aaron Rodgers.

Rodgers had a good statistical season, He did a lot better than a lot of us could imagine regardless if he had the talent built around him our not. It was his first year starting. Sure is pocket presence wasn't all that great and he took sacks when maybe a veteran QB wouldn't but lets get off this guys ass. To judge a guy either way after one season, a season which he did lead the team to a 6-10 record. Ron Wolf said it best I will paraphrase, but Wolf said something to the effect that Rodgers was in a very difficult position but statistically he did very well, but the object of the game of football is to win football games, and 6-10 wasn't very good.

2008 was a tough year for Rodgers, he did a lot better than most under the circumstances and Rodgers is not a total package yet. I think he only gets better.

Favre is retired, he won't be playing in 2009. His career is over, and it was a great career but this time was coming, move on.

[Partial]

I certainly entertain the thought that he's not as good as his numbers indicate but I don't buy the criticism that he craps his pants at the end of games or somehow has bad nerves. He's been at his best in some of the biggest games of his life.

I definitely don't buy the injury prone criticism either. That was unwarranted from the beginning. You can't call someone injury prone until they at least miss a start. If anything he's shown that he'll play through pain. This talk is only brought up to provide contrast with Brett Favre. Everyone is injury prone compared to Brett.

Injury prone is definitely just at this point. He's missing potential playing time, and in the event we needed him, he wouldn't have been there. That is essentially missing a start imo.

That would be the same as saying Harrell isn't injury prone because he's never missed a start -- because he's never been a starter

[Partial]

How many QBs did Moss put in the pro bowl and MVP races??

Not Andrew Walter, that's for sure.

Agreed, but he made average QBs like Johnson, Moon, etc look pretty decent.

I tend to believe that Greg Jennings emergence was one of the big reasons Favre looked so good in '07 too. He wasn't nearly as sharp in weeks 1 or 2 before Jennings returned from injury.

Dude is a straight up stud. Let's hope he stays healthy.

[Gunakor]

MY GOD! How many interceptions would Favre have thrown if not for the offense that minimizes interceptions????

My guess is he'd have far less INT's over his career if he stayed in Atlanta, but only because he'd be out of the league in another year or two. I mean, after all, Brett threw his first NFL interception before he completed his first NFL pass to his own teammate while playing in the Falcons mistake prone offense...

[Partial]

Sorry, I just have to bring up another of Bedard's rather strange supporting arguments that almost made me laugh out loud.

Rodgers did so well because he played in an offense in place in GB basically since Holmgren which minimizes mistakes.

Favre played in that offense and threw more interceptions than any QB ever.

MY GOD! How many interceptions would Favre have thrown if not for the offense that minimizes interceptions????

I agree that that was a pretty dumb statement. I don't think one could argue, though, that the offense from '08 was anything more than a small subset of the '07 attack.

As Nutz and I have posted so many times, they really kept things pretty simple for A-Rod, and didn't use the entire field to make his life easier.

[Dylan McKay]

I will say this, where is all this Favre hate coming from. The way some of you talk on this forum, it is like Favre was a below average player for the 17 years he was in Green Bay.

I guess if the only way you all can feel better about Favre being gone is to trash the guy and fail to remember him or speak of the good things he did on and off the football field then all means carry on, otherwise to argue against Partial(?) or who ever by trashing Favre is just a bit disappointing.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I think it's funny that Bedard acknowledges that Fielder had 4 years of an elite defense but holds that it's mostly due to Fielder as to who should get the credit for the victories.

Miami scored an avg of 21 ppg during that time with Fielder while opponents scored 17 ppg. (rounding to the closest number)

Green Bay scroed an avg of 26 ppg and opponents scored 24 ppg (rounding to the closest number)

I find this argument of Bedard laughable in regards to Fielder vs Rodgers. You put that defense Fielder had with the Packers A-Rod led offense and you would have easily have had a 11 win season. This essentially would have been the same point differential that the Giants this season had and they went 12-4.

[Gunakor]

I certainly entertain the thought that he's not as good as his numbers indicate but I don't buy the criticism that he craps his pants at the end of games or somehow has bad nerves. He's been at his best in some of the biggest games of his life.

I definitely don't buy the injury prone criticism either. That was unwarranted from the beginning. You can't call someone injury prone until they at least miss a start. If anything he's shown that he'll play through pain. This talk is only brought up to provide contrast with Brett Favre. Everyone is injury prone compared to Brett.

Injury prone is definitely just at this point. He's missing potential playing time, and in the event we needed him, he wouldn't have been there. That is essentially missing a start imo.

That would be the same as saying Harrell isn't injury prone because he's never missed a start -- because he's never been a starter

I alluded to this a long time ago, but I think that Rodgers' injury history while Favre's backup wasn't as bad as some think. First, there was no reason to rush him back. Ironman was here ahead of him on the depth chart, so any minor nagging injury to Rodgers and MM/TT would shut him down for the season whether the injury warranted it or not. I don't believe that they were season ending injuries necessarily. It was probably a coaches call, not a doctors call. They were protecting their investment in a future franchise QB. That's what I think anyway. I mean, he played an entire half on a broken foot for us a few years ago, and played over half the season with a partially separated shoulder last year. The guy has proven able to play through pain and injury. I'm very comfortable with him as our starter in that regard. I wouldn't label him injury prone.

[Patler]

I will say this, where is all this Favre hate coming from. The way some of you talk on this forum, it is like Favre was a below average player for the 17 years he was in Green Bay.

I guess if the only way you all can feel better about Favre being gone is to trash the guy and fail to remember him or speak of the good things he did on and off the football field then all means carry on, otherwise to argue against Partial(?) or who ever by trashing Favre is just a bit disappointing.

This is the second time you mentioned it. What are you talking about? Favre hate? In this thread? Where?

[3irty1]

I certainly entertain the thought that he's not as good as his numbers indicate but I don't buy the criticism that he craps his pants at the end of games or somehow has bad nerves. He's been at his best in some of the biggest games of his life.

I definitely don't buy the injury prone criticism either. That was unwarranted from the beginning. You can't call someone injury prone until they at least miss a start. If anything he's shown that he'll play through pain. This talk is only brought up to provide contrast with Brett Favre. Everyone is injury prone compared to Brett.

Injury prone is definitely just at this point. He's missing potential playing time, and in the event we needed him, he wouldn't have been there. That is essentially missing a start imo.

That would be the same as saying Harrell isn't injury prone because he's never missed a start -- because he's never been a starter

After starting for a full season and playing through pain its still just? I think the obvious difference is that Harrell doesn't miss holding a clipboard when he gets injured. There is a big difference between deactivating a backup QB and deactivating a starting QB. You have to give the guy a chance to play through the pain and so far he has.

[Partial]

Maybe not injury prone so much, but certainly not iron man status either. I think he'll probably get dinged up and miss a few games this year. Surprised he didn't last.

[Patler]

I agree that that was a pretty dumb statement. I don't think one could argue, though, that the offense from '08 was anything more than a small subset of the '07 attack.

As Nutz and I have posted so many times, they really kept things pretty simple for A-Rod, and didn't use the entire field to make his life easier.

It never ceases to amaze me how some of you jump on an erroneous interpretation of a statement or statements, and harp on it until it reaches a life of its own.

[Lurker64]

Maybe not injury prone so much, but certainly not iron man status either. I think he'll probably get dinged up and miss a few games this year. Surprised he didn't last.

"I have a negative expectation of a player, so far he hasn't lived down to my expectations... but I think he will any day now".

Does anybody else think that's a really strange thing to think?

[ThunderDan]

How many QBs did Moss put in the pro bowl and MVP races??

Not Andrew Walter, that's for sure.

Agreed, but he made average QBs like Johnson, Moon, etc look pretty decent.

I tend to believe that Greg Jennings emergence was one of the big reasons Favre looked so good in '07 too. He wasn't nearly as sharp in weeks 1 or 2 before Jennings returned from injury.

Dude is a straight up stud. Let's hope he stays healthy.

Warren Moon?

[Lurker64]

How many QBs did Moss put in the pro bowl and MVP races??

Not Andrew Walter, that's for sure.

Agreed, but he made average QBs like Johnson, Moon, etc look pretty decent.

I tend to believe that Greg Jennings emergence was one of the big reasons Favre looked so good in '07 too. He wasn't nearly as sharp in weeks 1 or 2 before Jennings returned from injury.

Dude is a straight up stud. Let's hope he stays healthy.

Warren Moon?

I think Partial made a couple of oversights:
1) Warren Moon was a hall of famer (in both the NFL and CFL!) and one of the all-time greats.

2) Warren Moon played with the Vikings from 1994-1996 and after that played for the Seahawks and Chiefs before calling it a career. Randy Moss was drafted in 1998, and thus has never played with Warren Moon. If he made Warren Moon look good, it has to be "by comparison" and not "on the football field."

[Partial]

Sorry I meant Randall Cunningham. Lurker, don't play dumb and be a prick, you know damn well who I meant. Who doesn't get those two confused every now and again?

[ThunderDan]

How many QBs did Moss put in the pro bowl and MVP races??

Not Andrew Walter, that's for sure.

Agreed, but he made average QBs like Johnson, Moon, etc look pretty decent.

I tend to believe that Greg Jennings emergence was one of the big reasons Favre looked so good in '07 too. He wasn't nearly as sharp in weeks 1 or 2 before Jennings returned from injury.

Dude is a straight up stud. Let's hope he stays healthy.

Warren Moon?

I think Partial made a couple of oversights:
1) Warren Moon was a first ballot hall of famer and one of the all-time greats.

2) Warren Moon played with the Vikings from 1994-1996 and after that played for the Seahawks and Chiefs before calling it a career. Randy Moss was drafted in 1998, and thus has never played with Warren Moon. If he made Warren Moon look good, it has to be "by comparison" and not "on the football field.

Lurker couldn't you have waited to post? I know Moon and Moss never played together. I just wanted to see Partial somehow defend that Moss made Moon better when they never played together.

That's what Partial does. It doesn't matter if he is wrong he just keeps spouting his postion over and over thinking that makes him right.

[RashanGary]

If Bedard thinks a QB is only as good as his W/L record, Bedard is clearly in denial. People in GB always made it about one guy, but it never was. It's not here, and isn't on any team in the NFL.

Time will prove us Rodgers backers right. I'm very confident the defense and ST's let the Packers down last year and Rodgers will be a winner.

[GrnBay007]

I will say this, where is all this Favre hate coming from. The way some of you talk on this forum, it is like Favre was a below average player for the 17 years he was in Green Bay.

I guess if the only way you all can feel better about Favre being gone is to trash the guy and fail to remember him or speak of the good things he did on and off the football field then all means carry on, otherwise to argue against Partial(?) or who ever by trashing Favre is just a bit disappointing.

Best post in a LONG time!!! :tup:


Last season when Favre was playing well with the Jets, posters demanded all comments be directed to ONE thread. Nobody wanted to talk about him then. Boy how times have changed.

FYI----only small minded people believe you can only show support for your current QB by trashing your past HOFer QB.

[RashanGary]

Funny to see Partial try to scurry out of his lies and make-believes. That is what it's come to for the haters. Kinda sad.

[RashanGary]

:cow:

[Partial]

Funny to see Partial try to scurry out of his lies and make-believes. That is what it's come to for the haters. Kinda sad.

?? Such as?

Oh, and to your above post... all about the quarterback? Favre leaves and we drop off 7 games. Brady gets hurt and they drop off 5 games. Romo gets hurt and the 'boys fall apart. The Colts sucked to start the year, hell, we beat them. Peyton starts to get healthy and they win what, 10 to 12 straight?

It is all about the quarterback dude. By far the most important position. Have a stud and you'll always always always be competitive and close to the playoffs.

That's why I'm an advocate of the "If he's not a super duper star, move on" theory at QB.

[RashanGary]

I disagree. Its' all about defense, offense, ST's, health and coaching. Hero worshippers want to put it on one guy.

[Partial]

I disagree. Its' all about defense, offense, ST's, health and coaching. Hero worshippers want to put it on one guy.

Heh. So many teams without top 5 QBs have gone to and won the super bowl, after all in the past 17 years.

1993 - HOF QB
1994 - HOF QB
1995 - HOF QB
1996 - HOF QB
1997 - HOF QB
1998 - HOF QB
1999 - HOF QB
2000 - HOF QB
2001 - Not HOF QB
2002 - HOF QB
2003 - Not HOF QB
2004 - HOF QB
2005 - HOF QB
2006 - HOF QB
2007 - HOF QB
2008 - Not HOF QB
2009 - HOF QB

3/17, or 17% of the time in the past 17 years has a guy not bound for the HOF won a super bowl. The teams that didn't all had legendary defenses and dominating pass rush.

If the Packers had a dominant defense and running game like the Giants did, I could see A-Rod getting them to a super bowl, sure. If they don't though, no way, and that sort of defense is pretty gosh darn rare.

Pretty tough to dispute those statistics. I'll take my chances with the stud QB :D

[KYPack]

That's why I'm an advocate of the "If he's not a super duper star, move on" theory at QB.

OK

At least there is some kind of method to your madness.

Try to quit beating all your famous dead horses now.

[cpk1994]

I certainly entertain the thought that he's not as good as his numbers indicate but I don't buy the criticism that he craps his pants at the end of games or somehow has bad nerves. He's been at his best in some of the biggest games of his life.

I definitely don't buy the injury prone criticism either. That was unwarranted from the beginning. You can't call someone injury prone until they at least miss a start. If anything he's shown that he'll play through pain. This talk is only brought up to provide contrast with Brett Favre. Everyone is injury prone compared to Brett.

Injury prone is definitely just at this point. He's missing potential playing time, and in the event we needed him, he wouldn't have been there. That is essentially missing a start imo.

That would be the same as saying Harrell isn't injury prone because he's never missed a start -- because he's never been a starterWhat time has ARod missed. He started all 16 games as QB, his first 16. Are you seriously this mentally retarded?

[Spaulding]

You guys are nuts. Trash article because it makes valid points where a journeyman compares favorably to Rodg?

C'mon, dude hasn't shown anything except 6-10 w/ a big arm and a knack for throwing the game away when its all on the line.

So what you're saying if we use hoops analogy is that a guy hits the three with under a minute left to give his team the lead or a tie and then the other team drives for an easy lay up to retake the lead - it negates the prior shoot because the shooters final half court attempt misses?

Don't buy it.

Most deep passes in the league: Not surprised, Jenning is a stud and Rodgers throws a nice deep ball. They play it safe, and don't throw balls over the middle of the field. Our offense defined vanilla this year.

So Cutler throwing to Marshall isn't the same?

Losing record: Sure, Cutler has a losing record, but he's shown that when his team is in the game, he can close. That is an important quality that A-Rod has so far not displayed.

How'd that work for him when they lost their last three games of the season? Last I recall the Broncos went oh for three.

Makes excellent point of Rodgers still be injury prone. We'll see how that turns out. Hopefully he'll stay healthy. The article just makes a point that Rodgers shouldn't be annoited the king of Wisconsin yet, as we're not even close to knowing what we have in him as a long term starter. A lot of players look good throwing the ball to a Jennings entering his prime. How many QBs did Moss put in the pro bowl and MVP races??

Injury prone? As a backup he got dinged but wasn't expected to play anyways behind Favre. As a first year starter he played all but part of one game. Didn't have an injury history at Cal either that I know of.

He's not the King of Wisconsin nor should he be given being a one year starter but as of right now his future is bright and he looks to have the leadership/moxie, arm, accuracy, and chemistry with his team to take us into the playoffs.

Naturally, anything that you don't agree with is garbage, and Bedard is an ass clown. Right :roll: . It's refreshing to see someone who can see A-Rod for what he is. A 5th year player who hasn't been better than the 12th best person at his position in the league.

So he's dinged now for sitting behind Favre for four years? Makes no sense. Call him for what he is, a first year starter whose numbers are better than your boy Cutlers.

Right or wrong, homer or objective, my money is on Rodgers.

[Partial]

Do you actually read the posts? I said IF he was needed in the previous two seasons, there is a good amount of time when he couldn't go.

Is Justin Harrell not injury prone because he's never missed a start?

What about Will Blackmon? Walking injury waiting to happen, but has never missed a start as a result.

[cpk1994]

Do you actually read the posts? I said IF he was needed in the previous two seasons, there is a good amount of time when he couldn't go.

Is Justin Harrell not injury prone because he's never missed a start?

What about Will Blackmon? Walking injury waiting to happen, but has never missed a start as a result. NOw I have read it all. I am now convinced. You are a mentally retarded tool.

