This guy looks like a moron now

[channtheman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWDCOV5Cktk

Yeah Green Bay made the WORST decision they could have by getting rid of Favre.

[Gunakor]

:oops:

[cpk1994]

That sounds like some of the posters here last fall. I wonder how this guy enjoyed eating his foot?

[LEWCWA]

Good, bad, or indifferent the fact is the team went 6-10 last year and that won't cut it. If Mr. Rodgers doesn't lead this team to some winning records and playoff wins, nobody will care how his numbers look. The 21st century Packer fan is alot less forgiving that us from the Lynn Dickey years! We want wins, a pretty offense just won't cut it!

[RashanGary]

Good, bad, or indifferent the fact is the team went 6-10 last year and that won't cut it. If Mr. Rodgers doesn't lead this team to some winning records and playoff wins, nobody will care how his numbers look. The 21st century Packer fan is alot less forgiving that us from the Lynn Dickey years! We want wins, a pretty offense just won't cut it!


Explain this ;)

Offense 8th ranked (nfl.com yards)
Defense 20th ranked (nfl.com yards)
ST's 26th ranked (Dallas Morning News overall ST's ranking *Rick Gosslin)
Strength of schedule 12th toughest (nfl.com)


Passing offense 4th ranked
Running offense 26th ranked


Rodgers (4th yards) (6th Passer Rating) (4th TD's) (10th comp %)



I don't think Rodgers has much left to prove, except to the few people like you, who will be proven wrong.

[woodbuck27]

Good, bad, or indifferent the fact is the team went 6-10 last year and that won't cut it. If Mr. Rodgers doesn't lead this team to some winning records and playoff wins, nobody will care how his numbers look. The 21st century Packer fan is alot less forgiving that us from the Lynn Dickey years! We want wins, a pretty offense just won't cut it!


Explain this ;)

Offense 8th ranked (nfl.com yards)
Defense 20th ranked (nfl.com yards)
ST's 26th ranked (Dallas Morning News overall ST's ranking *Rick Gosslin)
Strength of schedule 12th toughest (nfl.com)


Passing game 4th ranked
Running game 26th ranked


Rodgers (4th yards) (6th Passer Rating) (4th TD's) (10th comp %)





I don't think Rodgers has too many questions left to answer, except from people like you, who will be proven wrong.

Yes. Aaron Rodgers isn't the problem.

[Stevogbfan]

maybe this guy should find some new work cause he kinda sucks at this!?!

[BZnDallas]

Good, bad, or indifferent the fact is the team went 6-10 last year and that won't cut it. If Mr. Rodgers doesn't lead this team to some winning records and playoff wins, nobody will care how his numbers look. The 21st century Packer fan is alot less forgiving that us from the Lynn Dickey years! We want wins, a pretty offense just won't cut it!


Great Post!!!... at least the bold typing... you are correct the TEAM went 6-10... and the defense gave up 4-5 of those games in the 4th quarter or overtime... if the 'D' can improve this year and the offense at least stays the same, we are hopefully looking at 11-12 wins this year... at least some fans are hoping anyway... some i'm not to sure about... but i'm not here to mention any names... :wink:

[Packerarcher]

Good, bad, or indifferent the fact is the team went 6-10 last year and that won't cut it. If Mr. Rodgers doesn't lead this team to some winning records and playoff wins, nobody will care how his numbers look. The 21st century Packer fan is alot less forgiving that us from the Lynn Dickey years! We want wins, a pretty offense just won't cut it!


Explain this ;)

Offense 8th ranked (nfl.com yards)
Defense 20th ranked (nfl.com yards)
ST's 26th ranked (Dallas Morning News overall ST's ranking *Rick Gosslin)
Strength of schedule 12th toughest (nfl.com)


Passing offense 4th ranked
Running offense 26th ranked


Rodgers (4th yards) (6th Passer Rating) (4th TD's) (10th comp %)



I don't think Rodgers has much left to prove, except to the few people like you, who will be proven wrong.

Prove us wrong just like your wonderful Justin Harrell has? I sure as hell hope not or the Pack is in huge trouble.

[Bretsky]

:oops:


Add one more point to start thread total :wink:

[PlantPage55]

Good, bad, or indifferent the fact is the team went 6-10 last year and that won't cut it. If Mr. Rodgers doesn't lead this team to some winning records and playoff wins, nobody will care how his numbers look. The 21st century Packer fan is alot less forgiving that us from the Lynn Dickey years! We want wins, a pretty offense just won't cut it!

This is so funny that it almost facepalms itself! What messed up fucking logic! The very idea that someone would actually believe this!

Can he improve? Surely.
Could we have had a championship caliber team with him + a defense last year? Abso-fucking-lutely.

[LEWCWA]

Good, bad, or indifferent the fact is the team went 6-10 last year and that won't cut it. If Mr. Rodgers doesn't lead this team to some winning records and playoff wins, nobody will care how his numbers look. The 21st century Packer fan is alot less forgiving that us from the Lynn Dickey years! We want wins, a pretty offense just won't cut it!


Explain this ;)

Offense 8th ranked (nfl.com yards)
Defense 20th ranked (nfl.com yards)
ST's 26th ranked (Dallas Morning News overall ST's ranking *Rick Gosslin)
Strength of schedule 12th toughest (nfl.com)


Passing offense 4th ranked
Running offense 26th ranked


Rodgers (4th yards) (6th Passer Rating) (4th TD's) (10th comp %)



I don't think Rodgers has much left to prove, except to the few people like you, who will be proven wrong.


Did I say that he has anything to prove? He played excellent last year. I was just comparing last years team to many I watched in the 80's. Some of those teams were awsome on offense, but still had shit records. I don't see anyone talking about how great Lynn Dickey was 25 years later! Only point to my post was, if Rodgers puts up good to great numbers for 5-6 years and the Pack is a mediocre .500 type team, he will be lumped in with those Packers. Nothing more nothing less....

[LEWCWA]

FYI I didn't even look at the youtube link, because I don't really care. To me it doesn't really matter about Favre. He is finished and thats that. Rodgers is the man now and I would much prefer a Favre type legacy than a Lynn Dickey one. Ya gotta be better than 6-10 though.

[RashanGary]

Did I say that he has anything to prove? He played excellent last year. I was just comparing last years team to many I watched in the 80's. Some of those teams were awsome on offense, but still had shit records. I don't see anyone talking about how great Lynn Dickey was 25 years later! Only point to my post was, if Rodgers puts up good to great numbers for 5-6 years and the Pack is a mediocre .500 type team, he will be lumped in with those Packers. Nothing more nothing less....


Wouldn't that be a Packer problem overall not a Rodgers problem individually? Dickey, Lofton and company probably don't get the credit they deserve, which is another example of why I believe the team is much more important than the QB.

Minnesota (very good D, great running game, bad QB) playoffs
Packers (bad D, bad ST's, bad running game, good QB) no playoffs

Like I said, you're a doubter. You think we're losing because of Rodgers. I think you will be proven wrong over time. We can sit here and talk about how Dickey ruined the 80's defenses and how Rodgers ruined the 2008 defense and you think you have merit. Time will take any relevancy you have away. For now, keep digging. I'll argue as far as it takes to draw a contrast and then let time decide who is right.

[sheepshead]

Who cares what that guys thinks. Hell he looks like he just got in from little league practice. He has never seen anyone besides number 4 under center anyway.

[Fritz]

I'm glad they don't have any video of me predicting that Odell Thurman and Robert Ferguson were going to be stars in this league!

[Partial]

I guess I don't see how he's that far off point.

He said he's fragile.. He did get hurt last year, in addition to every other year he's been in the league. Sure, he played through it, but will he be able to stay healthy next year? Maybe, maybe not.

He also said the Pack was a contender in 2007, and wouldn't be in 2008 with Rodgers. They weren't in 2008 with Rodgers.

With that said, his wording is a poorly chosen. At no point does he say Rodgers is a bad player or anything like that. He simply implies the Packers 2008 season will be a disaster, and it was.

[Lurker64]

Considering that the speaker in the Youtube video was doing a Fantasy Football analysis, he absolutely does look like an idiot at this point. From a Fantasy Football perspective, Rodgers was stellar last year, since Fantasy throws out all the things about "wins and losses" and "clutch performances", and Rodgers was (statistically) one of the best QBs in the league last year.

[channtheman]

I guess I don't see how he's that far off point.

He said he's fragile.. He did get hurt last year, in addition to every other year he's been in the league. Sure, he played through it, but will he be able to stay healthy next year? Maybe, maybe not.

He also said the Pack was a contender in 2007, and wouldn't be in 2008 with Rodgers. They weren't in 2008 with Rodgers.

With that said, his wording is a poorly chosen. At no point does he say Rodgers is a bad player or anything like that. He simply implies the Packers 2008 season will be a disaster, and it was.

You need to look no further than the title of the video and his first line. "One of my bigger busts is Aaron Rodgers." He wasn't a bust. Also, no one would have been a contender with our defense last year.

[cpk1994]

I guess I don't see how he's that far off point.

He said he's fragile.. He did get hurt last year, in addition to every other year he's been in the league. Sure, he played through it, but will he be able to stay healthy next year? Maybe, maybe not.

He also said the Pack was a contender in 2007, and wouldn't be in 2008 with Rodgers. They weren't in 2008 with Rodgers.

With that said, his wording is a poorly chosen. At no point does he say Rodgers is a bad player or anything like that. He simply implies the Packers 2008 season will be a disaster, and it was.He said "Rodgers would be a bust in 2008". Did you miss that part? Also he implied Rodgers would be the reason they wouldn't be a contender. Rodgers wasn't the problem. The length you continue to go to bash Rodgers is getting down right pathetic.

[vince]

At no point does he say Rodgers is a bad player or anything like that. Partial, the lengths to which your brain goes to block out, misfile, misunderstand and make nonsense out of that which is not in alignment with your preconceived opinions is truly amazing. What a powerful ego you have.

[Patler]

He said he's fragile.. He did get hurt last year, in addition to every other year he's been in the league. Sure, he played through it, but will he be able to stay healthy next year? Maybe, maybe not.


By that analysis, Brett Favre was fragile too. In how many years was he injured, but played through it?? Most of them, by my recollection. Being injured at some point in the season does not mean you are fragile.

[Scott Campbell]

He said he's fragile.. He did get hurt last year, in addition to every other year he's been in the league. Sure, he played through it, but will he be able to stay healthy next year? Maybe, maybe not.


By that analysis, Brett Favre was fragile too. In how many years was he injured, but played through it?? Most of them, by my recollection. Being injured at some point in the season does not mean you are fragile.


These days I think he's more emotionally fragile. The dude cries more than Dick Vermeil watching Old Yeller.

[Partial]

I guess I don't see how he's that far off point.

He said he's fragile.. He did get hurt last year, in addition to every other year he's been in the league. Sure, he played through it, but will he be able to stay healthy next year? Maybe, maybe not.

He also said the Pack was a contender in 2007, and wouldn't be in 2008 with Rodgers. They weren't in 2008 with Rodgers.

With that said, his wording is a poorly chosen. At no point does he say Rodgers is a bad player or anything like that. He simply implies the Packers 2008 season will be a disaster, and it was.He said "Rodgers would be a bust in 2008". Did you miss that part? Also he implied Rodgers would be the reason they wouldn't be a contender. Rodgers wasn't the problem. The length you continue to go to bash Rodgers is getting down right pathetic.

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

[Partial]

He said he's fragile.. He did get hurt last year, in addition to every other year he's been in the league. Sure, he played through it, but will he be able to stay healthy next year? Maybe, maybe not.


By that analysis, Brett Favre was fragile too. In how many years was he injured, but played through it?? Most of them, by my recollection. Being injured at some point in the season does not mean you are fragile.

Agreed, but this was prior to last season, when he showed a remarkable ability to hurt himself :P . So far, he's made it through one season. Hopefully he can do it again.

[MJZiggy]

Actually, you've missed the dude's whole point. He was trying to say that the Packers would absolutely suck because they made a horrible mistake in not handing Brett the starting gig back. That the team would suck because it was not led by Brett Favre, but as been posted a million times already, Favre was not statistically better. The Jets imploded at the end of the season and their win/loss record had far more to do with their QB than our record had to do with ours. Therefore, yes, the guy is a moron. If you bring up injury and their record at the beginning of the season, I will remind you that a true leader would have sat himself down when it became apparent that his injury was affecting the bottom line of the team. I wonder if that's why a certain coach lost his job...???