[Partial]

Answer the question I posed instead of being a cock. It's a valid question. Are those players not injury liabilities because they never missed a start?

[cpk1994]

Answer the question I posed instead of being a cock. It's a valid question. Are those players not injury liabilities because they never missed a start?Ok asshole. They are liabilites becuase they never played in most of those games at ALL. Rodgers has played every game he was asked to. And you are still a retard.

[Partial]

I don't see the difference. A-Rod happened to make it one complete season thus far. He was even hurt and less effective for much of this one.

How exactly am I an asshole? You're callling names, ignoring questions, etc. Essentially flaming a conversation, because you're not bringing any debate or points to the table.

[3irty1]

I don't see the difference. A-Rod happened to make it one complete season thus far. He was even hurt and less effective for much of this one.

You say that like its a bad thing. Everyone gets hurt in the NFL that's not what makes you injury prone. Favre was always hurt but he was man enough to play through it.

[Spaulding]

Do you actually read the posts? I said IF he was needed in the previous two seasons, there is a good amount of time when he couldn't go.

Is Justin Harrell not injury prone because he's never missed a start?

What about Will Blackmon? Walking injury waiting to happen, but has never missed a start as a result.

I read the posts - thanks for the jab.

Harrell is injury prone, no argument but how is that the same as Rodgers? Blackmon on a lesser scale. Both were given opportunities to start if they produced. Until this past year, Rodgers was ALWAYS slated to be the backup behind Favre. He broke his foot in the NE game and yet managed to play the game out - tough kid. He got injured in the Dallas game but likely would have played the next week if needed just as he did after the Tampa game last year. He just wasn't ASKED to do so as Favre was the unquestioned starter.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but you get respect for posts with substance and facts, not personal opinions that appear to be unfounded.

[Lurker64]

1993 - HOF QB
1994 - HOF QB
1995 - HOF QB
1996 - HOF QB
1997 - HOF QB
1998 - HOF QB
1999 - HOF QB
2000 - HOF QB
2001 - Not HOF QB
2002 - HOF QB
2003 - Not HOF QB
2004 - HOF QB
2005 - HOF QB
2006 - HOF QB
2007 - HOF QB
2008 - Not HOF QB
2009 - HOF QB


The thing I think you're missing here is that a lot of guys are going to the hall of fame and became superstars precisely because they won a superbowl. Nobody was talking about Brady being a hall of famer when the Pats won their first superbowl... hell, nobody was really talking about it after they won their second. Only after the Pats won their third superbowl was the "Brady to HoF" talk really jump started.

Ben Roethlisberger, despite poor individual numbers, is being touted as a potential hall of famer *if* he keeps this up simply because he's won superbowls. The same logic could put Eli Manning in the superbowl if he goes on to win 2-3 more over the course of his career. Ben's individual numbers aren't really any better than Eli's.

I also note that you have Warner in the hall of fame, when many don't. The argument for Warner in the hall of fame is largely that despite his poor career numbers, he managed to get his team to the superbowl three times and he won one, while playing well in all three games.

I'd say of the list you mentioned, only Elway, Favre, P. Manning, Young, and Aikman were hall of famers outside of their success winning one or more championships.

[Partial]

1993 - HOF QB
1994 - HOF QB
1995 - HOF QB
1996 - HOF QB
1997 - HOF QB
1998 - HOF QB
1999 - HOF QB
2000 - HOF QB
2001 - Not HOF QB
2002 - HOF QB
2003 - Not HOF QB
2004 - HOF QB
2005 - HOF QB
2006 - HOF QB
2007 - HOF QB
2008 - Not HOF QB
2009 - HOF QB


The thing I think you're missing here is that a lot of guys are going to the hall of fame and became superstars precisely because they won a superbowl. Nobody was talking about Brady being a hall of famer when the Pats won their first superbowl... hell, nobody was really talking about it after they won their second. Only after the Pats won their third superbowl was the "Brady to HoF" talk really jump started.

Ben Roethlisberger, despite poor individual numbers, is being touted as a potential hall of famer *if* he keeps this up simply because he's won superbowls. The same logic could put Eli Manning in the superbowl if he goes on to win 2-3 more over the course of his career. Ben's individual numbers aren't really any better than Eli's.

I also note that you have Warner in the hall of fame, when many don't. The argument for Warner in the hall of fame is largely that despite his poor career numbers, he managed to get his team to the superbowl three times and he won one, while playing well in all three games.

I'd say of the list you mentioned, only Elway, Favre, P. Manning, Young, and Aikman were hall of famers outside of their success winning one or more championships.

Umm... Tom Brady has put up some the best statistics and winning percentages and is one of the most talented QBs ever. Of course nobody was talking about the HOF until he won his first super bowl, he was a 2nd year player. Brady is a lock even if he loses all 3 super bowls with the sort of numbers hes put up alone.

Roethlisberger has poor individual numbers? Since when? And what about the horrendous offensive line. Dude is the 4th best qb in the NFL imo.

Warner is an absolute lock for the HOF imo. Dude has put up spectacular numbers and is the 5th best QB in the NFL right now.

Good quarterbacks for the most part result in good teams. We could go back and forth and say the chicken or egg and which came first, but take a look at the evidence, and you'll note a definite pattern of stud QBs and super bowl wins.

[Gunakor]

Do you actually read the posts? I said IF he was needed in the previous two seasons, there is a good amount of time when he couldn't go.

Prove that it was a doctor's call to put him on IR when he got hurt backing up Favre. I suggest he probably could have gone if needed, but the coaches decided to shut him down for the season to let the injuries heal properly. The guy has shown a tremendous ability to play through pain. I suggest that perhaps the coaches decided he wasn't needed, and that's why he was shut down for the season. Coaches call, not a doctors call. Might have missed a few weeks had he been the starter, but certainly wouldn't have missed the rest of the season. Now prove me wrong.

[PackerTimer]

I don't see the difference. A-Rod happened to make it one complete season thus far. He was even hurt and less effective for much of this one.

How exactly am I an asshole? You're callling names, ignoring questions, etc. Essentially flaming a conversation, because you're not bringing any debate or points to the table.

A-Rod's performance suffered when he was hurt? News to me - I thought he played pretty admirable while hurt.

You're point that he would have missed starts if called upon is utterly ridicolous. There is absolutely no way you can say that. He wasn't ever expected to play. We have no way of knowing if he would have played through those injuries.

Every player is injury prone - by the end of the year they are all hurt. How many can play through it. Favre did. What we've seen of Rodgers indicates the same thing.

[Bossman641]

Sorry, I just have to bring up another of Bedard's rather strange supporting arguments that almost made me laugh out loud.

Rodgers did so well because he played in an offense in place in GB basically since Holmgren which minimizes mistakes.

Favre played in that offense and threw more interceptions than any QB ever.

MY GOD! How many interceptions would Favre have thrown if not for the offense that minimizes interceptions????

I agree that that was a pretty dumb statement. I don't think one could argue, though, that the offense from '08 was anything more than a small subset of the '07 attack.

As Nutz and I have posted so many times, they really kept things pretty simple for A-Rod, and didn't use the entire field to make his life easier.

Partial, I asked you this in another thread and you never responded to it. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you never saw the question. Here's what you said in that thread.


Partial wrote:
I think the main reason for the INT difference is that Cutler is playing using the entire field, where as A-Rod didn't use the middle of the field until late in the season, and even then it wasn't often.

My response.


Whoa Partial, back the train up. I thought Rodgers is what he is though and won't improve at all? You just pointed out here one thing that he can and will improve on with more playing time and experience. Or is Rodgers always gonna be a quarterback who doesn't use the whole field?

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You've said over and over again how Rodgers is what he is and doesn't have room to grow. So which is it? Are there things he can improve on or not?

[Partial]

I didn't see it, but I don't understand it either in this context.

He will improve some imo, but for the most part he is what he is. By the 5th year most players are what they are going to be outside of a few rare exceptions. Let's hope Rodgers is one of those.

Cutler still has another year or two to learn and grow. Here's hoping he does not do that.

Believe me, I'd rather be wrong about Cutler and Rodgers than correct!!!

[mraynrand]

That's why I'm an advocate of the "If he's not a super duper star, move on" theory at QB.

Move on to what? How many 'Super Duper Star QBs are there available? Dammit Partial, arguing about QBs with you is like arguing with a three year old having a tantrum.

"I'm sorry Partial, but all we have right now is a QB with a 93 rating, 4,000 yards passing, 200 rushing, and 28 TDs"
"No! NO! NO! I WANT A SUPER DUPER STAR!!!"

[mraynrand]

P.S. I didn't think it possible, but Bedard continues to get worse and worse. Skinbasket, hopefully your email will wake the guy up.

[Gunakor]

I didn't see it, but I don't understand it either in this context.

He will improve some imo, but for the most part he is what he is. By the 5th year most players are what they are going to be outside of a few rare exceptions. Let's hope Rodgers is one of those.

Cutler still has another year or two to learn and grow. Here's hoping he does not do that.

Believe me, I'd rather be wrong about Cutler and Rodgers than correct!!!

But there's alot more that you can learn on the field than you can from the sidelines. Rodgers has plenty that he can and will learn.

Favre kept on learning new tricks throughout his career. So will Rodgers. So will Cutler. So will Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco and Matt Leinhart. Hell, I'll bet even Vince Young has a thing or two he could learn or improve on years down the road. Players don't just stop getting better in their 4th or 5th season.

[3irty1]

Kind of funny that you mention Big Ben because he's the QB in the league that A-Rod reminds me of the most. Not that I'm comparing anything other than the way they play the game.

They share some strengths: Throwing the deep ball, accuracy to all levels, great at buying time, surprisingly athletic, accurate on the run, always has eyes downfield looking to drive the ball especially if the play breaks down.

They share the same criticism: Hold the ball forever, take a lot of sacks, Some durability concerns, slightly inconsistent.

[Bossman641]

I didn't see it, but I don't understand it either in this context.

He will improve some imo, but for the most part he is what he is. By the 5th year most players are what they are going to be outside of a few rare exceptions. Let's hope Rodgers is one of those.

Cutler still has another year or two to learn and grow. Here's hoping he does not do that.

Believe me, I'd rather be wrong about Cutler and Rodgers than correct!!!

I don't see why you are so sure he won't improve. By all accounts, he has improved every year he has been in the league. I don't think you could disagree with that. He's also shown himself to be a hard worker, both mentally and in the weight room - as you have noted numerous times.

If I remember correctly, he had a pretty high Wonderlic score coming out and, based on what we've seen and heard from him, is a bright guy. I just don't understand the negativity. He's improved his physical attributes every year, improved his understanding of the game, and has improved his actual play every year. I see no reason to believe he will all of a sudden tail off.

[Fritz]

I agree that that was a pretty dumb statement. I don't think one could argue, though, that the offense from '08 was anything more than a small subset of the '07 attack.

As Nutz and I have posted so many times, they really kept things pretty simple for A-Rod, and didn't use the entire field to make his life easier.

It never ceases to amaze me how some of you jump on an erroneous interpretation of a statement or statements, and harp on it until it reaches a life of its own.

You do know Adrian Barbre punched a coach last spring at practice, don't you Patler??? :lol:

[GrnBay007]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

[Gunakor]

Kind of funny that you mention Big Ben because he's the QB in the league that A-Rod reminds me of the most. Not that I'm comparing anything other than the way they play the game.

They share some strengths: Throwing the deep ball, accuracy to all levels, great at buying time, surprisingly athletic, accurate on the run, always has eyes downfield looking to drive the ball especially if the play breaks down.

They share the same criticism: Hold the ball forever, take a lot of sacks, Some durability concerns, slightly inconsistent.

Good post. Great comparison too.

Hopefully the Steelers' mentality on defense the new coaching staff brings in will make for a scenario where the two can compare Super Bowl rings too.

[Bossman641]

I agree that that was a pretty dumb statement. I don't think one could argue, though, that the offense from '08 was anything more than a small subset of the '07 attack.

As Nutz and I have posted so many times, they really kept things pretty simple for A-Rod, and didn't use the entire field to make his life easier.

It never ceases to amaze me how some of you jump on an erroneous interpretation of a statement or statements, and harp on it until it reaches a life of its own.

You do know Adrian Barbre punched a coach last spring at practice, don't you Patler??? :lol:

Wow. Allen Barbre and his second cousin Adrian BOTH punched a coach? What are the chances! No wonder he didn't play.

[Zool]

I agree that that was a pretty dumb statement. I don't think one could argue, though, that the offense from '08 was anything more than a small subset of the '07 attack.

As Nutz and I have posted so many times, they really kept things pretty simple for A-Rod, and didn't use the entire field to make his life easier.

It never ceases to amaze me how some of you jump on an erroneous interpretation of a statement or statements, and harp on it until it reaches a life of its own.

You do know Adrian Barbre punched a coach last spring at practice, don't you Patler??? :lol:

What I cant figure out is how Partial keeps baiting people into debating him. I know its hard to resist sometimes but damn this is getting old. You'll never change his mind on a single topic.

[Gunakor]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

First, you identify what the problem is. You've identified that the problem isn't the quarterback. Is it the OL blocking for him? The RB's that are supposed to take pressure off of him? The receivers he's throwing to?

How are the games being lost? Is the problem that you can't score enough points or is it that you give up too many? If it's defense, do you need to focus more on getting pressure on the QB or plugging the running lanes? Do you need more competent safeties giving help to your corners on deep pass patterns?

I believe in the scenario you presented there would be many more questions than there'd be answers.

[Pugger]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

No, I doubt most folks here think Rodgers is the 'second coming'. :roll: Most of us are pleased with the way Rodgers played most of the time. If Rodgers keeps putting up great numbers but no winning record then you DO then have to look around and see what else is going on. If your QB is putting up 4000+ yds and 25+ TDs, what more can your QB do? :?:

[PackerTimer]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

No, I doubt most folks here think Rodgers is the 'second coming'. :roll: Most of us are pleased with the way Rodgers played most of the time. If Rodgers keeps putting up great numbers but no winning record then you DO then have to look around and see what else is going on. If your QB is putting up 4000+ yds and 25+ TDs, what more can your QB do? :?:

Maybe some blocking, provide some pass rush, hand the ball of to himself and rush for 1500 yards, call plays. If he can't multitask he has no business suiting up.

[Pugger]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

No, I doubt most folks here think Rodgers is the 'second coming'. :roll: Most of us are pleased with the way Rodgers played most of the time. If Rodgers keeps putting up great numbers but no winning record then you DO then have to look around and see what else is going on. If your QB is putting up 4000+ yds and 25+ TDs, what more can your QB do? :?:

Maybe some blocking, provide some pass rush, hand the ball of to himself and rush for 1500 yards, call plays. If he can't multitask he has no business suiting up.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Dylan McKay]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

No, I doubt most folks here think Rodgers is the 'second coming'. :roll: Most of us are pleased with the way Rodgers played most of the time. If Rodgers keeps putting up great numbers but no winning record then you DO then have to look around and see what else is going on. If your QB is putting up 4000+ yds and 25+ TDs, what more can your QB do? :?:

Teach him to stay upright?

She poses a good question, but one that might not be all that realistic. Rodgers biggest issue, and one that all first year starting qbs usually have is dealing with the pass rush and the timing of the game. This was something that later in his career Favre was fantastic at, timing, he knew exactly how much time he had in the pocket, sure sacks happen, they happen to all QBs. Manning and Brady are also very good at this as well. Rodgers did improve as the season went on. He used the pocket better, his footwork came along as well.

But again, it is a valid question by "No Nuts", If Rodgers has the stats you need to look on a game by game basis at where all those yards are coming from, when is he scoring the touchdowns. If it is later in the game when the opponent is up by three scores and playing a soft zone keeping everything in front of them then you have problems that can be associated with the whole offense, including Rodgers.

[GrnBay007]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

No, I doubt most folks here think Rodgers is the 'second coming'. :roll: Most of us are pleased with the way Rodgers played most of the time. If Rodgers keeps putting up great numbers but no winning record then you DO then have to look around and see what else is going on. If your QB is putting up 4000+ yds and 25+ TDs, what more can your QB do? :?:

Maybe some blocking, provide some pass rush, hand the ball of to himself and rush for 1500 yards, call plays. If he can't multitask he has no business suiting up.

That was funny. :roll:

Wonder how many years Favre had crap all around him and still found a way to have a winning season? And please note...that is not to start shit...just mentioning it to people that have nothing but negative to say about Favre lately.

[Lurker64]

Umm... Tom Brady has put up some the best statistics and winning percentages and is one of the most talented QBs ever. Of course nobody was talking about the HOF until he won his first super bowl, he was a 2nd year player. Brady is a lock even if he loses all 3 super bowls with the sort of numbers hes put up alone.