[Scott Campbell]

If you bring up injury and their record at the beginning of the season, I will remind you that a true leader would have sat himself down when it became apparent that his injury was affecting the bottom line of the team. I wonder if that's why a certain coach lost his job...???


The streak was more important than Mangini.

[vince]

Quarterbacks are ultimately judged on wins and losses, not pretty stats in the middle of the field.Aaron Rodgers is only effective in the middle of the field? Are you suggesting he can't put the ball in the end zone? Where in the hell do you get this stuff and how can you possibly believe it to be true? I don't think I've ever seen a more appropriate avatar than yours with that guy who babbles on and on and on like a broken record. Is your entire persona some kind of ruse I'm not hip to? The Rogue Rat? You know what that means I assume...

Only three quarterbacks in the league put the ball in the end zone through the air more than Rodgers did lin his first year starting last year. Only effective in the middle of the field? Rigth. Can't put the ball in the endzone? Right. He also ran for 4 TDs himself.

Inside the red zone, he threw for 19 TDs and 0 INTs. Yes a big fat goose egg. Oh, and that comprehensive quarterback efficiency statistic you conveniently use when it suits your opinion, and dismiss when it doesn't...Rodgers' QB rating was 106.8 inside the opponent's 20 yard line.

Only effective in the middle of the field I tell ya. The power of the ego at work...

Yup, the Packers were 6-10 last year. Therefore, Aaron Rodgers is only effective in the middle of the field and can't get the ball in the end zone.

You're still in school aren't you P? You need to take a course in logic my friend.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't think I've ever seen a more appropriate avatar than yours with that guy who babbles on and on and on like a broken record. Is your entire persona some kind of ruse I'm not hip to? The Rogue Rat? You know what that means I assume...


I assume he's still just upset about the whole Brett fiasco.

[RashanGary]

Partial has been talking about how irreplaceable Favre was and how there was no way a 25 year old (never started a game) QB could come in and lead a comparable offense with the same players. He argued over and over there was no way the Packers would choose Rodgers over Favre. When it happened he swore they were ruining their franchise (pretty much the same stuff this guy said in the vid)

Rodgers (in his first games ever starting in the NFL) came out and lead a comparable offense.

Now, he hangs on the last little shred of hate he can. He says Rodgers only throws to the outside, said he can't throw over the middle of the field. He says it, but he's never proven it. It's just something he says that allows him to not accept reality.

The reality is that first year Rodgers is as good as recent Favre (better now). He can't admit that to himself. I wouldn't take offense to it. Partial isn't enough of a man to admit (to himself) when he's wrong. Every time you see him beating his dead horse, feel bad for him because it's his weakness. Think of it as him squirming because everyone except him knows he's full of shit.

[Partial]

I've never seen a QB get more love for leading a losing team. You guys are such homers.

Remember, Rex Grossman led the league in games with QB rating above 100+ too. Stats do NOT tell the entire story about a player.

[RashanGary]

I've never seen a QB get more love for leading a losing team. You guys are such homers.

Remember, Rex Grossman led the league in games with QB rating above 100+ too. Stats do NOT tell the entire story about a player.

He went to the SB that year :lol:

[RashanGary]

You still think Rodgers is not the real deal, huh Parsh?

Well, you and LEWCA can have that corner. It's going to be awfully lonely awfully quick.

[Bretsky]

I will remind you that a true leader would have sat himself down when it became apparent that his injury was affecting the bottom line of the team. I wonder if that's why a certain coach lost his job...???



What a load of homeristic bullshit; gosh do you really believe this ?

For years we glorified the guy for playing though pain; celebrated the Giants TD when he comes running off the bench. Celebrate his often success when he was far below 100%. When he lost those games we didn't hammer him to death for not realizing he was "hurting the team" by playing with pain. Like an athlete has that ability. That's a coaches call.

Now we ream him for playing with pain and expect him to magically realize it's apparent he's hurting the team. Gimme a frickin break.

FAHU

Frickin Absolutely homeristically Unbelievable
[/code]

[Partial]

You still think Rodgers is not the real deal, huh Parsh?

Well, you and LEWCA can have that corner. It's going to be awfully lonely awfully quick.

Not the real deal? He's certainly not a top 5 quarterback imo. Most people in the world aren't. Define real deal. I think he's the 14-16 best starting QB in the NFL right now. Could get better, could get worse. He has an unbelievable amount of talent around him right now, and it will undoubtedly be significantly worse in the future.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

He said he's fragile.. He did get hurt last year, in addition to every other year he's been in the league. Sure, he played through it, but will he be able to stay healthy next year? Maybe, maybe not.


By that analysis, Brett Favre was fragile too. In how many years was he injured, but played through it?? Most of them, by my recollection. Being injured at some point in the season does not mean you are fragile.

Exactly. Every player in the NFL is hurt at some point in the season. Nobody in the NFl goes thru a season healthy. They are playing football.

Fuck, every year we have someone explain the difference tween being hurt and being injured.

[Bretsky]

You still think Rodgers is not the real deal, huh Parsh?

Well, you and LEWCA can have that corner. It's going to be awfully lonely awfully quick.

Not the real deal? He's certainly not a top 5 quarterback imo. Most people in the world aren't. Define real deal. I think he's the 14-16 best starting QB in the NFL right now. Could get better, could get worse. He has an unbelievable amount of talent around him right now, and it will undoubtedly be significantly worse in the future.


I'd definitely put Rogers top 12; possibly top 10 with current performance.

That is not taking into account looking into the future

[vince]

I've never seen a QB get more love for leading a losing team. You guys are such homers.

Remember, Rex Grossman led the league in games with QB rating above 100+ too. Stats do NOT tell the entire story about a player.
Figure it out Partial. The defense of Rodgers is due almost exclusively to your nonsensical statements designed to undermine his performance.

Then you keep throwing more nonsensical logic to protect a fragile ego over the possibility of being wrong.

Has it occurred to you that those defending Rodgers are placing the bulk of the blame (yes, blame is being placed on the Packers) where it actually deserves to be placed - on the defense and special teams, and to some extent on injuries to key defenders! Yes, those are the PACKER defense and special teams!!! But us homers would never criticize the team, would we....

Actually, I have now figured it out! Partial, you are actually Aaron Rodgers' brother or work for his agent and you are consistently spewing lies disguised as ignorance about him in order to motivate fans to do the research about his actual performance in order to crystalize and grow fan support in Rodgers' favor! Now that's sheer brilliance - and a highly effective strategy. Well done sir.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I've never seen a QB get more love for leading a losing team. You guys are such homers.

Remember, Rex Grossman led the league in games with QB rating above 100+ too. Stats do NOT tell the entire story about a player.

He went to the SB that year :lol:

Exactly.

Stats don't matter, only winning does...except when you lead your team to the Superbowl...then the stats clearly show that....well, my head is exploding. :oops:

So, if Arod had shitty stats and lead us to the SB..then it would be the result of everybody else..the team won despite Arod.

If Arod had great stats and lead us to the SB...proves nothing, cause stats don't mean anything.

If Arod had great stats and we don't get to the playoffs/SB....IT PROVES EVERYTHING.

If Arod had poor stats and we dont' get to the playoffs/SB...IT PROVES EVERYTHING.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I've never seen a QB get more love for leading a losing team. You guys are such homers.

Remember, Rex Grossman led the league in games with QB rating above 100+ too. Stats do NOT tell the entire story about a player.


Quarterbacks are ultimately judged on wins and losses, not pretty stats in the middle of the field.

Brain exploding.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You still think Rodgers is not the real deal, huh Parsh?

Well, you and LEWCA can have that corner. It's going to be awfully lonely awfully quick.

Not the real deal? He's certainly not a top 5 quarterback imo. Most people in the world aren't. Define real deal. I think he's the 14-16 best starting QB in the NFL right now. Could get better, could get worse. He has an unbelievable amount of talent around him right now, and it will undoubtedly be significantly worse in the future.

And, it begins...the unbelievable talent around him argument. Laying the groundwork for "it's not arod, it's the players around him."

If we have unbelievable talent....what do teams like the Pats, gmen, etc. have?

[ThunderDan]

You still think Rodgers is not the real deal, huh Parsh?

Well, you and LEWCA can have that corner. It's going to be awfully lonely awfully quick.

Not the real deal? He's certainly not a top 5 quarterback imo. Most people in the world aren't. Define real deal. I think he's the 14-16 best starting QB in the NFL right now. Could get better, could get worse. He has an unbelievable amount of talent around him right now, and it will undoubtedly be significantly worse in the future.

Not this crap again. Is this going to have to be the fourth thread we talk about this shit.

Let's see first is Eli Manning than Vince Young.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I've never seen a QB get more love for leading a losing team. You guys are such homers.

Remember, Rex Grossman led the league in games with QB rating above 100+ too. Stats do NOT tell the entire story about a player.

Grossman finished the year completing 54% of his passes, 6.7 yards/attempt, 23 TDs, and 20 interceptions. That is a 73.9 passer rating. I think stats did pretty much tell his story that year. He was below average statistically. The Bears defense and special teams were really good though.

[vince]

You still think Rodgers is not the real deal, huh Parsh?

Well, you and LEWCA can have that corner. It's going to be awfully lonely awfully quick.

Not the real deal? He's certainly not a top 5 quarterback imo. Most people in the world aren't. Define real deal. I think he's the 14-16 best starting QB in the NFL right now. Could get better, could get worse. He has an unbelievable amount of talent around him right now, and it will undoubtedly be significantly worse in the future.

And, it begins...the unbelievable talent around him argument. Laying the groundwork for "it's not arod, it's the players around him."

If we have unbelievable talent....what do teams like the Pats, gmen, etc. have?
Any success Arod had individually is due to exclusively to the unbelievable talent around him, but any failure the team around him had is due exclusively to Arod individually. I'm not sure what world that makes sense in, but it ain't the one the rest of the civilized world lives in.

And then he accuses us "homers" of not being fair and balanced.

[ThunderDan]

I will remind you that a true leader would have sat himself down when it became apparent that his injury was affecting the bottom line of the team. I wonder if that's why a certain coach lost his job...???



What a load of homeristic bullshit; gosh do you really believe this ?

For years we glorified the guy for playing though pain; celebrated the Giants TD when he comes running off the bench. Celebrate his often success when he was far below 100%. When he lost those games we didn't hammer him to death for not realizing he was "hurting the team" by playing with pain. Like an athlete has that ability. That's a coaches call.

Now we ream him for playing with pain and expect him to magically realize it's apparent he's hurting the team. Gimme a frickin break.

FAHU

Frickin Absolutely homeristically Unbelievable
[/code]

When did Favre ever have a five game streak like this:
23/43 247 0TD 1Int 60.9 rating
20/31 137 0 1 60.8
17/30 207 1 2 61.4
18/31 187 0 2 48.7
20/40 233 1 3 45.1

Call it Homerism if you want but those numbers are it. Favre never did that as a Packer.

[MJZiggy]

I will remind you that a true leader would have sat himself down when it became apparent that his injury was affecting the bottom line of the team. I wonder if that's why a certain coach lost his job...???



What a load of homeristic bullshit; gosh do you really believe this ?

For years we glorified the guy for playing though pain; celebrated the Giants TD when he comes running off the bench. Celebrate his often success when he was far below 100%. When he lost those games we didn't hammer him to death for not realizing he was "hurting the team" by playing with pain. Like an athlete has that ability. That's a coaches call.

Now we ream him for playing with pain and expect him to magically realize it's apparent he's hurting the team. Gimme a frickin break.

FAHU

Frickin Absolutely homeristically Unbelievable
[/code]

We glorified him for playing through injury all those years because he did it damned effectively. Last year not so much. All those years, the injury didn't affect the team record. Last year it did. His injury directly affected the Jets record and once that happened, he should have sat, and had he sucked with a broken thumb in GB and lost games with it, then we'd have been calling for him to sit.

[Partial]

And, it begins...the unbelievable talent around him argument. Laying the groundwork for "it's not arod, it's the players around him."

If we have unbelievable talent....what do teams like the Pats, gmen, etc. have?

They have unbelievable talent. With a good QB, the Pats went 18-1 last year and went to the Super bowl. They had slightly better talent at wideout. If they ranked #1, we're still very good and ranked in the top 5. Pats had an unreal combo of blue chip receiver and blue chip QB. This allowed them to throw the ball and dominate. Look at the #s Welker put up as a result. Why didn't he do anything close to that ever in Miami?!?

Blue chip receivers have made average quarterbacks look good quite often. Take a look at the Brad Johnson and Randall Cunningham led Vikes. These guys were journeymen until they had the superstar receiver, then they were pro bowlers.