Roethlisberger has poor individual numbers? Since when? And what about the horrendous offensive line. Dude is the 4th best qb in the NFL imo.

The thing is though, that nobody had Brady or Roethlisberger in the hall of fame after their first year as a starter. Both were guys who rode all-time great defenses deep into the playoffs by not making mistakes and making a play here or there.

Seriously Brady in 2001 threw the ball 413 times for 264 completions (63.9% completion percentage) totaling 2,843 yards with a 10.7 yards/completion and 18 TDs with 14 INTs. The Patriots finished the year with the 6th ranked scoring defense, with the 2nd best scoring defense among playoff teams.

Roethlisberger in 2004 threw the ball 295 times completing 196 passes (66.4% completion rate) for 2,621 yards (13.3 yards per completion) and 17 TDs with 11 INTs. The Pittsburgh Steelers finished the year with the best overall scoring defense, and only gave up 17 points to the Jets before getting run over by New England.

NOBODY had either guy in the hall of fame after their first year as a starter.

In 2008, Rodgers threw the ball 536 times for 341 completions (63.6 completion percentage) totaling 4,038 yards (11.7 per completion) with 28 TDs and only 13 INTs. The Packers finished the year with the 22nd ranked scoring defense and did not make the playoffs.

Now am I saying that Rodgers is a hall of famer? No. What I'm saying is that we won't know whether or not he's a hall of famer or a dud after one year of starting. We didn't know Peyton Manning was a hall of famer in his first year as a starter, we didn't know Tom Brady was a hall of famer in his first year as a starter, we didn't know Brett Favre was a hall of famer in his first year as a starter, we didn't know Troy Aikman was a hall of famer in his first year as a starter, and continue ad nauseum.

Now it's entirely possible that Dom Capers will get the Packers defense up in the top 10 or top 5, and Aaron Rodgers will go on to win multiple superbowls and everybody will consider him a starter. Neither you, nor I, know whether or not this will happen because neither of us can see the future. But it's silly to even insinuate that "Rodgers won't ever win a superbowl for Green Bay because he's not a hall of fame or superstar QB". What first year starter is?

[cpk1994]

I don't see the difference. A-Rod happened to make it one complete season thus far. He was even hurt and less effective for much of this one.

How exactly am I an asshole? You're callling names, ignoring questions, etc. Essentially flaming a conversation, because you're not bringing any debate or points to the table.Yeah his first season as a starter. Favre got injured many times in his career and played through it. Did that make Favre injury prone? Just admit you are pulling shit out of your ass becuase you hate Rodgers. Your BS is very old and very tired.

[Partial]

I don't see the talent that was obvious from day 1 in a guy like Manning, or the moxy and killer instinct that was apparent early on with TBrades.

The first year starter stuff is a bunch of bunk. Maybe he'll be a Steve Young. Hopefully. I just don't see it happening, though.

[Lurker64]

But again, it is a valid question by "No Nuts", If Rodgers has the stats you need to look on a game by game basis at where all those yards are coming from, when is he scoring the touchdowns. If it is later in the game when the opponent is up by three scores and playing a soft zone keeping everything in front of them then you have problems that can be associated with the whole offense, including Rodgers.

Though, interestingly enough, Green Bay was tied or leading in 13 of 16 games at the 55 minute mark this season; the exceptions being the Dallas game (where Green Bay scored 16 points, their only TD coming late), the Tampa Bay game (where Rodgers was injured and missed the end of the game), and the Saints game (where the defense's inability to stop anybody wearing black made the game get out of hand in a hurry, though 21 of the eventual 29 points were scored in the first half).

So Rodgers certainly isn't putting up big numbers against soft zones just intended to maintain a big lead. He was in very few of those situations last year.

[Partial]

But again, it is a valid question by "No Nuts", If Rodgers has the stats you need to look on a game by game basis at where all those yards are coming from, when is he scoring the touchdowns. If it is later in the game when the opponent is up by three scores and playing a soft zone keeping everything in front of them then you have problems that can be associated with the whole offense, including Rodgers.

Though, interestingly enough, Green Bay was tied or leading in 13 of 16 games at the 55 minute mark this season; the exceptions being the Dallas game (where Green Bay scored 16 points, their only TD coming late), the Tampa Bay game (where Rodgers was injured and missed the end of the game), and the Saints game (where the defense's inability to stop anybody wearing black made the game get out of hand in a hurry, though 21 of the eventual 29 points were scored in the first half).

So Rodgers certainly isn't putting up big numbers against soft zones just intended to maintain a big lead. He was in very few of those situations last year.

More often these leads were despite the offense, though. Our offense went sour right quick in a hurry against Detroit before the D got 'em back in the game.

The O couldn't get anything going against Tenn, Jax or Minne.

No O against the Falcons either. I was at that game and it was painful watching the O struggle. Rodgers played a mature game, but man, that was brutal.

[cpk1994]

And please note...that is not to start shit...just mentioning it to people that have nothing but negative to say about Favre lately.When you start a statement denying something, it just makes you even more guilty.

[Lurker64]

I don't see the talent that was obvious from day 1 in a guy like Manning, or the moxy and killer instinct that was apparent early on with TBrades.

I'm going to call bullshit. You're seriously going to tell me that you say "instant HoF potential" in Peyton Manning in the year he went 3-13? Or that you thought right away that Drew Bledsoe getting hurt and having to sub in this 6th round guy from Michigan was going to ensure the Patriots superbowl? It's awful easy to say "I knew he was going to be great right away" after you already know somebody is great.

Can you back up any of this with statements that anybody could verify you made in 1998 or 2001? Otherwise "I saw greatness in Brady and Manning right away, and I don't see it in Rodgers, so Rodgers won't be great" is not an argument.

[cpk1994]

I agree that that was a pretty dumb statement. I don't think one could argue, though, that the offense from '08 was anything more than a small subset of the '07 attack.

As Nutz and I have posted so many times, they really kept things pretty simple for A-Rod, and didn't use the entire field to make his life easier.

It never ceases to amaze me how some of you jump on an erroneous interpretation of a statement or statements, and harp on it until it reaches a life of its own.

You do know Adrian Barbre punched a coach last spring at practice, don't you Patler??? :lol:

What I cant figure out is how Partial keeps baiting people into debating him. I know its hard to resist sometimes but damn this is getting old. You'll never change his mind on a single topic.Well, maybe if TT would sign some FA, we have something to talk about making it easier to ignore Partial. :lol:

[GrnBay007]

I don't see the difference. A-Rod happened to make it one complete season thus far. He was even hurt and less effective for much of this one.

How exactly am I an asshole? You're callling names, ignoring questions, etc. Essentially flaming a conversation, because you're not bringing any debate or points to the table.Yeah his first season as a starter. Favre got injured many times in his career and played through it. Did that make Favre injury prone?

And Favre had how many winning seasons? We won't know the answer about Rodgers/injury prone/winning seasons for many years to come. So why argue now?

[GrnBay007]

And please note...that is not to start shit...just mentioning it to people that have nothing but negative to say about Favre lately.When you start a statement denying something, it just makes you even more guilty.

GAWD.......not even YOU can deny what's been going on, please!! :shock:

[PackerTimer]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

No, I doubt most folks here think Rodgers is the 'second coming'. :roll: Most of us are pleased with the way Rodgers played most of the time. If Rodgers keeps putting up great numbers but no winning record then you DO then have to look around and see what else is going on. If your QB is putting up 4000+ yds and 25+ TDs, what more can your QB do? :?:

Maybe some blocking, provide some pass rush, hand the ball of to himself and rush for 1500 yards, call plays. If he can't multitask he has no business suiting up.

That was funny. :roll:

Wonder how many years Favre had crap all around him and still found a way to have a winning season? And please note...that is not to start shit...just mentioning it to people that have nothing but negative to say about Favre lately.

Let's not pretend that guys like Robert Brooks and Antonio Freeman and Ahman Green and Keith Jackson weren't good players for him. He had weapons.

And don't forget that his biggest weapon when he was winning was a good defense, i.e. the number one ranked defense when he won the Super Bowl.

Roll your eyes all you want - but let's be real. Favre often had good if not very good players around him.

[Gunakor]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

No, I doubt most folks here think Rodgers is the 'second coming'. :roll: Most of us are pleased with the way Rodgers played most of the time. If Rodgers keeps putting up great numbers but no winning record then you DO then have to look around and see what else is going on. If your QB is putting up 4000+ yds and 25+ TDs, what more can your QB do? :?:

Maybe some blocking, provide some pass rush, hand the ball of to himself and rush for 1500 yards, call plays. If he can't multitask he has no business suiting up.

That was funny. :roll:

Wonder how many years Favre had crap all around him and still found a way to have a winning season? And please note...that is not to start shit...just mentioning it to people that have nothing but negative to say about Favre lately.

To be fair, the only year Favre had absolute crap around him, he finished the season 4-12. For most of Favre's career he had stellar talent surrounding him.

I wish the negativity would stop too, but I completely understand why it continues. Favre, even after leaving Green Bay, had nothing but negativity to say about the Packers too. It's completely understandable that some Packer fans would take issue with that. Now, enough time has passed that it should have died down - and it has to a large degree. You don't log in to find 20 Favre threads on the front page anymore. But it won't completely go away unless those on both sides of that fence let it go. Those who criticize Favre as well as those who steadfastly defend him.

So my suggestion is to just ignore those who continue to criticize him, and perhaps when those people don't get the satisfaction of a response they'll drop it themselves. I just hope that, if you really want this to end, you aren't responding to these posts simply to gain some measure of satisfaction of your own - the satisfaction that comes with setting someone straight or putting them in their place, so to speak. Just know that every response to these criticisms just fuels the debate even more.

[RashanGary]

:cow:

[Lurker64]

The O couldn't get anything going against Tenn, Jax or Minne.

No O against the Falcons either. I was at that game and it was painful watching the O struggle. Rodgers played a mature game, but man, that was brutal.

Was any of this any more painful than watching the Favre-led offense in 2007 struggle against Philadelphia (no offensive TDs), Washington (1 offensive TD), Denver (the only 2 offensive TDs on drives that each lasted a play, otherwise just 2 FGs), the first half against Kansas City (6 total points), or at Chicago (shut out except a long Grant run)?

Face it, as talented as the offense is at certain positions last year or the one before, we haven't seen a Green Bay offense who can move the ball at will against pretty much anybody in about a decade. The offense struggled at times with Rodgers, the offense struggled at times with Favre. There are teams with a finely tuned machine for an offense, and we are not one of them.

[cpk1994]

I don't see the difference. A-Rod happened to make it one complete season thus far. He was even hurt and less effective for much of this one.

How exactly am I an asshole? You're callling names, ignoring questions, etc. Essentially flaming a conversation, because you're not bringing any debate or points to the table.Yeah his first season as a starter. Favre got injured many times in his career and played through it. Did that make Favre injury prone?

And Favre had how many winning seasons? We won't know the answer about Rodgers/injury prone/winning seasons for many years to come. So why argue now?I agree, but it's Partial being an ass and holding it against Rodgers as reasons that Rodgers will never amount to anything. What I am saying is that many QB's have played through injuries and Partial is not holding against them. WHy the double standard against Rodgers?

[mraynrand]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

Answer: It depends


1983: 4458 yards, 32TD, 29INT, 87.3rating; Packer record 8-8
http://www.sportsposterwarehouse.com/catImages/dickey03pf-1.jpg

[Partial]

I don't see the talent that was obvious from day 1 in a guy like Manning, or the moxy and killer instinct that was apparent early on with TBrades.

I'm going to call bullshit. You're seriously going to tell me that you say "instant HoF potential" in Peyton Manning in the year he went 3-13? Or that you thought right away that Drew Bledsoe getting hurt and having to sub in this 6th round guy from Michigan was going to ensure the Patriots superbowl? It's awful easy to say "I knew he was going to be great right away" after you already know somebody is great.

Can you back up any of this with statements that anybody could verify you made in 1998 or 2001? Otherwise "I saw greatness in Brady and Manning right away, and I don't see it in Rodgers, so Rodgers won't be great" is not an argument.

Peyton Manning looked pretty damn good as a rookie. He looked better than Ryan and Flacco. His team around him was not very good, but he looked like the real deal for sure.

Brady: You knew Brady was going to be a HOF by his 3rd season starting. He led the league in TDs his second year starting, but it wasn't until the second super bowl year that you knew he was a stud. Dude was 2nd in MVP voting iirm and led his team to 12 straight wins.

I'm not saying "Oh, I knew it since College!". Everyone knew Manning was going to be good coming out. He was a once-in-a-decade-prospect.

I don't think anybody knew it about Brady until he started playing and doing it quite well.

If Rodgers had the sort of skills these guys had, the Packers would have gotten rid of Favre a year earlier than they did imho, maybe two years earlier.

[mraynrand]

I don't see the talent that was obvious from day 1 in a guy like Manning, or the moxy and killer instinct that was apparent early on with TBrades..

The greatest thing about Brady in his first year was his work on the defensive side of the ball - holding the greatest show on turf to 17 points and intercepting that pass off Warner for a TD in the Superbowl. His TD pass to Patten was pretty good too. Did he hold the ball for Vinatieri's kicks too? That takes talent as well.

[Partial]

The O couldn't get anything going against Tenn, Jax or Minne.

No O against the Falcons either. I was at that game and it was painful watching the O struggle. Rodgers played a mature game, but man, that was brutal.

Was any of this any more painful than watching the Favre-led offense in 2007 struggle against Philadelphia (no offensive TDs), Washington (1 offensive TD), Denver (the only 2 offensive TDs on drives that each lasted a play, otherwise just 2 FGs), the first half against Kansas City (6 total points), or at Chicago (shut out except a long Grant run)?

Face it, as talented as the offense is at certain positions last year or the one before, we haven't seen a Green Bay offense who can move the ball at will against pretty much anybody in about a decade. The offense struggled at times with Rodgers, the offense struggled at times with Favre. There are teams with a finely tuned machine for an offense, and we are not one of them.

It's not all about points, its about sustaining drives enough to keep your guys fresh and points. Both are important.

That was a pretty good post Lurker, and I think the points are fairly valid. I don't know how much they sustained their drives, but I can tell you that the defense was fresh enough at the end to make the plays and put us over the top against KC and Washington, so I'm led to believe they were fresher as a result of moving the ball more.

[PackerTimer]

I don't see the talent that was obvious from day 1 in a guy like Manning, or the moxy and killer instinct that was apparent early on with TBrades.

I'm going to call bullshit. You're seriously going to tell me that you say "instant HoF potential" in Peyton Manning in the year he went 3-13? Or that you thought right away that Drew Bledsoe getting hurt and having to sub in this 6th round guy from Michigan was going to ensure the Patriots superbowl? It's awful easy to say "I knew he was going to be great right away" after you already know somebody is great.

Can you back up any of this with statements that anybody could verify you made in 1998 or 2001? Otherwise "I saw greatness in Brady and Manning right away, and I don't see it in Rodgers, so Rodgers won't be great" is not an argument.

Peyton Manning looked pretty damn good as a rookie. He looked better than Ryan and Flacco. His team around him was not very good, but he looked like the real deal for sure.

Brady: You knew Brady was going to be a HOF by his 3rd season starting. He led the league in TDs his second year starting, but it wasn't until the second super bowl year that you knew he was a stud. Dude was 2nd in MVP voting iirm and led his team to 12 straight wins.

I'm not saying "Oh, I knew it since College!". Everyone knew Manning was going to be good coming out. He was a once-in-a-decade-prospect.

I don't think anybody knew it about Brady until he started playing and doing it quite well.

If Rodgers had the sort of skills these guys had, the Packers would have gotten rid of Favre a year earlier than they did imho, maybe two years earlier.

Well, by my count we have two more seasons to go.

[mraynrand]

Face it, as talented as the offense is at certain positions last year or the one before, we haven't seen a Green Bay offense who can move the ball at will against pretty much anybody in about a decade. .

You weren't watching the same team I was. Look at Favre's numbers from 2004 - they match pretty closely his last MVP season in 1997. The Packers moved the ball very well in 2004, 2003, and the first half of 2002, when they started 8-1 - before all the injuries. 2001 was OK too. 2003 was a run dominant team that really did move the ball at will, even against the best run defenses. Although they weren't exactly the same team(s) that won the superbowl, the Packers moved the ball at will on the defending Superbowl champs in 2001, 2002, and 2003.