Is it possible at all that Rodgers play was improved due to the phenomenal receiving corps? I certainly think that it was.

GMen faded last year when Eli was forced to win without his star wideout (who would compete with Driver for the #2 spot on our team).

Despite top 5 offensive talent around him (imo), he still only went 6-10, including two wins against the pathetic Lions. Not so hot.

[Bretsky]

I will remind you that a true leader would have sat himself down when it became apparent that his injury was affecting the bottom line of the team. I wonder if that's why a certain coach lost his job...???



What a load of homeristic bullshit; gosh do you really believe this ?

For years we glorified the guy for playing though pain; celebrated the Giants TD when he comes running off the bench. Celebrate his often success when he was far below 100%. When he lost those games we didn't hammer him to death for not realizing he was "hurting the team" by playing with pain. Like an athlete has that ability. That's a coaches call.

Now we ream him for playing with pain and expect him to magically realize it's apparent he's hurting the team. Gimme a frickin break.

FAHU

Frickin Absolutely homeristically Unbelievable
[/code]

We glorified him for playing through injury all those years because he did it damned effectively. Last year not so much. All those years, the injury didn't affect the team record. Last year it did. His injury directly affected the Jets record and once that happened, he should have sat, and had he sucked with a broken thumb in GB and lost games with it, then we'd have been calling for him to sit.


such a load of crap, but that's what it's come to.

How do we know how it effected our record ? We had a lot of quality backups through the years, and Favre undoubtedly had his eggs due to injury.

HOW MANY pro QB's would sit themself because they don't think they can perform and it's better for the team if they sat ?

And if they did do that and the backup sucked wind they'd get fleeced

Unreal; frickin unreal

[Bretsky]

I will remind you that a true leader would have sat himself down when it became apparent that his injury was affecting the bottom line of the team. I wonder if that's why a certain coach lost his job...???



What a load of homeristic bullshit; gosh do you really believe this ?

For years we glorified the guy for playing though pain; celebrated the Giants TD when he comes running off the bench. Celebrate his often success when he was far below 100%. When he lost those games we didn't hammer him to death for not realizing he was "hurting the team" by playing with pain. Like an athlete has that ability. That's a coaches call.

Now we ream him for playing with pain and expect him to magically realize it's apparent he's hurting the team. Gimme a frickin break.

FAHU

Frickin Absolutely homeristically Unbelievable
[/code]

When did Favre ever have a five game streak like this:
23/43 247 0TD 1Int 60.9 rating
20/31 137 0 1 60.8
17/30 207 1 2 61.4
18/31 187 0 2 48.7
20/40 233 1 3 45.1

Call it Homerism if you want but those numbers are it. Favre never did that as a Packer.


So you think he should have actually benched himself ?????

About as realistic as Obama nominating a Republican to the Supreme Court

[MJZiggy]

Please see ThunderDan's post. My point is Favre never did that in GB. Maybe a bad game here and there, but he dropped almost half a season in NY. Remind me when it came out that he had that injury? Somehow I don't recall hearing a peep about it until sometime around the end of the year...

[Partial]

Please see ThunderDan's post. My point is Favre never did that in GB. Maybe a bad game here and there, but he dropped almost half a season in NY. Remind me when it came out that he had that injury? Somehow I don't recall hearing a peep about it until sometime around the end of the year...

Almost dropped half a season? They went 9-7 and were 8-3 at one point in A) the toughest division in the NFL and B) the better conference.

So what, he went 2-4 down the stretch when he was hurt. How the heck is that half a season?

[Bretsky]

Please see ThunderDan's post. My point is Favre never did that in GB. Maybe a bad game here and there, but he dropped almost half a season in NY. Remind me when it came out that he had that injury? Somehow I don't recall hearing a peep about it until sometime around the end of the year...


The stats have nothing to do with what I'm pointing out..true leader bungo....what a load

[MJZiggy]

If he had been performing that way in GB, what would your reaction have been? You'd have been screaming for him to sit. And a good leader would do that. If you were on medication that made you incapable of coherent speech, don't you think you'd want someone else to take over your client meetings until you were off the medication?

[ThunderDan]

And, it begins...the unbelievable talent around him argument. Laying the groundwork for "it's not arod, it's the players around him."

If we have unbelievable talent....what do teams like the Pats, gmen, etc. have?

They have unbelievable talent. With a good QB, the Pats went 18-1 last year and went to the Super bowl. They had slightly better talent at wideout. If they ranked #1, we're still very good and ranked in the top 5. Pats had an unreal combo of blue chip receiver and blue chip QB. This allowed them to throw the ball and dominate. Look at the #s Welker put up as a result. Why didn't he do anything close to that ever in Miami?!?

Blue chip receivers have made average quarterbacks look good quite often. Take a look at the Brad Johnson and Randall Cunningham led Vikes. These guys were journeymen until they had the superstar receiver, then they were pro bowlers.

Is it possible at all that Rodgers play was improved due to the phenomenal receiving corps? I certainly think that it was.

GMen faded last year when Eli was forced to win without his star wideout (who would compete with Driver for the #2 spot on our team).

Despite top 5 offensive talent around him (imo), he still only went 6-10, including two wins against the pathetic Lions. Not so hot.

I thought the Pats missed the playoffs last year!?!

[Lurker64]

Please see ThunderDan's post. My point is Favre never did that in GB. Maybe a bad game here and there, but he dropped almost half a season in NY. Remind me when it came out that he had that injury? Somehow I don't recall hearing a peep about it until sometime around the end of the year...

Almost dropped half a season? They went 9-7 and were 8-3 at one point in A) the toughest division in the NFL and B) the better conference.

With C) one of the easiest schedules in NFL history.

I mean, Favre's terrible finish down the stretch game against:
Denver (a team that finished 29th in team defense)
San Francisco
Buffalo (who beat nobody in their division)
Seattle (a team that finished 30th in team defense)
Miami

It's not as though he was playing against great teams down the stretch. In fact, in a season where you play both the NFC and AFC Wests, winning only 9 games is kind of an embarassment since both of those divisions are terrible.

[ThunderDan]

I will remind you that a true leader would have sat himself down when it became apparent that his injury was affecting the bottom line of the team. I wonder if that's why a certain coach lost his job...???



What a load of homeristic bullshit; gosh do you really believe this ?

For years we glorified the guy for playing though pain; celebrated the Giants TD when he comes running off the bench. Celebrate his often success when he was far below 100%. When he lost those games we didn't hammer him to death for not realizing he was "hurting the team" by playing with pain. Like an athlete has that ability. That's a coaches call.

Now we ream him for playing with pain and expect him to magically realize it's apparent he's hurting the team. Gimme a frickin break.

FAHU

Frickin Absolutely homeristically Unbelievable
[/code]

When did Favre ever have a five game streak like this:
23/43 247 0TD 1Int 60.9 rating
20/31 137 0 1 60.8
17/30 207 1 2 61.4
18/31 187 0 2 48.7
20/40 233 1 3 45.1

Call it Homerism if you want but those numbers are it. Favre never did that as a Packer.


So you think he should have actually benched himself ?????

About as realistic as Obama nominating a Republican to the Supreme Court

No, I don't.

But I'm sure Mangini wanted to bench Favre but because of "The Streak" couldn't.

My point was Favre even while hurt playing for the Packers never played that poorly for that long.

[cpk1994]

And, it begins...the unbelievable talent around him argument. Laying the groundwork for "it's not arod, it's the players around him."

If we have unbelievable talent....what do teams like the Pats, gmen, etc. have?

They have unbelievable talent. With a good QB, the Pats went 18-1 last year and went to the Super bowl. They had slightly better talent at wideout. If they ranked #1, we're still very good and ranked in the top 5. Pats had an unreal combo of blue chip receiver and blue chip QB. This allowed them to throw the ball and dominate. Look at the #s Welker put up as a result. Why didn't he do anything close to that ever in Miami?!?

Blue chip receivers have made average quarterbacks look good quite often. Take a look at the Brad Johnson and Randall Cunningham led Vikes. These guys were journeymen until they had the superstar receiver, then they were pro bowlers.

Is it possible at all that Rodgers play was improved due to the phenomenal receiving corps? I certainly think that it was.

GMen faded last year when Eli was forced to win without his star wideout (who would compete with Driver for the #2 spot on our team).

Despite top 5 offensive talent around him (imo), he still only went 6-10, including two wins against the pathetic Lions. Not so hot.ANd the bullshit continues. Again, RODGERS WASN"T THE PROBLEM. The defense was the problem. HE had one of the worst defenses the PAckers have had in years. Are you really this ignorant?

[pbmax]

The AFC East was not the toughest division in football last year. Look what the mediocre Dolphins did to that division. And yes, the Dolphins were mediocre. Parcells is good but even he doesn't get that result unless he is facing a weak schedule and his division rivals get hurt.

And everyone knew Welker had that ability in Miami, but he was in a run first offense as the third receiver with dreck for a passing game and clipboard holders for QBs. Going into his FA year, everyone knew a smart passing team was going hard after Welker. No one could cover him in the slot.

But I love how Brady gets credit for being very good with a top 1 WR corp and Rodgers gets average with a top 5 receiver corp.

Number 6 scoring offense and the QB is average. Its good to see our running game get some credit. They only thing that keeps this from being an all time wrong-headed argument is Rodgers relative inexperience. Even Rick Mirer looked presentable after one year.

[Bretsky]

If he had been performing that way in GB, what would your reaction have been? You'd have been screaming for him to sit. And a good leader would do that. If you were on medication that made you incapable of coherent speech, don't you think you'd want someone else to take over your client meetings until you were off the medication?


This logic is ridiculous; if a guy pulls himself out I would not want him on the roster. That is a CD. Bullshit I would be calling for a player to pull himself out; I can't believe you actually are arguing this spat.

Stupid comparison as well..........ability to play QB versus something as obvious as a speech impediment.....but with that being said....................if I could hardly speak but I still thought I would be more effective than the replacement either I'd do the job to the best of my ability or my employer would replace me.

[Bretsky]

I will remind you that a true leader would have sat himself down when it became apparent that his injury was affecting the bottom line of the team. I wonder if that's why a certain coach lost his job...???



What a load of homeristic bullshit; gosh do you really believe this ?

For years we glorified the guy for playing though pain; celebrated the Giants TD when he comes running off the bench. Celebrate his often success when he was far below 100%. When he lost those games we didn't hammer him to death for not realizing he was "hurting the team" by playing with pain. Like an athlete has that ability. That's a coaches call.

Now we ream him for playing with pain and expect him to magically realize it's apparent he's hurting the team. Gimme a frickin break.

FAHU

Frickin Absolutely homeristically Unbelievable
[/code]

When did Favre ever have a five game streak like this:
23/43 247 0TD 1Int 60.9 rating
20/31 137 0 1 60.8
17/30 207 1 2 61.4
18/31 187 0 2 48.7
20/40 233 1 3 45.1

Call it Homerism if you want but those numbers are it. Favre never did that as a Packer.


So you think he should have actually benched himself ?????

About as realistic as Obama nominating a Republican to the Supreme Court

No, I don't.

But I'm sure Mangini wanted to bench Favre but because of "The Streak" couldn't.

My point was Favre even while hurt playing for the Packers never played that poorly for that long.


Very sensible points

[Fred's Slacks]

And, it begins...the unbelievable talent around him argument. Laying the groundwork for "it's not arod, it's the players around him."

If we have unbelievable talent....what do teams like the Pats, gmen, etc. have?

They have unbelievable talent. With a good QB, the Pats went 18-1 last year and went to the Super bowl. They had slightly better talent at wideout. If they ranked #1, we're still very good and ranked in the top 5. Pats had an unreal combo of blue chip receiver and blue chip QB. This allowed them to throw the ball and dominate. Look at the #s Welker put up as a result. Why didn't he do anything close to that ever in Miami?!?

Blue chip receivers have made average quarterbacks look good quite often. Take a look at the Brad Johnson and Randall Cunningham led Vikes. These guys were journeymen until they had the superstar receiver, then they were pro bowlers.

Is it possible at all that Rodgers play was improved due to the phenomenal receiving corps? I certainly think that it was.

GMen faded last year when Eli was forced to win without his star wideout (who would compete with Driver for the #2 spot on our team).

Despite top 5 offensive talent around him (imo), he still only went 6-10, including two wins against the pathetic Lions. Not so hot.

Lets keep it real with the "unbelieveable talent" comment. They have good recievers. That's it.

Their line has been average at best and at times last year was horrible (IMO they were the start of the collapse, but that's a different topic). The Tampa game, the Atlanta game, the second Minnesota game, Rodgers was running for his life the entire game.