[cheesner]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

No, I doubt most folks here think Rodgers is the 'second coming'. :roll: Most of us are pleased with the way Rodgers played most of the time. If Rodgers keeps putting up great numbers but no winning record then you DO then have to look around and see what else is going on. If your QB is putting up 4000+ yds and 25+ TDs, what more can your QB do? :?:

Maybe some blocking, provide some pass rush, hand the ball of to himself and rush for 1500 yards, call plays. If he can't multitask he has no business suiting up.

That was funny. :roll:

Wonder how many years Favre had crap all around him and still found a way to have a winning season? And please note...that is not to start shit...just mentioning it to people that have nothing but negative to say about Favre lately.

Let's not pretend that guys like Robert Brooks and Antonio Freeman and Ahman Green and Keith Jackson weren't good players for him. He had weapons.

And don't forget that his biggest weapon when he was winning was a good defense, i.e. the number one ranked defense when he won the Super Bowl.

Roll your eyes all you want - but let's be real. Favre often had good if not very good players around him.
As well as Sterling Sharpe, Dorsey Levens, and an excellent offensive line.

[cheesner]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

I would think we could probably trade him to Chicago for 2 firsts and a third and Cutler.

[Bossman641]

I don't see the talent that was obvious from day 1 in a guy like Manning, or the moxy and killer instinct that was apparent early on with TBrades.

I'm going to call bullshit. You're seriously going to tell me that you say "instant HoF potential" in Peyton Manning in the year he went 3-13? Or that you thought right away that Drew Bledsoe getting hurt and having to sub in this 6th round guy from Michigan was going to ensure the Patriots superbowl? It's awful easy to say "I knew he was going to be great right away" after you already know somebody is great.

Can you back up any of this with statements that anybody could verify you made in 1998 or 2001? Otherwise "I saw greatness in Brady and Manning right away, and I don't see it in Rodgers, so Rodgers won't be great" is not an argument.

Peyton Manning looked pretty damn good as a rookie. He looked better than Ryan and Flacco. His team around him was not very good, but he looked like the real deal for sure.

Brady: You knew Brady was going to be a HOF by his 3rd season starting. He led the league in TDs his second year starting, but it wasn't until the second super bowl year that you knew he was a stud. Dude was 2nd in MVP voting iirm and led his team to 12 straight wins.

I'm not saying "Oh, I knew it since College!". Everyone knew Manning was going to be good coming out. He was a once-in-a-decade-prospect.

I don't think anybody knew it about Brady until he started playing and doing it quite well.

If Rodgers had the sort of skills these guys had, the Packers would have gotten rid of Favre a year earlier than they did imho, maybe two years earlier.

Well, by my count we have two more seasons to go.

I'd also like to add


If Rodgers had the sort of skills these guys had, the Packers would have gotten rid of Favre a year earlier than they did imho, maybe two years earlier

Brady's time came as a result of Bledsoe getting injured. Got to love when Partial makes your points for you.

[CaptainKickass]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!!!!!!!


I love lamp.



.

[Lurker64]

Brady: You knew Brady was going to be a HOF by his 3rd season starting. He led the league in TDs his second year starting, but it wasn't until the second super bowl year that you knew he was a stud. Dude was 2nd in MVP voting iirm and led his team to 12 straight wins.

Brady looked very, very good in his second year starting, but he only looked adequate, brainy, and gutsy in his first year starting. In his third year as a starter, the point at which I think we can agree that people started to think "if he keeps this up: Hall of fame", Tom Brady was 27 years old. Aaron Rodgers is currently 25 years old, and will not turn 27 until until the end of the year after next.

I think my main problem with your estimation of Rodgers is that you've given up on him way, way, way, way too early. Some guys are better than others on their first years as a starter, but one year of starting is too early to give up on anybody who has shown any promise. Not only that, but Rodger's first year starting was under some of the worst external circumstances imaginable. Not only was he following up after a legend, but he held onto that job after the legend tried to force his way back into the door, and had to weather the resulting media shitstorm.


If Rodgers had the sort of skills these guys had, the Packers would have gotten rid of Favre a year earlier than they did imho, maybe two years earlier.

Considering the public outcry and general ruckus after Green Bay refused to hand back the job to Favre after he had already retired and skipped all of the offseason workouts, I don't think Green Bay could have gotten rid of Favre any earlier than they did. People would have burned down Lambeau if they benched Favre 2 years ago.

[GrnBay007]

[
Roll your eyes all you want - but let's be real. Favre often had good if not very good players around him.

Often time....not ALL the time. He did well with little very often and is not getting credit where credit is due here. That's all I'm saying.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Same old thread.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5536/theusualstuff.png

[PackerTimer]

Same old thread.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5536/theusualstuff.png

From this point forward no thread will ever be complete without flow charts.

Funniest damn thing I've seen all day.

[Bossman641]

[
Roll your eyes all you want - but let's be real. Favre often had good if not very good players around him.

Often time....not ALL the time. He did well with little very often and is not getting credit where credit is due here. That's all I'm saying.

Honestly, what does it matter? Favre's not on the team. Favre has made it pretty clear he wants nothing to do with the organization for the time being.

I like him, I respect what he did for the organization. I was turned off on how he acted. I don't hate him. I don't dislike him. I'm just tired of hearing about him. I don't understand this constant need to make sure Favre gets the credit he deserves, just like I don't understand the need of some to put him down all the time.

He was loved by 99.9% of Packer fans while he was with the team, isn't that enough?

[GrnBay007]

I wish the negativity would stop too, but I completely understand why it continues. Favre, even after leaving Green Bay, had nothing but negativity to say about the Packers too. It's completely understandable that some Packer fans would take issue with that. Now, enough time has passed that it should have died down - and it has to a large degree. You don't log in to find 20 Favre threads on the front page anymore. But it won't completely go away unless those on both sides of that fence let it go. Those who criticize Favre as well as those who steadfastly defend him.

.

Gunakor, I agree with wishing the negativity would stop, however, I do have a problem with the bolded above. I don't recall Favre having nothing but negative to say about the PACKERS, hell, he tried with all his mite to return to the team he loved. He had issues with TT and/or MM....(who knows, we weren't there) He wanted to continue to play and they didn't want him.....he moved on. How can you say he had nothing but negative to say about the Packers? He had nothing but good to say about his years playing in Green Bay for the Green Bay Packers........minus the TT aspect.

[GrnBay007]

[
Roll your eyes all you want - but let's be real. Favre often had good if not very good players around him.

Often time....not ALL the time. He did well with little very often and is not getting credit where credit is due here. That's all I'm saying.

Honestly, what does it matter? Favre's not on the team. Favre has made it pretty clear he wants nothing to do with the organization for the time being.

I like him, I respect what he did for the organization. I was turned off on how he acted. I don't hate him. I don't dislike him. I'm just tired of hearing about him. I don't understand this constant need to make sure Favre gets the credit he deserves, just like I don't understand the need of some to put him down all the time.

He was loved by 99.9% of Packer fans while he was with the team, isn't that enough?

Yes.
Now unless you haven't been reading PR the last while or are blind, you will notice all the negative shit being thrown about Favre lately.

I can ask the same. He's a lock for HOF, why do people continue to insinuate he was not what he was and bad mouth him now? It's crazy.

[SkinBasket]

And I thought this post started at maximum stupidity...

http://cdn.stereogum.com/img/spinaltap_11.jpg

[RashanGary]

[quote=Gunakor]
He had nothing but good to say about his years playing in Green Bay for the Green Bay Packers........minus the TT aspect.

boo hoo

poor Brett


Good Riddance

[Bossman641]

[
Roll your eyes all you want - but let's be real. Favre often had good if not very good players around him.

Often time....not ALL the time. He did well with little very often and is not getting credit where credit is due here. That's all I'm saying.

Honestly, what does it matter? Favre's not on the team. Favre has made it pretty clear he wants nothing to do with the organization for the time being.

I like him, I respect what he did for the organization. I was turned off on how he acted. I don't hate him. I don't dislike him. I'm just tired of hearing about him. I don't understand this constant need to make sure Favre gets the credit he deserves, just like I don't understand the need of some to put him down all the time.

He was loved by 99.9% of Packer fans while he was with the team, isn't that enough?

Yes.
Now unless you haven't been reading PR the last while or are blind, you will notice all the negative shit being thrown about Favre lately.

I can ask the same. He's a lock for HOF, why do people continue to insinuate he was not what he was and bad mouth him now? It's crazy.

And who has the bad-mouthing come from? I'v seen Justin Harrell and CPK, and even they have tuned it way down from what it was.

They don't like Favre. If they are letting their disappointment with him now cloud their view of what he once was, that is their problem.

I guess I just don't see the big deal. Unless there are some posts I've missed, it's the same people as always. How is that any different then Merlin thinking TT is the devil, Packnut putting down TT in every post, Wist having the optimism of a death-row inmate, or Partial hating Rodgers? With some people, you just know what they are going to say.

[Patler]

[
Roll your eyes all you want - but let's be real. Favre often had good if not very good players around him.

Often time....not ALL the time. He did well with little very often and is not getting credit where credit is due here. That's all I'm saying.

Very often? Really? I will give you 2005 because of injuries, but what other year?

1992 - Sharpe, Jackie Harris, Edgar Bennett
1993 - Sharpe, Jackie Harris, Edgar Bennett, Brooks
1994 - Sharpe, Brooks, Edgar Bennett, Chmura
1995 - Brooks, Edgar Bennett, Chmura, Levens
1996 - Freeman, Rison, Jackson, Bennett, Chmura, Levens, Beebe
1997 - Freeman, Brooks, Chmura, Levens, Henderson
1998 - Freeman, Brooks, Chmura, Levens, Henderson, Schroeder
1999 - Freeman, Schroeder, Levens, Bradford, Henderson
2000 - Freeman, Schroeder, Levens, Green, Driver, Henderson
2001 - Freeman, Schroeder, Green, Bradford, Franks, Levens, Driver, Henderson
2002 - Driver, Green, Glenn, Franks, Henderson, Walker, Ferguson
2003 - Driver, Green, Walker, Franks, Henderson, Ferguson, Fisher, Walls
2004 - Walker, Driver, Green Fisher, Franks, Henderson, Ferguson
2005 - 'nuff said!
2006 - Driver, Green, Jennings, Franks, Herron
2007 - Driver, Jennings, Lee, Jones, Grant.

The truth is, Favre had lots of talented skill position players with him. If anyone isn't getting the credit where credit is due, it is the players in the list above. It is a misconception that Favre often had little talent with which to work. You don't have to degrade the players he played with to build up the Favre mystique.

[GrnBay007]

[

The truth is, Favre had lots of talented skill position players with him. If anyone isn't getting the credit where credit is due, it is the players in the list above. It is a misconception that Favre often had little talent with which to work. You don't have to degrade the players he played with to build up the Favre mystique.

When the team wins the QB generally gets credit. When the team loses the QB often times gets the blame...well known fact.

I've never degraded specific players Favre played with.

Why do so many here try SO hard to discredit Favre?

[PlantPage55]

The defense must not have been very good, but Peyton Manning still looked great when they went 3-13.

But Rodgers hasn't? :roll: Give me a break, Partial.

You ask us why we dismiss "valid" points. Who's to say that they are valid? They sound like bullshit. Most are opinions by apparently blind people who didn't see Aaron Rodgers make all the throws a QB needs to make and have the second best season at QB that a 1st year starter has EVER had.

We've been disproving this stuff left and right.

But I can see that none of this will matter to you, because the ONE NFL fan that you can't convince of anything - is the one that hangs the team record on the quarterback and leaves it at that. It's ridiculous and I find it hard that you even believe it yourself, because you are an intelligent writer. I can't believe your intelligence stops at something so short-sighted.

[PackerTimer]

[
Roll your eyes all you want - but let's be real. Favre often had good if not very good players around him.

Often time....not ALL the time. He did well with little very often and is not getting credit where credit is due here. That's all I'm saying.

Very often? Really? I will give you 2005 because of injuries, but what other year?

1992 - Sharpe, Jackie Harris, Edgar Bennett
1993 - Sharpe, Jackie Harris, Edgar Bennett, Brooks
1994 - Sharpe, Brooks, Edgar Bennett, Chmura
1995 - Brooks, Edgar Bennett, Chmura, Levens
1996 - Freeman, Rison, Jackson, Bennett, Chmura, Levens, Beebe
1997 - Freeman, Brooks, Chmura, Levens, Henderson
1998 - Freeman, Brooks, Chmura, Levens, Henderson, Schroeder
1999 - Freeman, Schroeder, Levens, Bradford, Henderson
2000 - Freeman, Schroeder, Levens, Green, Driver, Henderson
2001 - Freeman, Schroeder, Green, Bradford, Franks, Levens, Driver, Henderson
2002 - Driver, Green, Glenn, Franks, Henderson, Walker, Ferguson
2003 - Driver, Green, Walker, Franks, Henderson, Ferguson, Fisher, Walls
2004 - Walker, Driver, Green Fisher, Franks, Henderson, Ferguson
2005 - 'nuff said!
2006 - Driver, Green, Jennings, Franks, Herron
2007 - Driver, Jennings, Lee, Jones, Grant.

The truth is, Favre had lots of talented skill position players with him. If anyone isn't getting the credit where credit is due, it is the players in the list above. It is a misconception that Favre often had little talent with which to work. You don't have to degrade the players he played with to build up the Favre mystique.

He also had outstanding defenses supporitng him with names like White, Jones, Butler, Robinson, Newsome, Dotson, Brown, etc, etc.

When you look back at the teams in the mid and late 90's the talent was outstanding on both sides of the ball. Favre was a great player but it does get tiring that people seem to think he was surrounded by JV players.

[Zool]

[

The truth is, Favre had lots of talented skill position players with him. If anyone isn't getting the credit where credit is due, it is the players in the list above. It is a misconception that Favre often had little talent with which to work. You don't have to degrade the players he played with to build up the Favre mystique.

When the team wins the QB generally gets credit. When the team loses the QB often times gets the blame...well known fact.

I've never degraded specific players Favre played with.

Why do so many here try SO hard to discredit Favre?

Actually you specfically said he had "very little" to work with most of the time. Thats pretty degrading to Patlers list. Why try so hard to defend him?

[Gunakor]

I wish the negativity would stop too, but I completely understand why it continues. Favre, even after leaving Green Bay, had nothing but negativity to say about the Packers too. It's completely understandable that some Packer fans would take issue with that. Now, enough time has passed that it should have died down - and it has to a large degree. You don't log in to find 20 Favre threads on the front page anymore. But it won't completely go away unless those on both sides of that fence let it go. Those who criticize Favre as well as those who steadfastly defend him.

.

Gunakor, I agree with wishing the negativity would stop, however, I do have a problem with the bolded above. I don't recall Favre having nothing but negative to say about the PACKERS, hell, he tried with all his mite to return to the team he loved. He had issues with TT and/or MM....(who knows, we weren't there) He wanted to continue to play and they didn't want him.....he moved on. How can you say he had nothing but negative to say about the Packers? He had nothing but good to say about his years playing in Green Bay for the Green Bay Packers........minus the TT aspect.

He said that the Packers are a dishonest organization. That's not keeping his criticisms contained to Ted Thompson, that's a broad statement about the organization as a whole. He said this after his Jets season was over, when asked if he'd ever return to Green Bay to have his number retired. I personally took real issue with this, and many others had as well.

P.S. If he really wanted to continue his career here in Green Bay he could have. He didn't want to. At least not under the conditions that were set forth by those in charge. That's what the whole 6 hour heart to heart between him and McCarthy was about.

[Gunakor]

Yes.
Now unless you haven't been reading PR the last while or are blind, you will notice all the negative shit being thrown about Favre lately.

I can ask the same. He's a lock for HOF, why do people continue to insinuate he was not what he was and bad mouth him now? It's crazy.

It is crazy. But, it doesn't matter. That's the point.

[Patler]

[

The truth is, Favre had lots of talented skill position players with him. If anyone isn't getting the credit where credit is due, it is the players in the list above. It is a misconception that Favre often had little talent with which to work. You don't have to degrade the players he played with to build up the Favre mystique.

When the team wins the QB generally gets credit. When the team loses the QB often times gets the blame...well known fact.

I've never degraded specific players Favre played with.

Why do so many here try SO hard to discredit Favre?

Now there is another accusation I just don't understand. I don't see many trying to discredit Favre. I'm sorry, but he was far from perfect as a player, and there were many others who also contributed to the success of the Packers. That's not discrediting Favre. It's being realistic.

[mission]

[

The truth is, Favre had lots of talented skill position players with him. If anyone isn't getting the credit where credit is due, it is the players in the list above. It is a misconception that Favre often had little talent with which to work. You don't have to degrade the players he played with to build up the Favre mystique.