Grant's played well at times but nobody is going to confuse our RBs or TE's with probowlers any time soon.

Theres a big difference between having unbelievable talent and having a good recieving corp. I would say that the Cowboys had unbelievable talent on offense. Yet Rodgers had a higher QB rating than Romo. How did that happen?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

And, it begins...the unbelievable talent around him argument. Laying the groundwork for "it's not arod, it's the players around him."

If we have unbelievable talent....what do teams like the Pats, gmen, etc. have?

They have unbelievable talent. With a good QB, the Pats went 18-1 last year and went to the Super bowl. They had slightly better talent at wideout. If they ranked #1, we're still very good and ranked in the top 5. Pats had an unreal combo of blue chip receiver and blue chip QB. This allowed them to throw the ball and dominate. Look at the #s Welker put up as a result. Why didn't he do anything close to that ever in Miami?!?

Blue chip receivers have made average quarterbacks look good quite often. Take a look at the Brad Johnson and Randall Cunningham led Vikes. These guys were journeymen until they had the superstar receiver, then they were pro bowlers.

Is it possible at all that Rodgers play was improved due to the phenomenal receiving corps? I certainly think that it was.

GMen faded last year when Eli was forced to win without his star wideout (who would compete with Driver for the #2 spot on our team).

Despite top 5 offensive talent around him (imo), he still only went 6-10, including two wins against the pathetic Lions. Not so hot.

Welker was very good in miami...why do you think they wanted him.

Our talent is..well hilarious. We don't have much PRODUCTIVE talent at TE, we have jennings and driver..who is declining rapidly. Jordy and Jones have done NOTHING.

WE have phenomenal receivers and they are blue chip. LOL

And, if you think Plax would be competing for the #2 spot, you are daft.

Randall Cunningham was a journeyman. Oh, lord. We should only be blessed to have a 4x pro bowler, 4x all pro, UPI NFC player of the year, Pro bowl mvp in his 3rd year, 3x Bert Bell award winner, and comeback player of the year. :oops:

You have officially made yourself look even stupider than the forum believed possible.

[Lurker64]

Is it just me, or is it ironic that Partial accuses others of homerism when they defend Rodgers as being one of the better QBs in the league?

[RashanGary]

The problem is


Partial swore that the Packers would suck without Brett on Offense. Now that they don't suck, he's scrambling. He can't give in. He won't give in.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Is it just me, or is it ironic that Partial accuses others of homerism when they defend Rodgers as being one of the better QBs in the league?

Yes. :roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The problem is


Partial swore that the Packers would suck without Brett on Offense. Now that they don't suck, he's scrambling. He can't give in. He won't give in.

Money Morency
Randall "4x all pro" Cunningham is a journeyman
Unbelievable blue chip packer receivers

It's like partial has permanent beer goggles on.

Ty, Justin, Leaper, Harv, vince, etc. "that chick is a 5"

Partial, "you guys are morons, she is a solid 9.5"

[Partial]

Welker was very good in miami...why do you think they wanted him.

Very good? You mean averaging 24 catches a season before coming to NE? Having a 12 fumble to 1 TD ratio?!? Where exactly is the very good? He was becoming a decent slot receiver when they traded for him. He only had three starts, and they were all due to injury.


Our talent is..well hilarious. We don't have much PRODUCTIVE talent at TE, we have jennings and driver..who is declining rapidly. Jordy and Jones have done NOTHING.

Rapidly declining? How so? Sure, his numbers were down last year but Jennings were up. That doesn't necessarily mean decline. That says to me that Jennings has improved to the point of being the #1.

I also think our TEs are better than solid. Lee is a pretty darn good player, as evidence by the extension TT gave him and being a pro-bowl alternate in 2007, when our QB used the middle of the field.


WE have phenomenal receivers and they are blue chip. LOL

Didn't say that. We have a top 5 receiving corps in the NFL.


And, if you think Plax would be competing for the #2 spot, you are daft.

Source? It's my personal opinion that Driver is a better all-around receiver than Plax. They're close, though.


Randall Cunningham was a journeyman. Oh, lord. We should only be blessed to have a 4x pro bowler, 4x all pro, UPI NFC player of the year, Pro bowl mvp in his 3rd year, 3x Bert Bell award winner, and comeback player of the year. :oops:

Randall Cunningham only had a QB rating of 90 or better twice in a 16 year NFL career.

Furthermore, he had a career rating of 81.5. Exceptional? Hardly.

Furthermore, he could have played in 256 NFL games. He played in 161, so he was either A) hurt a lot (journeyman) or B) not that good (which his numbers support) (journeyman). He only played in 62% of the possible games. Finally, he only started 66 games. That means he started 40% of the games he played in... Awful... and 25% of the total games he was eligible for...

So... where exactly is there anything pointing to him being anything beyond a journeyman during his NFL career?!? I certainly don't see it.


You have officially made yourself look even stupider than the forum believed possible.

False. I believe I just served you royally.

It's very tough to deny the weapons Rodgers has. The offensive talent stacks up well with just about any other team in the league (outside of QB). The OL is fine, and used as a scapegoat for a scrambling, skittish QB. Did Clifton go from stud to dud overnight? Hardly. He looked as fast and powerful as ever last year.

Welker was not a very good player in Miami. He was used marginally. He obviously had potential that BB saw, but that does not equate to a very good player in his time there. 1 TD in 4 years in Miami. 12 Fumbles. Terrible.

Cunningham may have been great prior to coming to the NFL, but his NFL numbers aren't very good -- except when he was chucking the ball to Moss -- then they were a statistical anomaly and were quite stellar.

[Partial]

The problem is


Partial swore that the Packers would suck without Brett on Offense. Now that they don't suck, he's scrambling. He can't give in. He won't give in.

Never did I say they'd suck on offense. Any quarterback could drive the ball with the talent around Rodgers. Don't be a fool.

I would gladly give in if I actually believed Rodgers was a star. He's not yet. He hasn't shown any reason to believe he will be. If the QB is not a star, move on imo. Too many things have to go right to build a consistent winner without a star at QB.

[Partial]

The AFC East was not the toughest division in football last year. Look what the mediocre Dolphins did to that division. And yes, the Dolphins were mediocre. Parcells is good but even he doesn't get that result unless he is facing a weak schedule and his division rivals get hurt.