When the team wins the QB generally gets credit. When the team loses the QB often times gets the blame...well known fact.

I've never degraded specific players Favre played with.

Why do so many here try SO hard to discredit Favre?

Now there is another accusation I just don't understand. I don't see many trying to discredit Favre. I'm sorry, but he was far from perfect as a player, and there were many others who also contributed to the success of the Packers. That's not discrediting Favre. It's being realistic.

She just doesn't want to have to take down all her Brett posters from the wall... as extreme as some people are against Brett, it's safe to say there are just as many people on the other side of the fence.

[Fritz]

[
Roll your eyes all you want - but let's be real. Favre often had good if not very good players around him.

Often time....not ALL the time. He did well with little very often and is not getting credit where credit is due here. That's all I'm saying.

Very often? Really? I will give you 2005 because of injuries, but what other year?

1992 - Sharpe, Jackie Harris, Edgar Bennett
1993 - Sharpe, Jackie Harris, Edgar Bennett, Brooks
1994 - Sharpe, Brooks, Edgar Bennett, Chmura
1995 - Brooks, Edgar Bennett, Chmura, Levens
1996 - Freeman, Rison, Jackson, Bennett, Chmura, Levens, Beebe
1997 - Freeman, Brooks, Chmura, Levens, Henderson
1998 - Freeman, Brooks, Chmura, Levens, Henderson, Schroeder
1999 - Freeman, Schroeder, Levens, Bradford, Henderson
2000 - Freeman, Schroeder, Levens, Green, Driver, Henderson
2001 - Freeman, Schroeder, Green, Bradford, Franks, Levens, Driver, Henderson
2002 - Driver, Green, Glenn, Franks, Henderson, Walker, Ferguson
2003 - Driver, Green, Walker, Franks, Henderson, Ferguson, Fisher, Walls
2004 - Walker, Driver, Green Fisher, Franks, Henderson, Ferguson
2005 - 'nuff said!
2006 - Driver, Green, Jennings, Franks, Herron
2007 - Driver, Jennings, Lee, Jones, Grant.

The truth is, Favre had lots of talented skill position players with him. If anyone isn't getting the credit where credit is due, it is the players in the list above. It is a misconception that Favre often had little talent with which to work. You don't have to degrade the players he played with to build up the Favre mystique.

patler, you were rolling until you put Ferguson's name on that list...dude, you know you're going to get smoked on that one...

I would be curious as to why you included Noah Herron.

[Patler]

patler, you were rolling until you put Ferguson's name on that list...dude, you know you're going to get smoked on that one...

I would be curious as to why you included Noah Herron.

Actually, I was wondering who would be noted first, Ferguson or "Alligator Arms" Bill Schroeder!

Truth be told, I just took the top few names off the list of receivers each year, and guys like Ferguson, Herron, Fisher etc. showed up!

[Zool]

patler, you were rolling until you put Ferguson's name on that list...dude, you know you're going to get smoked on that one...

I would be curious as to why you included Noah Herron.

Actually, I was wondering who would be noted first, Ferguson or "Alligator Arms" Bill Schroeder!

Truth be told, I just took the top few names off the list of receivers each year, and guys like Ferguson, Herron, Fisher etc. showed up!

I laughed at no brain Schroeder.

[cpk1994]

Same old thread.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5536/theusualstuff.pngThats awesome. :worship:

[mraynrand]

[
Roll your eyes all you want - but let's be real. Favre often had good if not very good players around him.

Often time....not ALL the time. He did well with little very often and is not getting credit where credit is due here. That's all I'm saying.

Very often? Really? I will give you 2005 because of injuries, but what other year?

1992 - Sharpe, Jackie Harris, Edgar Bennett
1993 - Sharpe, Jackie Harris, Edgar Bennett, Brooks
1994 - Sharpe, Brooks, Edgar Bennett, Chmura
1995 - Brooks, Edgar Bennett, Chmura, Levens
1996 - Freeman, Rison, Jackson, Bennett, Chmura, Levens, Beebe
1997 - Freeman, Brooks, Chmura, Levens, Henderson
1998 - Freeman, Brooks, Chmura, Levens, Henderson, Schroeder
1999 - Freeman, Schroeder, Levens, Bradford, Henderson
2000 - Freeman, Schroeder, Levens, Green, Driver, Henderson
2001 - Freeman, Schroeder, Green, Bradford, Franks, Levens, Driver, Henderson
2002 - Driver, Green, Glenn, Franks, Henderson, Walker, Ferguson
2003 - Driver, Green, Walker, Franks, Henderson, Ferguson, Fisher, Walls
2004 - Walker, Driver, Green Fisher, Franks, Henderson, Ferguson
2005 - 'nuff said!
2006 - Driver, Green, Jennings, Franks, Herron
2007 - Driver, Jennings, Lee, Jones, Grant.

The truth is, Favre had lots of talented skill position players with him. If anyone isn't getting the credit where credit is due, it is the players in the list above. It is a misconception that Favre often had little talent with which to work. You don't have to degrade the players he played with to build up the Favre mystique.

I bolded the guys I thought had very good or better years (Henderson probably should be included more, but he went up and down as far as years he contributed more and less. Talent started to peter out after 1998. Freeman tanked. Talent was only average at wide out for a long stretch. Walker had about a year and a half. Green's contributions cannot be underestimated. He was a dominant back receiving and running for 5 straight years.

[Cheesehead Craig]

If Rodgers had the sort of skills these guys had, the Packers would have gotten rid of Favre a year earlier than they did imho, maybe two years earlier.
If Brady was behind Favre in GB, he would not have started until Rodgers did. It was far more who was the QB at the time than it was a knock on Rodgers. There wasn't a QB in the league that would have started for the Packers before last season over Favre.

[cpk1994]

I wish the negativity would stop too, but I completely understand why it continues. Favre, even after leaving Green Bay, had nothing but negativity to say about the Packers too. It's completely understandable that some Packer fans would take issue with that. Now, enough time has passed that it should have died down - and it has to a large degree. You don't log in to find 20 Favre threads on the front page anymore. But it won't completely go away unless those on both sides of that fence let it go. Those who criticize Favre as well as those who steadfastly defend him.

.

Gunakor, I agree with wishing the negativity would stop, however, I do have a problem with the bolded above. I don't recall Favre having nothing but negative to say about the PACKERS, hell, he tried with all his mite to return to the team he loved. He had issues with TT and/or MM....(who knows, we weren't there) He wanted to continue to play and they didn't want him.....he moved on. How can you say he had nothing but negative to say about the Packers? He had nothing but good to say about his years playing in Green Bay for the Green Bay Packers........minus the TT aspect.Do we really have to play back the Greta intervew for you? And also, he didn't move on until he was forced to.

[Partial]

Seasons: I see a huge difference in knowledge of the offense from a 5th year player, even if he's on the bench, to a 2nd and a still sizable difference from a 3rd year player. HUGE.

I don't know why you all went in with such low expectations for Aaron. He was groomed to do this for 4 years. An average season for him should be 2008 based on his draft position, physical skills, knowledge of the offense, experience, etc.

Brady coming in as a result of Bledsoe getting hurt: Sure, I agree this is true. But, he seized the reins and did quite while. BB, the best coach in NFL history, felt confident enough in his 2nd year 6th round pick to hand the reins over.

Did you still A-Rod in his second year? Yeesh.. Ugly in his limited action, and just as bad against the backups in extended action in Preseason. I know that if the Favre went down, their is a zero percent chance the Packers would have gone with Rodgers when they were in the thick of a playoff chase.

Clearly, the people in the know in NEs FO knew what Brady could do, otherwise we would have seen a veteran brought in to lead the team into the playoffs.

Talent around Favre: Sure, there are some nice names, but how many of those people were great players? Few. Ron Wolf has noted on numerous times that he regrets not putting better quality talent around Favre. I'd respect his opinion on the matter. IMO, Favre made a lot of those players careers.

Patler, that list is so unlike you. Rison... really? really?

[mraynrand]

To make the point: No QB can do very well without some talent around him. I need only point to Steve Young in Tampa to make my point. Favre had enough talent on a lot of teams. But if you look at the rosters of the Packers with Favre, on both sides of the ball, take into account injuries, the Packers played right up to their talent level about every year. And almost every year, with the exception of his first two years and later with Ahman Green, Favre was the best player on the team, and almost always in the top 5 in the league at his position.

[mraynrand]

I wish the negativity would stop too, but I completely understand why it continues. Favre, even after leaving Green Bay, had nothing but negativity to say about the Packers too. It's completely understandable that some Packer fans would take issue with that. Now, enough time has passed that it should have died down - and it has to a large degree. You don't log in to find 20 Favre threads on the front page anymore. But it won't completely go away unless those on both sides of that fence let it go. Those who criticize Favre as well as those who steadfastly defend him.

.

Gunakor, I agree with wishing the negativity would stop, however, I do have a problem with the bolded above. I don't recall Favre having nothing but negative to say about the PACKERS, hell, he tried with all his mite to return to the team he loved. He had issues with TT and/or MM....(who knows, we weren't there) He wanted to continue to play and they didn't want him.....he moved on. How can you say he had nothing but negative to say about the Packers? He had nothing but good to say about his years playing in Green Bay for the Green Bay Packers........minus the TT aspect.Do we really have to play back the Greta intervew for you? And also, he didn't move on until he was forced to.

The Greta interview is when Favre jumped the shark.

[cpk1994]

Seasons: I see a huge difference in knowledge of the offense from a 5th year player, even if he's on the bench, to a 2nd and a still sizable difference from a 3rd year player. HUGE.

I don't know why you all went in with such low expectations for Aaron. He was groomed to do this for 4 years. An average season for him should be 2008 based on his draft position, physical skills, knowledge of the offense, experience, etc.

Brady coming in as a result of Bledsoe getting hurt: Sure, I agree this is true. But, he seized the reins and did quite while. BB, the best coach in NFL history, felt confident enough in his 2nd year 6th round pick to hand the reins over.

Did you still A-Rod in his second year? Yeesh.. Ugly in his limited action, and just as bad against the backups in extended action in Preseason. I know that if the Favre went down, their is a zero percent chance the Packers would have gone with Rodgers when they were in the thick of a playoff chase.

Clearly, the people in the know in NEs FO knew what Brady could do, otherwise we would have seen a veteran brought in to lead the team into the playoffs.

Talent around Favre: Sure, there are some nice names, but how many of those people were great players? Few. Ron Wolf has noted on numerous times that he regrets not putting better quality talent around Favre. I'd respect his opinion on the matter. IMO, Favre made a lot of those players careers.

Patler, that list is so unlike you. Rison... really? really?Whgy not? You boy, Ron Wolf, the man who's opinion you regard highy is the one who brought him in, and that was not the first time he tried. Obviously you don't respect Wolf's opinion as much as you calim if you are going to knock on a Pro Bowl reciever.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Seasons: I see a huge difference in knowledge of the offense from a 5th year player, even if he's on the bench, to a 2nd and a still sizable difference from a 3rd year player. HUGE.

I don't know why you all went in with such low expectations for Aaron. He was groomed to do this for 4 years. An average season for him should be 2008 based on his draft position, physical skills, knowledge of the offense, experience, etc.

Another point I've corrected you on, but you continue to forget--further prooving you don't comprehend what people tell you. It was Aaron's 4th year in the NFL last year. He sat on the bench for three years. Quit putting the extra year on his experience card.

[DannoMac21]

I don't see the difference. A-Rod happened to make it one complete season thus far. He was even hurt and less effective for much of this one.

How exactly am I an asshole? You're callling names, ignoring questions, etc. Essentially flaming a conversation, because you're not bringing any debate or points to the table.

Because the only debate between true Packer fans is if one of their "fans", Partial, is mentally retarded. Although, I'm strongly leaning towards the "yes" side of that. You really are a dumbass man. Diana probably gets Brett's dick wet a lot, I don't think he needs his dick partially wet, pun intended.

[Partial]

Seasons: I see a huge difference in knowledge of the offense from a 5th year player, even if he's on the bench, to a 2nd and a still sizable difference from a 3rd year player. HUGE.

I don't know why you all went in with such low expectations for Aaron. He was groomed to do this for 4 years. An average season for him should be 2008 based on his draft position, physical skills, knowledge of the offense, experience, etc.

Another point I've corrected you on, but you continue to forget--further prooving you don't comprehend what people tell you. It was Aaron's 4th year in the NFL last year. He sat on the bench for three years. Quit putting the extra year on his experience card.

Right.. he's a 5th year player Harv... This will be his 5th season.

[Partial]

Seasons: I see a huge difference in knowledge of the offense from a 5th year player, even if he's on the bench, to a 2nd and a still sizable difference from a 3rd year player. HUGE.

I don't know why you all went in with such low expectations for Aaron. He was groomed to do this for 4 years. An average season for him should be 2008 based on his draft position, physical skills, knowledge of the offense, experience, etc.

Brady coming in as a result of Bledsoe getting hurt: Sure, I agree this is true. But, he seized the reins and did quite while. BB, the best coach in NFL history, felt confident enough in his 2nd year 6th round pick to hand the reins over.

Did you still A-Rod in his second year? Yeesh.. Ugly in his limited action, and just as bad against the backups in extended action in Preseason. I know that if the Favre went down, their is a zero percent chance the Packers would have gone with Rodgers when they were in the thick of a playoff chase.

Clearly, the people in the know in NEs FO knew what Brady could do, otherwise we would have seen a veteran brought in to lead the team into the playoffs.

Talent around Favre: Sure, there are some nice names, but how many of those people were great players? Few. Ron Wolf has noted on numerous times that he regrets not putting better quality talent around Favre. I'd respect his opinion on the matter. IMO, Favre made a lot of those players careers.

Patler, that list is so unlike you. Rison... really? really?Whgy not? You boy, Ron Wolf, the man who's opinion you regard highy is the one who brought him in, and that was not the first time he tried. Obviously you don't respect Wolf's opinion as much as you calim if you are going to knock on a Pro Bowl reciever.

What?

[Partial]

I don't see the difference. A-Rod happened to make it one complete season thus far. He was even hurt and less effective for much of this one.

How exactly am I an asshole? You're callling names, ignoring questions, etc. Essentially flaming a conversation, because you're not bringing any debate or points to the table.

Because the only debate between true Packer fans is if one of their "fans", Partial, is mentally retarded. Although, I'm strongly leaning towards the "yes" side of that. You really are a dumbass man. Diana probably gets Brett's dick wet a lot, I don't think he needs his dick partially wet, pun intended.

This isn't even coherent, and I'm the retard.. Right..

[Patler]

Patler, that list is so unlike you. Rison... really? really?

What's wrong with Andre Rison?
#29 all-time in receiving yards with 10,205
#29 all-time in receptions with 743
#14 all-time in receiving TDs with 84

Pretty darn good career, and he wasn't "made" by Favre.
Some have suggested on here that Driver could be considered for the HOF (I disagree). Driver has a long way to go to catch Andre Rison's career numbers, and I doubt that he will do it.

[Partial]

He played in 5 games for the Packers, including playoffs. 13 total receptions. As Harv and I believe yourself have mentioned on multiple occasions, he really had a minimal impact, and if it wasn't for the big super bowl reception, most people probably wouldn't remember he was on the Packers.

[DannoMac21]

I don't see the difference. A-Rod happened to make it one complete season thus far. He was even hurt and less effective for much of this one.

How exactly am I an asshole? You're callling names, ignoring questions, etc. Essentially flaming a conversation, because you're not bringing any debate or points to the table.

Because the only debate between true Packer fans is if one of their "fans", Partial, is mentally retarded. Although, I'm strongly leaning towards the "yes" side of that. You really are a dumbass man. Diana probably gets Brett's dick wet a lot, I don't think he needs his dick partially wet, pun intended.

This isn't even coherent, and I'm the retard.. Right..

Isn't coherent or you simply just don't understand? That seems to be your common theme.

[GrnBay007]

And I thought this post started at maximum stupidity...



Stupid huh? nice!

Is it anymore "stupid" than posting homo porn shit and then crying when it gets taken off the forum?

[Lurker64]

Right.. he's a 5th year player Harv... This will be his 5th season.

More illuminating than his years of experience, I believe, is his age, as everybody who is going to be playing in the NFL will have started learning the game of football at about the same age. When the Packers drafted him, he was four months into being 21 years old, being a junior college transfer with only 2 years of NCAA experience. He's currently 25 years old, about a month older than Joe Flacco, six months younger than Jay Cutler, and a year and a half older than Matt Ryan (also 6 months younger than Vince Young and Matt Leinart).

When you draft a redshirt sophomore, you have different expectations of that player in this third year than if you draft a four year starter in a big program. Rodgers played only 2 years at Cal, so he was absolutely not ready for the NFL and about 2-3 years on the bench would be what it would take to get him ready for the NFL. A guy like Jay Cutler, started for four years at Vanderbilt, and was a lot closer to ready when he was drafted.

So I don't think it's fair to equate all four year veterans, or all five year veterans, or all rookies or whatever. Not everybody comes in equal, and not everybody develops at the same pace. Rodgers is still very young, he's far from his ceiling, and he's going to get better for years to come. To just dismiss him because in three weeks it will be the fourth anniversary of when he was drafted is sort of missing the point that he came in quite talented, but far from "NFL-ready". He's now certainly NFL ready, he just needs to get into the part where he's perfecting his game, which is something you can only do by actually playing.

[ThunderDan]

Seasons: I see a huge difference in knowledge of the offense from a 5th year player, even if he's on the bench, to a 2nd and a still sizable difference from a 3rd year player. HUGE.

I don't know why you all went in with such low expectations for Aaron. He was groomed to do this for 4 years. An average season for him should be 2008 based on his draft position, physical skills, knowledge of the offense, experience, etc.

Another point I've corrected you on, but you continue to forget--further prooving you don't comprehend what people tell you. It was Aaron's 4th year in the NFL last year. He sat on the bench for three years. Quit putting the extra year on his experience card.

Right.. he's a 5th year player Harv... This will be his 5th season.

This is why you are a dumb ass. Rodgers has 4 NFL years, he was groomed for 3 years to replace Brett. Yet, you will argue that you are correct when you and the rest of the world know you are wrong.

For this reason, I suggest to all forum posters that we ignore any and all Partial posts until 5/1/09. I am done responding to this moronic dribble.

[PlantPage55]

For this reason, I suggest to all forum posters that we ignore any and all Partial posts until 5/1/09. I am done responding to this moronic dribble.

Why only until the 1st of May? :lol:

He ignores posts that properly disprove his points, so why not ignore his constantly?

[Partial]

Is one not groomed to be a starting quarterback while they are the starting quarterback?

Age: I don't think the age has anything to do with his potential. He has an NFL body now. He's looking HUGE in those recent pics, so I don't think he'll get much bigger or stronger.

Take a linemen for example. The first few years they take time to grow into an NFL body. Then, for the most part, they are who they are during their prime.

In what regards do we think Rodgers will improve tremendously?

Coherent: No, it's not coherent.

[Patler]

He played in 5 games for the Packers, including playoffs. 13 total receptions. As Harv and I believe yourself have mentioned on multiple occasions, he really had a minimal impact, and if it wasn't for the big super bowl reception, most people probably wouldn't remember he was on the Packers.

Sure but he is a player that was available to Favre those games, and the allegation was that Favre often didn't have good quality players available to him. Rison is just another of the talented player with whom Favre played, and interestingly enough, one that Wolf didn't think he needed to bring back the following year because of others on the roster. Letting him go suggests that others on the roster were pretty darn talented, too.

[Brandon494]

And the winner of the dumbest post of the year goes to.....

[Partial]

Rison wasn't the same player after GB. Don't know what caused it, too young, but if you look at his stats they dramatically drop off.

[cheesner]

Is one not groomed to be a starting quarterback while they are the starting quarterback?


NO.


groom
Function:
verb
Date:
1809
transitive verb
1 : to clean and maintain the appearance of (as the coat of a horse or dog)
2 : to make neat or attractive <an impeccably groomed woman>
3 : to get into readiness for a specific objective : prepare


And in case you want to argue the meaning of 'Prepare'

Prepare:
transitive verb
1 a: to make ready beforehand for some purpose, use, or activity <prepare food for dinner> b: to put in a proper state of mind <is prepared to listen>


In case you want to argue the words 'ready' and 'beforehand'

. . .

ahhh, why bother?

[Partial]

Ok, but one has to assume that he is preparing in the exact same manner. Back-ups prepare as if they're going to play.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Right.. he's a 5th year player Harv... This will be his 5th season.

This year, but you are judging his 4th year. The year in which our first year starter had 3 years to be groomed.


I don't know why you all went in with such low expectations for Aaron. He was groomed to do this for 4 years.

[Pugger]

What makes us crazy is folks like Partial just automatically think AR has hit his ceiling. He thinks he's not going to get any better and that is just nonsense. There is no way in hell he can know this unless his 8-ball told him so. No one can predict the future. Will AR fall on his face next year or will he be even better? NOBODY KNOWS. Sheesh. :roll:

[PlantPage55]

What makes us crazy is folks like Partial just automatically think AR has hit his ceiling. He thinks he's not going to get any better and that is just nonsense. There is no way in hell he can know this unless his 8-ball told him so. No one can predict the future. Will AR fall on his face next year or will he be even better? NOBODY KNOWS. Sheesh. :roll:

But it's a "valid" point that you can't really dispute. :roll:

[Freak Out]

What would you folks do with out Partial? He is the weeble of PackerRats.

[Bretsky]

I will say this, where is all this Favre hate coming from. The way some of you talk on this forum, it is like Favre was a below average player for the 17 years he was in Green Bay.

I guess if the only way you all can feel better about Favre being gone is to trash the guy and fail to remember him or speak of the good things he did on and off the football field then all means carry on, otherwise to argue against Partial(?) or who ever by trashing Favre is just a bit disappointing.



:bclap: :bclap: :bclap: :bclap: :bclap:

[Bretsky]

I agree that that was a pretty dumb statement. I don't think one could argue, though, that the offense from '08 was anything more than a small subset of the '07 attack.

As Nutz and I have posted so many times, they really kept things pretty simple for A-Rod, and didn't use the entire field to make his life easier.

It never ceases to amaze me how some of you jump on an erroneous interpretation of a statement or statements, and harp on it until it reaches a life of its own.

You do know Adrian Barbre punched a coach last spring at practice, don't you Patler??? :lol:

What I cant figure out is how Partial keeps baiting people into debating him. I know its hard to resist sometimes but damn this is getting old. You'll never change his mind on a single topic.Well, maybe if TT would sign some FA, we have something to talk about making it easier to ignore Partial. :lol:


Hey, he signed some quality free agents....well.......like four years ago or something :lol:

[Bretsky]

patler, you were rolling until you put Ferguson's name on that list...dude, you know you're going to get smoked on that one...

I would be curious as to why you included Noah Herron.

Actually, I was wondering who would be noted first, Ferguson or "Alligator Arms" Bill Schroeder!

Truth be told, I just took the top few names off the list of receivers each year, and guys like Ferguson, Herron, Fisher etc. showed up!


With some of the crap you flopped on there I'm surprise you didn't put Taco Wallace on there :!: :lol:

[Bretsky]

I had an intense day at work; I'd just like to thank everybody who gave me some entertainment in this thread

Cheers,
B

[Patler]

patler, you were rolling until you put Ferguson's name on that list...dude, you know you're going to get smoked on that one...

I would be curious as to why you included Noah Herron.

Actually, I was wondering who would be noted first, Ferguson or "Alligator Arms" Bill Schroeder!

Truth be told, I just took the top few names off the list of receivers each year, and guys like Ferguson, Herron, Fisher etc. showed up!


With some of the crap you flopped on there I'm surprise you didn't put Taco Wallace on there :!: :lol:

All I did was list the top skilled position players from each season. I wasn't suggesting they were all great players. I asked others to identify which of those seasons were ones in which Favre had little to work with, since some have suggested he frequently had a poor supporting cast.

Sure some years were deeper in talent than others, but I think the list shows that most years he had at least a few decent players to work with.

That is all the list was intended to show.

[mraynrand]

One final word on the thread title. I just finished watching all the games from the past season. The guy that Rodgers reminds me most of is actually Joe Montana. Rodgers probably is just a bit better all around athletically than Joe and Joe of course had 'the knack' (a lot like Brady does), but damn if Rodgers didn't run the offense - for long stretches - with the efficiency that Montana did. If Rodgers continues to improve, as he should, I see great things ahead for Rodgers and the Packers.

[PlantPage55]

If Rodgers continues to improve, as he should, I see great things ahead for Rodgers and the Packers.

That's just it. Partial doesn't believe he can improve significantly, but I submit that no matter how much you prepare, there are certain things about the game that you can ONLY get from experience PLAYING.

Sense of the pass rush...the time you have to throw the ball...faking defenders...making stuff up on the fly...building team chemistry, respect, and confidence in the face of a real defense. The list goes on and on.

[Partial]

I don't know how much I buy that. Sure, you'll improve to some degree in those regards, but look at A-Rod year 1 to year 3. He developed all of those qualities during that time.

Look at him in preseason year 3 to week 17 of year 4.. Was their any difference? Not really.

The biggest benefit to young, developing players in the off-season and getting bigger, faster, stronger, and taking time to learn a system in the case of the QB so they can react instead of think.

A-Rod is now big and strong, and reacting instead of thinking. I don't know how much we can reasonably expect a vet like A-Rod to improve at this point.

Anyone have any knowledge of QBs greatly improving after 4 years?

[mraynrand]

Anyone have any knowledge of QBs greatly improving after 4 years?


My mind's a blank



http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/SeanOkin/SteveYoung.jpg

http://www.opengroup.com/sports/images/(SC)Joe_Montana_Photo.jpg

http://www.everyjoe.com/files/144/2008/01/peyton-manning.jpg

http://yorkroberts.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/brett-favre-mouth-open1.jpg

http://www.steelergridiron.com/photogallery/images/terry_bradshaw3_jpg.jpg

http://fantasyfootballapron.com/documents/Players%20Pictures/drew%20brees%2001.jpg

http://www.free-ecourse.net/GreenBayPackers/starr.jpg

[packers11]

haha mraynrand... I'll add a couple of more :)

http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo49/RyanReesor4/tom_brady.jpg

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2007/09/16/1189994394_9215.jpg

http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/football/bob_blog/mcnabb2.jpg

http://www.totalprosports.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/tony-romo.jpg

[Bossman641]

http://www.everyjoe.com/squibkick/files/2007/09/rex-grossman-stinks.jpg

Wait, scratch that

[Freak Out]

http://www.everyjoe.com/squibkick/files/2007/09/rex-grossman-stinks.jpg

Wait, scratch that

:lol:

Awesome.

[mraynrand]

http://yorkroberts.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/brett-favre-mouth-open1.jpg


I love that pic so much, I thought I'd post it again.

[PlantPage55]

Drew Brees is a huge one. He looked like crap for a long time there. Hell, that's why they drafted/traded for Rivers.

There was no "oh, I see the greatness in him. He'll be top 5 someday."

But I expect you to not buy any of the previously mentioned examples. I guess we'll just have to wait and watch Aaron Rodgers and the offense excel next season. We'll all be happy and we'll expect you to find ways to try and squash that happiness.

[retailguy]

Drew Brees is a huge one. He looked like crap for a long time there. Hell, that's why they drafted/traded for Rivers.

There was no "oh, I see the greatness in him. He'll be top 5 someday."

But I expect you to not buy any of the previously mentioned examples. I guess we'll just have to wait and watch Aaron Rodgers and the offense excel next season. We'll all be happy and we'll expect you to find ways to try and squash that happiness.

Though I agree with you and have been generally pleased with Rodgers performance. Even if he "doesn't get any better", he's still good enough for me.

That being said, I do have to wonder if all you guys ganging up on Partial will have the balls to admit it if you're wrong.

Last season, the Ted haters and the Ted lovers squared off into a particuarly heated and divisive battle. Even though the "luster" has seemingly worn off Ted's star, and some significant "chinks" in the armor "might" be present, you'd think that there would be more people that might "man up" and say "hmm, I might have this wrong"....

But they haven't. Or very few anyhow.

This year, it seems that the battle lines are drawn around Rodgers to the point that many in this thread are personally bashing Partial. Yeah, the guy is a little harsh on Rodgers, but he hasn't said he's "bad", just that he thinks others are better.

People in this thread really bashed Cutler and how he wasn't nearly as good as Rodgers, then Chicago gives up two firsts for the guy plus Orton and a 3rd... Maybe, just maybe, the arm chair QB's in here might not be so good?

We'll see. I hope those of you who have staked your claim on the Rodgers mountain man up and admit it if you're wrong. Two seasons ago, I though the Packers would SUCK and was very vocal about it. When that didn't happen, I admitted I was wrong, even going so far as to sticky my thread at the top of the forum for a week. I have mod access and would be only too delighted to sticky your mea culpa should one become necessary... :wink:

Please note Plant, that my "response" was meant "generally". Your post typified the general sentiment being expressed in this thread, and I wasn't trying to "call you out" specifically.

[PlantPage55]

That being said, I do have to wonder if all you guys ganging up on Partial will have the balls to admit it if you're wrong.


Absolutely. Although I will say that even if he merely matches or ends up "around" what he did last year for us, then we're still a top 10 offense. I can't ask for more than that...although I do think we'll get it!

The heart of the matter is what our defense did for us. Not only did they lose some of those games for us, when Rodgers and the offense led us back into the lead, but the most overlooked thing is what it did for the offensive's ability to perform, itself!

We hear all the time about how our offense isn't good enough to "sustain drives" and keep the defense off the field. Well, I submit that the same could just as easily be said about our defenses effect on the offense. \

It's demoralizing not only to the morale, but also the stamina of the offense for the O to lead us back to victory in the 4th quarter, only to have our defense give the game right back (especially in Carolina game where it took the Panthers to regain the lead in, what, a whole 30 seconds?).

It comes down to this: Give Rodgers offense, the 2007 defense (with a healthy Barnett, Jenkins, and Bigby) and you would have seen us in the NFL playoffs and possibly reaching just as far as we did that season. The offenses were VERY comparable. An assumption it is, I realize. But I think it's a fair thing to say. To overlook or ignore the fact that our defense was more than significantly worse is to miss the point of NFL football completely.

Our defense gives up TWO less scores per game (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what they did in 2007) and we're not having this conversation.

Instead, we'd probably be having a "Rodgers lost the NFC Championship for us. Is he good enough?" discussion. :lol:

[Spaulding]

That being said, I do have to wonder if all you guys ganging up on Partial will have the balls to admit it if you're wrong.


Absolutely. Although I will say that even if he merely matches or ends up "around" what he did last year for us, then we're still a top 10 offense. I can't ask for more than that...although I do think we'll get it!

The heart of the matter is what our defense did for us. Not only did they lose some of those games for us, when Rodgers and the offense led us back into the lead, but the most overlooked thing is what it did for the offensive's ability to perform, itself!

We hear all the time about how our offense isn't good enough to "sustain drives" and keep the defense off the field. Well, I submit that the same could just as easily be said about our defenses effect on the offense. \

It's demoralizing not only to the morale, but also the stamina of the offense for the O to lead us back to victory in the 4th quarter, only to have our defense give the game right back (especially in Carolina game where it took the Panthers to regain the lead in, what, a whole 30 seconds?).

It comes down to this: Give Rodgers offense, the 2007 defense (with a healthy Barnett, Jenkins, and Bigby) and you would have seen us in the NFL playoffs and possibly reaching just as far as we did that season. The offenses were VERY comparable. An assumption it is, I realize. But I think it's a fair thing to say. To overlook or ignore the fact that our defense was more than significantly worse is to miss the point of NFL football completely.

Our defense gives up TWO less scores per game (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what they did in 2007) and we're not having this conversation.

Instead, we'd probably be having a "Rodgers lost the NFC Championship for us. Is he good enough?" discussion. :lol:

Nice summation - dead on IMO

[sharpe1027]

This year, it seems that the battle lines are drawn around Rodgers to the point that many in this thread are personally bashing Partial. Yeah, the guy is a little harsh on Rodgers, but he hasn't said he's "bad", just that he thinks others are better.


I think that it is wrong to lump all arguments into one side or the other.

For many, myself included, it seems to be not so much Partial's conclusion, but more about the explanations for the conclusion. Certainly some posters bashed Culter and others think Rodgers is outstanding, but many more mainly respond to Partial's explanations.

IMHO, Partial has shown a willingness to put forth any and all reasons for his conclusion about Rodgers and to defend the reasons at all costs. The pattern suggests that it is not about looking at all the information and forming opinion, it is about looking through all the information to find anything to support a conclusion already reached.

On a related note, many people, myself included, respond to repeated bashing of TT by pointing out flaws in generalizations and misguided conclusions about him that seem to be the norm.

Pointing out mistakes in one extreme view does not mean you must have an opposite and equally extreme view. I would also disagree with anyone that was sure that Rodgers was going to be HoFer to win superbowls and anyone who said TT will guarantee a Superbowl win in short order.

[cheesner]

Drew Brees is a huge one. He looked like crap for a long time there. Hell, that's why they drafted/traded for Rivers.

There was no "oh, I see the greatness in him. He'll be top 5 someday."

But I expect you to not buy any of the previously mentioned examples. I guess we'll just have to wait and watch Aaron Rodgers and the offense excel next season. We'll all be happy and we'll expect you to find ways to try and squash that happiness.
How about Favre? An example right in our own backyard. How many people remember that he became a free agent after his rookie contract. He shopped his services around and it appeared that New Orleans may make him an offer. But only GB offered him a contract (IIRC). A better question is which QBs did not show improvement after their 4th year. Boller, Harrington, Akili Smith, Tim Couch, etc. - these are the ones who were not around for their 6th season.

I think what is difficult for some people to realize is just what a bad QB looks like. We have been spoiled during the Favre era of having good to great QB play. AR, bless his heart, is not as good as Brett in his prime, and the bar in GB is set pretty high in QB expectations. But know this, Minny, Det, and Chi, have not seen as good a QB playing for their teams in the last 30+ years who is as good as AR. And AR is much better at this stage of his career than Brett was in his 4th year. They are different types of QBs and hopefully, AR gets to that level, although it is unlikely.

The fun for me of following the NFL 12 months per year is player development. Following these kids in the draft and watching them improve week to week and develop over the years provides a certain satisfaction. If it does to you, and you are dumping on AR right now - you are going to miss out.

[sharpe1027]

The fun for me of following the NFL 12 months per year is player development. Following these kids in the draft and watching them improve week to week and develop over the years provides a certain satisfaction. If it does to you, and you are dumping on AR right now - you are going to miss out.

Great post.

[Patler]

How about Favre? An example right in our own backyard. How many people remember that he became a free agent after his rookie contract. He shopped his services around and it appeared that New Orleans may make him an offer. But only GB offered him a contract (IIRC).

It has been so long ago that many fans have forgotten, and many are too young to remember, that Favre was no sure thing his first few seasons in GB. Even after the talent was obvious, there were lots of questions about whether or not he would put it all together. Early on, Favre too had "happy feet". If Sharp wasn't open, Favre would take off running. He didn't average 3-4 carries per game in those early years because he was a great runner (although he was MUCH better then than in recent years). He didn't have that great "pocket presence" for quite a few years. He would look and throw, or look and run (and sometimes still throw!). It was years before he learned the relaxed "drift" away from the pressure that enabled him to continue scanning the field as the play dragged on.

MM said it many times, there is value in not playing a QB early in his career, but a QB improves only so much sitting on the sidelines. Thereafter, he has to play to continue improving. Athletes in all sports at all levels have to become accustomed to a new speed of play and intensity as they move up in the sport. You don't get that sitting on the sidelines, or even in practice. At critical positions like QB, you don't get it in a single year as a starter. Too many things going on, too many decisions to make in a very short period of time. You get better as those decisions become routine, and not consciously thought out acts.

[Partial]

LOL, many of those players were MVP candidates long before their 5th year started.

Some of those are decent examples, but the more modern ones were very good players long before their 5th year.

Brees? Brees had a Rodgers like start to his career. Almost identical as a matter of fact. Didn't really have a lot of playing time until his 4th year and was very good from that point forth. They resigned him to a franchise contract after his 4th year, and then they let him go and started Rivers in his third year and has consistently put up decent numbers and lead a team into the playoffs. Rivers had a huge year this year, but I think that is more so because they didn't have the ground game they had in years past, and had Jackson step up, and added Chambers.

Brett Favre put up MVP numbers his 4th year with all the TD passes, and finally started his streak of winning the award his 5th year.

[Gunakor]

That being said, I do have to wonder if all you guys ganging up on Partial will have the balls to admit it if you're wrong.

Last season, the Ted haters and the Ted lovers squared off into a particuarly heated and divisive battle. Even though the "luster" has seemingly worn off Ted's star, and some significant "chinks" in the armor "might" be present, you'd think that there would be more people that might "man up" and say "hmm, I might have this wrong"....

But they haven't. Or very few anyhow.

This year, it seems that the battle lines are drawn around Rodgers to the point that many in this thread are personally bashing Partial. Yeah, the guy is a little harsh on Rodgers, but he hasn't said he's "bad", just that he thinks others are better.

People in this thread really bashed Cutler and how he wasn't nearly as good as Rodgers, then Chicago gives up two firsts for the guy plus Orton and a 3rd... Maybe, just maybe, the arm chair QB's in here might not be so good?

We'll see. I hope those of you who have staked your claim on the Rodgers mountain man up and admit it if you're wrong. Two seasons ago, I though the Packers would SUCK and was very vocal about it. When that didn't happen, I admitted I was wrong, even going so far as to sticky my thread at the top of the forum for a week. I have mod access and would be only too delighted to sticky your mea culpa should one become necessary... :wink:

Please note Plant, that my "response" was meant "generally". Your post typified the general sentiment being expressed in this thread, and I wasn't trying to "call you out" specifically.

If I'm wrong I'll admit it, but especially regarding Ted Thompson, I can't imagine I would be. Rodgers, well, maybe. I've only seen him play spectacular football for one full season plus a half at Dallas the year before. Just the same, there's nothing about Rodgers that would suggest he can't or won't be one of the elites in the NFL.

My issue with Partial regarding Rodgers isn't that he suggests he is a bad QB. It's that he specifically says Rodgers is merely average, and steadfastly defends his explaination for it even when that explaination is proven to be completely false using legitimate reasoning and statistical comparison. Because that reasoning and comparison doesn't agree with what his untrained eyes saw, we are wrong. End of story. That kind of attitude that IMO goes way beyond mere pessimism is what gets to me.

That, and also the fact that if we are RIGHT, I can't see Partial manning up and telling all of us he was wrong either. I think it much more likely that he'll come up with some new explaination of what his eyes saw that is so much different than what actually happened. And we'll just have to be wrong again. End of story.

On the issue of TT, I'd put more blame on TT for last season if I really thought last season was TT's fault. But I don't. Look at what the problems were last season. I don't blame TT for the serious decline in production from our 2 bookend tackles. I don't blame TT for the litany of injuries suffered by key players on our defense. Rather, I give credit to TT for his wise yet controversial selection of Aaron Rodgers in 2005 as that has seemingly turned out to be a great pick. I give credit to TT for drafting the interior linemen that everybody said were garbage, yet ended up being the bright spot on our line as a whole last season. I give credit to TT for signing Charles Woodson when nobody else would, and for taking a chance on a relative no name in Greg Jennings from Western Michigan University who would soon become a star in the league.

For all the good he's done for this team, the only legitimate knock against him has been what has happened to our defensive line. Every other facet of our football team is better than it was in 2005. Every single one, from the WR's to the RB's to the DB's to the LB's to the KR/PR to the depth at each of those positions. That on top of the coaching staff. All better than what Sherman had left him. And he did all of this while bringing this franchise back into exceptional cap health at the same time. It's a travesty that we got stuck with this guy as our GM. What the hell was Harlan thinking....

[HarveyWallbangers]

Brett Favre put up MVP numbers his 4th year with all the TD passes, and finally started his streak of winning the award his 5th year.

Brett Favre in year 4: 90.7 passer rating, 62.4 comp%, 3882 passing yards, 6.7 y/a, 33 TDs, 14 ints, 202 rushing yds, 2 rushing TDs, 31 sacks

Aaron Rodgers in year 4: 93.7 passer rating, 63.6 comp%, 4038 passing yards, 7.5 y/a, 28 TDs, 13 ints, 207 rushing yds, 4 rushing TDs, 34 sacks

Pretty damn similar. Favre went 9-7. Rodgers was two missed Crosby FGs from going 8-8--not to mention the 5 blown leads in the final 5 minutes.

You don't remember this, but after 3 years, Packer nation was divided on Brett Favre. Early in his 4th year, probably a majority of Packer fans wanted him benched for Mark Brunell. Midway through his fourth year, the light went off. He put together a season that was similar to what Rodgers did in 2008. Until then, nobody had any reason to think Favre would be a Hall of Fame QB. Hell, most didn't even want him starting for the Packers.

[cpk1994]

If I'm wrong I'll admit it, but especially regarding Ted Thompson, I can't imagine I would be. Rodgers, well, maybe. I've only seen him play spectacular football for one full season plus a half at Dallas the year before. Just the same, there's nothing about Rodgers that would suggest he can't or won't be one of the elites in the NFL.

My issue with Partial regarding Rodgers isn't that he suggests he is a bad QB. It's that he specifically says Rodgers is merely average, and steadfastly defends his explaination for it even when that explaination is proven to be completely false using legitimate reasoning and statistical comparison. Because that reasoning and comparison doesn't agree with what his untrained eyes saw, we are wrong. End of story. That kind of attitude that IMO goes way beyond mere pessimism is what gets to me.

That, and also the fact that if we are RIGHT, I can't see Partial manning up and telling all of us he was wrong either. I think it much more likely that he'll come up with some new explaination of what his eyes saw that is so much different than what actually happened. And we'll just have to be wrong again. End of story.

On the issue of TT, I'd put more blame on TT for last season if I really thought last season was TT's fault. But I don't. Look at what the problems were last season. I don't blame TT for the serious decline in production from our 2 bookend tackles. I don't blame TT for the litany of injuries suffered by key players on our defense. Rather, I give credit to TT for his wise yet controversial selection of Aaron Rodgers in 2005 as that has seemingly turned out to be a great pick. I give credit to TT for drafting the interior linemen that everybody said were garbage, yet ended up being the bright spot on our line as a whole last season. I give credit to TT for signing Charles Woodson when nobody else would, and for taking a chance on a relative no name in Greg Jennings from Western Michigan University who would soon become a star in the league.

For all the good he's done for this team, the only legitimate knock against him has been what has happened to our defensive line. Every other facet of our football team is better than it was in 2005. Every single one, from the WR's to the RB's to the DB's to the LB's to the KR/PR to the depth at each of those positions. That on top of the coaching staff. All better than what Sherman had left him. And he did all of this while bringing this franchise back into exceptional cap health at the same time. It's a travesty that we got stuck with this guy as our GM. What the hell was Harlan thinking....

:bclap: :bclap::bclap::bclap::bclap::bclap::bclap:

[mraynrand]

Athletes in all sports at all levels have to become accustomed to a new speed of play and intensity as they move up in the sport. You don't get that sitting on the sidelines, or even in practice. At critical positions like QB, you don't get it in a single year as a starter. Too many things going on, too many decisions to make in a very short period of time. You get better as those decisions become routine, and not consciously thought out acts.

That's why I think with all the examples I included, the QB's level of play steps up at around three or four years behind center. It's remarkable to look at all the QB stats out there and over and over you see almost the same pattern for the great QBs - even if they are good to very good to start (like Rodgers), they reach a new level after several years of real playing experience.

[sharpe1027]

LOL, many of those players were MVP candidates long before their 5th year started.

Some of those are decent examples, but the more modern ones were very good players long before their 5th year.

Brees? Brees had a Rodgers like start to his career. Almost identical as a matter of fact. Didn't really have a lot of playing time until his 4th year and was very good from that point forth. They resigned him to a franchise contract after his 4th year, and then they let him go and started Rivers in his third year and has consistently put up decent numbers and lead a team into the playoffs. Rivers had a huge year this year, but I think that is more so because they didn't have the ground game they had in years past, and had Jackson step up, and added Chambers.

Brett Favre put up MVP numbers his 4th year with all the TD passes, and finally started his streak of winning the award his 5th year.

You seem to imply that that Rodgers is not on successful path. You argue that because Rodgers might be one year behind what a few examples of successful QBs have done that there is little hope that he will make significant improvements.

Simply put, it seems pretty clear that there is no well-followed path with a single year defining whether or not QB will be successful. Your QB path argument is full of exceptions, so much so that your QB path is almost the exception itself. You could continue to try ever so hard to minimize the problems in your argument, or you could welcome the problems and adjust your conclusion accordingly.

The question is, are you trying to prove a point and that others are wrong, or are you looking for a impartial assessment of Rodgers and his future?

[Partial]

Brett Favre put up MVP numbers his 4th year with all the TD passes, and finally started his streak of winning the award his 5th year.

Brett Favre in year 4: 90.7 passer rating, 62.4 comp%, 3882 passing yards, 6.7 y/a, 33 TDs, 14 ints, 202 rushing yds, 2 rushing TDs, 31 sacks

Aaron Rodgers in year 4: 93.7 passer rating, 63.6 comp%, 4038 passing yards, 7.5 y/a, 28 TDs, 13 ints, 207 rushing yds, 4 rushing TDs, 34 sacks

Pretty damn similar. Favre went 9-7. Rodgers was two missed Crosby FGs from going 8-8--not to mention the 5 blown leads in the final 5 minutes.

You don't remember this, but after 3 years, Packer nation was divided on Brett Favre. Early in his 4th year, probably a majority of Packer fans wanted him benched for Mark Brunell. Midway through his fourth year, the light went off. He put together a season that was similar to what Rodgers did in 2008. Until then, nobody had any reason to think Favre would be a Hall of Fame QB. Hell, most didn't even want him starting for the Packers.

I don't remember that. Too young.

Like I said, Favre and Rodgers both had good statistical years and were slightly above average quarterbacks then.

Here's hoping Rodgers improves. He's a smart guy, and now a big physical athlete of one. Favre was a dumb guy, but a good athlete.

We'll see. I sincerely believe that Rodgers won't improve as much as many people think.

[mraynrand]

Brett Favre put up MVP numbers his 4th year with all the TD passes, and finally started his streak of winning the award his 5th year.

Brett Favre in year 4: 90.7 passer rating, 62.4 comp%, 3882 passing yards, 6.7 y/a, 33 TDs, 14 ints, 202 rushing yds, 2 rushing TDs, 31 sacks

Aaron Rodgers in year 4: 93.7 passer rating, 63.6 comp%, 4038 passing yards, 7.5 y/a, 28 TDs, 13 ints, 207 rushing yds, 4 rushing TDs, 34 sacks

Pretty damn similar. Favre went 9-7. Rodgers was two missed Crosby FGs from going 8-8--not to mention the 5 blown leads in the final 5 minutes.

You don't remember this, but after 3 years, Packer nation was divided on Brett Favre. Early in his 4th year, probably a majority of Packer fans wanted him benched for Mark Brunell. Midway through his fourth year, the light went off. He put together a season that was similar to what Rodgers did in 2008. Until then, nobody had any reason to think Favre would be a Hall of Fame QB. Hell, most didn't even want him starting for the Packers.

It's still a bit apples and oranges, as has been said repeatedly, because of the difference in real on field experience. Look at Matt Hasselbeck - two years on the pine in GB followed by two rather pedestrian years on the field for Seattle. Then, in his fifth year - boom goes the dynamite. Again, it's that consistent pattern. Partial at least seems to have the number of years correct. 4 years in the league appears to be the normal experience required to reach the top efficiency for a QB. Rodgers had to wait a little longer sitting on the pine than most so it will likely take another year or so to see his best on the field.

[Bossman641]

Brett Favre put up MVP numbers his 4th year with all the TD passes, and finally started his streak of winning the award his 5th year.

Brett Favre in year 4: 90.7 passer rating, 62.4 comp%, 3882 passing yards, 6.7 y/a, 33 TDs, 14 ints, 202 rushing yds, 2 rushing TDs, 31 sacks

Aaron Rodgers in year 4: 93.7 passer rating, 63.6 comp%, 4038 passing yards, 7.5 y/a, 28 TDs, 13 ints, 207 rushing yds, 4 rushing TDs, 34 sacks

Pretty damn similar. Favre went 9-7. Rodgers was two missed Crosby FGs from going 8-8--not to mention the 5 blown leads in the final 5 minutes.

You don't remember this, but after 3 years, Packer nation was divided on Brett Favre. Early in his 4th year, probably a majority of Packer fans wanted him benched for Mark Brunell. Midway through his fourth year, the light went off. He put together a season that was similar to what Rodgers did in 2008. Until then, nobody had any reason to think Favre would be a Hall of Fame QB. Hell, most didn't even want him starting for the Packers.

I don't remember that. Too young.

Like I said, Favre and Rodgers both had good statistical years and were slightly above average quarterbacks then.
Here's hoping Rodgers improves. He's a smart guy, and now a big physical athlete of one. Favre was a dumb guy, but a good athlete.

We'll see. I sincerely believe that Rodgers won't improve as much as many people think.

:?: :?: :?:

So putting up MVP numbers is "slightly above average?" I know your definition of average is ridiculous, something like QB's 4-29 are average, but aren't you contradicting yourself?

[Patler]

I don't think "years in the league" and years starting are the same either. Maybe the light went off for Favre and many others sometime around their fourth year, but for Favre that was his third year as a starter. Four years with 40+ starts is different than four years and just 16 starts.

The example others have given of Hasselbeck is excellent. He was in GB for three seasons, and showed great potential in the last two preseasons. Went to Seattle to start his fourth season. He struggled for several years, and even lost his job as the starter for a while. Why? Not because of talent. Not because of "experience in the league", he had the same then as Rodgers did before 2008. Hasselbeck himself said he struggled at letting the game slow down and come to him. It took a lot of playing time for that to happen.

[sheepshead]

I hope Arod is all pro and wins MVP and shuts this guy up for a while---geeeez.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Can we just kill this thread? I mean what's the damn point any more?

[cpk1994]

I hope Arod is all pro and wins MVP and shuts this guy up for a while---geeeez.It won't shut Partial up. He will do what he continues to do, find a new argument to bash Rodgers with. It doesn't matter how many times he is made to look like an idiot. He will just make a new argument why Rodgers sucks.

[Partial]

Since when does "Average to above average" or "12th best in the league" equate to suck, exactly?

[cheesner]

Since when does "Average to above average" or "12th best in the league" equate to suck, exactly?When does it equate to MVP numbers?




Brett Favre put up MVP numbers his 4th year with all the TD passes, and finally started his streak of winning the award his 5th year.

Brett Favre in year 4: 90.7 passer rating, 62.4 comp%, 3882 passing yards, 6.7 y/a, 33 TDs, 14 ints, 202 rushing yds, 2 rushing TDs, 31 sacks

Aaron Rodgers in year 4: 93.7 passer rating, 63.6 comp%, 4038 passing yards, 7.5 y/a, 28 TDs, 13 ints, 207 rushing yds, 4 rushing TDs, 34 sacks

Pretty damn similar. Favre went 9-7. Rodgers was two missed Crosby FGs from going 8-8--not to mention the 5 blown leads in the final 5 minutes.

. . . .

Like I said, Favre and Rodgers both had good statistical years and were slightly above average quarterbacks then.

[Gunakor]

Since when does "Average to above average" or "12th best in the league" equate to suck, exactly?When does it equate to MVP numbers?




Brett Favre put up MVP numbers his 4th year with all the TD passes, and finally started his streak of winning the award his 5th year.

Brett Favre in year 4: 90.7 passer rating, 62.4 comp%, 3882 passing yards, 6.7 y/a, 33 TDs, 14 ints, 202 rushing yds, 2 rushing TDs, 31 sacks

Aaron Rodgers in year 4: 93.7 passer rating, 63.6 comp%, 4038 passing yards, 7.5 y/a, 28 TDs, 13 ints, 207 rushing yds, 4 rushing TDs, 34 sacks

Pretty damn similar. Favre went 9-7. Rodgers was two missed Crosby FGs from going 8-8--not to mention the 5 blown leads in the final 5 minutes.

. . . .

Like I said, Favre and Rodgers both had good statistical years and were slightly above average quarterbacks then.



Truth is the game has changed quite a bit from back in 1994. There are so many QB's who are continually rasing the bar. Now that Brady has thrown 50TD's in a season and Manning 49, 35 TD's looks average. 3800 yards is nothing anymore. What won MVP 10 years ago wouldn't even earn you a starting spot in the Pro Bowl anymore in either conference.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Truth is the game has changed quite a bit from back in 1994. There are so many QB's who are continually rasing the bar. Now that Brady has thrown 50TD's in a season and Manning 49, 35 TD's looks average. 3800 yards is nothing anymore. What won MVP 10 years ago wouldn't even earn you a starting spot in the Pro Bowl anymore in either conference.

I think you are overstating the difference between 1994 and now. Maybe 1984 or 1974. However, passing yards are pretty similar. In 1994, 18 of 28 teams averaged 200 passing yards/game. In 2009, 17 of 32 teams averaged that. In 1994, three QBs had 30+ passing TDs. Same in 2009. In 1994, three QBs had 4000 passing yards. In 2009, it was six QBs, but three QBs barely hit the threshold in 2009 while one just missed the threshold in 1994. Just because a few guys have had record breaking seasons doesn't mean the overall game has changed that dramatically.

BTW, in 1974 only one team averaged over 200 passing yards/game. Washington led the league at 200.1 passing yards/game.
:D

[Partial]

Since when does "Average to above average" or "12th best in the league" equate to suck, exactly?When does it equate to MVP numbers?




Brett Favre put up MVP numbers his 4th year with all the TD passes, and finally started his streak of winning the award his 5th year.

Brett Favre in year 4: 90.7 passer rating, 62.4 comp%, 3882 passing yards, 6.7 y/a, 33 TDs, 14 ints, 202 rushing yds, 2 rushing TDs, 31 sacks

Aaron Rodgers in year 4: 93.7 passer rating, 63.6 comp%, 4038 passing yards, 7.5 y/a, 28 TDs, 13 ints, 207 rushing yds, 4 rushing TDs, 34 sacks

Pretty damn similar. Favre went 9-7. Rodgers was two missed Crosby FGs from going 8-8--not to mention the 5 blown leads in the final 5 minutes.

. . . .

Like I said, Favre and Rodgers both had good statistical years and were slightly above average quarterbacks then.


I was incorrect about Favre's 1994 numbers... 1995 is when he really started tearing it up..

Game changing: Yep, definitely. We've seen rules come around to favor the offense and the higher scoring games to promote ratings. Brady's year was all time, though, and 35 TDs is still unreal and wicked good!

[Gunakor]

Truth is the game has changed quite a bit from back in 1994. There are so many QB's who are continually rasing the bar. Now that Brady has thrown 50TD's in a season and Manning 49, 35 TD's looks average. 3800 yards is nothing anymore. What won MVP 10 years ago wouldn't even earn you a starting spot in the Pro Bowl anymore in either conference.

I think you are overstating the difference between 1994 and now. Maybe 1984 or 1974. However, passing yards are pretty similar. In 1994, 18 of 28 teams averaged 200 passing yards/game. In 2009, 17 of 32 teams averaged that. In 1994, three QBs had 30+ passing TDs. Same in 2009. In 1994, three QBs had 4000 passing yards. In 2009, it was six QBs, but three QBs barely hit the threshold in 2009 while one just missed the threshold in 1994. Just because a few guys have had record breaking seasons doesn't mean the overall game has changed that dramatically.

BTW, in 1974 only one team averaged over 200 passing yards/game. Washington led the league at 200.1 passing yards/game.
:D

Forget about team comparisons. Favre had approximately 3800 yards and 33 TD's in 1994. Where would that rank him compared to today's quarterbacks? Because back then those kind of numbers made you eligible for the MVP race. As I said, now it doesn't even earn you a starting spot in the Pro Bowl in either the AFC or the NFC. You'd be lucky to even get an invite with those numbers if playing in the AFC. Obviously something changed.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Forget about team comparisons. Favre had approximately 3800 yards and 33 TD's in 1994. Where would that rank him compared to today's quarterbacks? Because back then those kind of numbers made you eligible for the MVP race. As I said, now it doesn't even earn you a starting spot in the Pro Bowl in either the AFC or the NFC. You'd be lucky to even get an invite with those numbers if playing in the AFC. Obviously something changed.

Favre's 3882 passing yards were 5th in the NFL in 1994. It would have ranked him 8th in 2009.

Favre's 33 TDs were 2nd in the NFL in 1994. In 2009, it would have ranked him 3rd, but just one behind the co-leaders (Brees and Rivers each had 34).

I think 1994-1995 were the two years where you saw passing really change.

In 1993, only two QBs threw for more than 3500 yards.
In 1994, seven QBs threw for more than 3700 yards.
In 1995, ten QBs threw for more than 3800 yards.

In 1993, only three QBs threw 22+ TDs.
In 1994, seven QBs threw 22+ TDs.
In 1995, nine QBs threw 24+ TDs.

[Gunakor]

Forget about team comparisons. Favre had approximately 3800 yards and 33 TD's in 1994. Where would that rank him compared to today's quarterbacks? Because back then those kind of numbers made you eligible for the MVP race. As I said, now it doesn't even earn you a starting spot in the Pro Bowl in either the AFC or the NFC. You'd be lucky to even get an invite with those numbers if playing in the AFC. Obviously something changed.

Favre's 3882 passing yards were 5th in the NFL in 1994. It would have ranked him 8th in 2009.

Favre's 33 TDs were 2nd in the NFL in 1994. In 2009, it would have ranked him 3rd, but just one behind the co-leaders (Brees and Rivers each had 34).

I think 1994-1995 were the two years where you saw passing really change.

In 1993, only two QBs threw for more than 3500 yards.
In 1994, seven QBs threw for more than 3700 yards.
In 1995, ten QBs threw for more than 3800 yards.

In 1993, only three QBs threw 22+ TDs.
In 1994, seven QBs threw 22+ TDs.
In 1995, nine QBs threw 24+ TDs.

Ah, you're right. And also that this year was a fairly down year for QB's in comparison to the recent past, especially regarding TD's. 34 being the top total in the league really doesn't seem to be all that much. I'd imagine that will pick up again this year, with Brady coming back and Manning starting the year healthy and Brees presumably having all of his weapons back to health.

[Fritz]

Johnny Unitas rocked.

[Joemailman]

Truth is the game has changed quite a bit from back in 1994. There are so many QB's who are continually rasing the bar. Now that Brady has thrown 50TD's in a season and Manning 49, 35 TD's looks average. 3800 yards is nothing anymore. What won MVP 10 years ago wouldn't even earn you a starting spot in the Pro Bowl anymore in either conference.

I think you are overstating the difference between 1994 and now. Maybe 1984 or 1974. However, passing yards are pretty similar. In 1994, 18 of 28 teams averaged 200 passing yards/game. In 2009, 17 of 32 teams averaged that. In 1994, three QBs had 30+ passing TDs. Same in 2009. In 1994, three QBs had 4000 passing yards. In 2009, it was six QBs, but three QBs barely hit the threshold in 2009 while one just missed the threshold in 1994. Just because a few guys have had record breaking seasons doesn't mean the overall game has changed that dramatically.

BTW, in 1974 only one team averaged over 200 passing yards/game. Washington led the league at 200.1 passing yards/game.
:D

Forget about team comparisons. Favre had approximately 3800 yards and 33 TD's in 1994. Where would that rank him compared to today's quarterbacks? Because back then those kind of numbers made you eligible for the MVP race. As I said, now it doesn't even earn you a starting spot in the Pro Bowl in either the AFC or the NFC. You'd be lucky to even get an invite with those numbers if playing in the AFC. Obviously something changed.

Peyton Manning started for the AFC in the Pro Bowl after putting up 4002 yards and 27 TD Passes. There were only 3 guys in the entire league with 30 or more TD passes. 30 TD passes is still a great accomplishment. Things haven't changed as much as you think.

[Guiness]

To go in a slightly different direction, how about another first round QB who's sitting on the bench, although he had a false start...

What's going to happen to Leinhardt? After a couple of starts early, he's sat and watched...but now Warner has a 2yr deal. So?

I think Arizona deals him for a 4th, maybe a 3rd if they're lucky. I can't see anyone paying a second for him.

[Brandon494]

To go in a slightly different direction, how about another first round QB who's sitting on the bench, although he had a false start...

What's going to happen to Leinhardt? After a couple of starts early, he's sat and watched...but now Warner has a 2yr deal. So?

I think Arizona deals him for a 4th, maybe a 3rd if they're lucky. I can't see anyone paying a second for him.

haha I remember when some posters wanted to draft AR and trade up to select Leinhardt.

[Fritz]

Terdell Middleton was a running back.

[mraynrand]

When Ron Pitts calls the 'Red Zone' the 'Red Area,' I get mildly annoyed.

[Gunakor]

Truth is the game has changed quite a bit from back in 1994. There are so many QB's who are continually rasing the bar. Now that Brady has thrown 50TD's in a season and Manning 49, 35 TD's looks average. 3800 yards is nothing anymore. What won MVP 10 years ago wouldn't even earn you a starting spot in the Pro Bowl anymore in either conference.

I think you are overstating the difference between 1994 and now. Maybe 1984 or 1974. However, passing yards are pretty similar. In 1994, 18 of 28 teams averaged 200 passing yards/game. In 2009, 17 of 32 teams averaged that. In 1994, three QBs had 30+ passing TDs. Same in 2009. In 1994, three QBs had 4000 passing yards. In 2009, it was six QBs, but three QBs barely hit the threshold in 2009 while one just missed the threshold in 1994. Just because a few guys have had record breaking seasons doesn't mean the overall game has changed that dramatically.

BTW, in 1974 only one team averaged over 200 passing yards/game. Washington led the league at 200.1 passing yards/game.
:D

Forget about team comparisons. Favre had approximately 3800 yards and 33 TD's in 1994. Where would that rank him compared to today's quarterbacks? Because back then those kind of numbers made you eligible for the MVP race. As I said, now it doesn't even earn you a starting spot in the Pro Bowl in either the AFC or the NFC. You'd be lucky to even get an invite with those numbers if playing in the AFC. Obviously something changed.

Peyton Manning started for the AFC in the Pro Bowl after putting up 4002 yards and 27 TD Passes. There were only 3 guys in the entire league with 30 or more TD passes. 30 TD passes is still a great accomplishment. Things haven't changed as much as you think.

Peyton Manning also started the season one month from knee surgery, and played without Harrison for most of the year. He started the Pro Bowl only because Tom Brady took a season ending hit in week 1, making him ineligible.

How many have the two of them been throwing in recent seasons when healthy?

[Freak Out]

Rodgers looks pretty fucking goofy when you think about it.

[Joemailman]

Truth is the game has changed quite a bit from back in 1994. There are so many QB's who are continually rasing the bar. Now that Brady has thrown 50TD's in a season and Manning 49, 35 TD's looks average. 3800 yards is nothing anymore. What won MVP 10 years ago wouldn't even earn you a starting spot in the Pro Bowl anymore in either conference.

I think you are overstating the difference between 1994 and now. Maybe 1984 or 1974. However, passing yards are pretty similar. In 1994, 18 of 28 teams averaged 200 passing yards/game. In 2009, 17 of 32 teams averaged that. In 1994, three QBs had 30+ passing TDs. Same in 2009. In 1994, three QBs had 4000 passing yards. In 2009, it was six QBs, but three QBs barely hit the threshold in 2009 while one just missed the threshold in 1994. Just because a few guys have had record breaking seasons doesn't mean the overall game has changed that dramatically.

BTW, in 1974 only one team averaged over 200 passing yards/game. Washington led the league at 200.1 passing yards/game.
:D

Forget about team comparisons. Favre had approximately 3800 yards and 33 TD's in 1994. Where would that rank him compared to today's quarterbacks? Because back then those kind of numbers made you eligible for the MVP race. As I said, now it doesn't even earn you a starting spot in the Pro Bowl in either the AFC or the NFC. You'd be lucky to even get an invite with those numbers if playing in the AFC. Obviously something changed.

Peyton Manning started for the AFC in the Pro Bowl after putting up 4002 yards and 27 TD Passes. There were only 3 guys in the entire league with 30 or more TD passes. 30 TD passes is still a great accomplishment. Things haven't changed as much as you think.

Peyton Manning also started the season one month from knee surgery, and played without Harrison for most of the year. He started the Pro Bowl only because Tom Brady took a season ending hit in week 1, making him ineligible.

How many have the two of them been throwing in recent seasons when healthy?

Manning has thrown 30+ TD passes 4 times in 11 years. Brady has done it once. Each has had 1 phenomenal season. 1 season does not constitute a trend.

[mission]

Rodgers looks pretty fucking goofy when you think about it.

I kind of look like him when I'm clean shaven and have my "cool dude" haircut. We both have that doofus smile :lol:

[SnakeLH2006]

Same old thread.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5536/theusualstuff.png

That sir, might be the most amazing thing Snake has seen since he was 14...and he is still amazed at what he saw at 14, as he now sees it regularly, but is still impressed. :lol:

Yet, this is a close second of sheer brilliance and awesomeness 10 fold, sir. :bow: :bow: :bow: Snake now kneels to anything Cheesehead Craig has to say for the next month. Amazing technical prowess for that chart and pure smarts. Nice going. Wow. Bill O'Reilly would be impressed as there is no spin there man. Damn.