And everyone knew Welker had that ability in Miami, but he was in a run first offense as the third receiver with dreck for a passing game and clipboard holders for QBs. Going into his FA year, everyone knew a smart passing team was going hard after Welker. No one could cover him in the slot.

But I love how Brady gets credit for being very good with a top 1 WR corp and Rodgers gets average with a top 5 receiver corp.

Number 6 scoring offense and the QB is average. Its good to see our running game get some credit. They only thing that keeps this from being an all time wrong-headed argument is Rodgers relative inexperience. Even Rick Mirer looked presentable after one year.

I disagree with you 100% on the AFC East. Two best coaches in the NFL. Two of the best QBs, etc.

Number 6 scoring offense is above-average. I don't care how many points they run up against scrubs. They cannot score against decent teams. The image of people blaming the D in a game where the offense scores 16-20 points is ridic... Against the Vikes they scored one offensive touchdown yet people blame the D for losing the game despite the offense getting blown out...

The offense that I saw and remember and was a crystal clear reflection of our record is the one that couldn't score against Jax, Tenn, Minn or Tampa. Awful, awful, awful. Put a presentable offense on the field and we're 10-6 and in the playoffs instead of 6-10.

[SnakeLH2006]

And, it begins...the unbelievable talent around him argument. Laying the groundwork for "it's not arod, it's the players around him."

If we have unbelievable talent....what do teams like the Pats, gmen, etc. have?

They have unbelievable talent. With a good QB, the Pats went 18-1 last year and went to the Super bowl. They had slightly better talent at wideout. If they ranked #1, we're still very good and ranked in the top 5. Pats had an unreal combo of blue chip receiver and blue chip QB. This allowed them to throw the ball and dominate. Look at the #s Welker put up as a result. Why didn't he do anything close to that ever in Miami?!?

Blue chip receivers have made average quarterbacks look good quite often. Take a look at the Brad Johnson and Randall Cunningham led Vikes. These guys were journeymen until they had the superstar receiver, then they were pro bowlers.

Is it possible at all that Rodgers play was improved due to the phenomenal receiving corps? I certainly think that it was.

GMen faded last year when Eli was forced to win without his star wideout (who would compete with Driver for the #2 spot on our team).

Despite top 5 offensive talent around him (imo), he still only went 6-10, including two wins against the pathetic Lions. Not so hot.
You have officially made yourself look even stupider than the forum believed possible.

That Ty is almost worth a siggy. But no, it's not possible, it's been proven again and again, but still funny as all hell to watch the 400 posts it takes Partial to try and defend/make a point. Can't believe I missed out on this thread. WOW. Good stuff. :lol:

-------------------------------------

Back to topic. We all gotta let up on the Youtube dude from the original post/topic....With this shitty economy and the with his terrible video forsight, how the hell is this dude (is it Partial in the video, methinks it may be?) gonna find a job now? :shock: :lol:

[channtheman]

I think it's easiest to just say this: Partial is a fucking moron.

[SnakeLH2006]

I think it's easiest to just say this: Partial is a fucking moron.'

LOL. That's just too easy. It's more fun to skirt the topic and make innuendos. Trust the Snake. It's really fun. 8-)

[cpk1994]

I think it's easiest to just say this: Partial is a fucking moron.Yes it would. But that won't stop him. He'll just change the argument, which he has done at least 4 timnes in this thread alone.

[Fred's Slacks]

Did Clifton go from stud to dud overnight?

I think the answer is yes. Clifton at his best was a great pass protector and a below average run blocker. The pass blocking was not even close to what we were used to last year and he continues to commit far too many drive killing penalties. He is my biggest concern with this team next year.

[Scott Campbell]

Did Clifton go from stud to dud overnight?

I think the answer is yes. Clifton at his best was a great pass protector and a below average run blocker. The pass blocking was not even close to what we were used to last year and he continues to commit far too many drive killing penalties. He is my biggest concern with this team next year.


It's amazing that a player can grade out as well as he did with all the false starts. Like Wells, I think that if can't hold on to his starting position, he's a strong candidate to get cut. I'm just not sure we've got anybody on the roster that can challenge him.

[Administrator]

I think it's easiest to just say this: Partial is a fucking moron.

Please keep your comments confined to the topic, and not directed to the poster specifically. thanks.

[Administrator]

I think it's easiest to just say this: Partial is a fucking moron.Yes it would. But that won't stop him. He'll just change the argument, which he has done at least 4 timnes in this thread alone.

This is also uncalled for. CPK, we've talked about this. Let it go. Permanently. Thanks.

[Patler]

Colledge had more false start penalties than Clifton in 2008 (4 to 3)

Clifton had four holding penalties, but two came in the first game, and seemed to set the fans attitudes for the season, deciding he was washed up. He had only two more holding calls the entire season. If you recall, there was some change in officiating that affected holding calls, particularly for tackles. I don't recall what the change was, but there was an article early in the season pointing out that holding calls were up considerably, and it was nailing tackles particularly, Clifton and others. It took a few weeks for the tackles to adapt (and for the officials to calm down).

Those were the only penalties Clifton had in 2008. Seven of them. Tony Moll in brief appearances also had 7, Colledge had the four false starts and two holds.

Clifton may not be the player he was, but 2008 wasn't as bad as some of you imply. He started out poorly, as did Tauscher, but came on as the season progressed, I thought. Both yielded a lot more "pressures" (25 and 23) than we were accustomed to seeing from them, and I suspect the QB change had a little to do with it.

I agree that Clifton may warrant watching, but I'm not overly concerned.

[Bretsky]

We should have worried along the OL, but I think Clifton might be the least of them

[Partial]

Did Clifton go from stud to dud overnight?

I think the answer is yes. Clifton at his best was a great pass protector and a below average run blocker. The pass blocking was not even close to what we were used to last year and he continues to commit far too many drive killing penalties. He is my biggest concern with this team next year.

I think he'll be fine. He's still extremely athletic. Was the pass protection of a problem of incompetent starters (who have been pro-bowlers the year before), or a new quarterback running all over the place making it very difficult to protect for him?

I tend to believe its the latter. I think Clifton will be fine. I definitely think there are much bigger concerns on the OL, and I still think without a doubt he's a top 10 LT.

[Bretsky]

Did Clifton go from stud to dud overnight?

I think the answer is yes. Clifton at his best was a great pass protector and a below average run blocker. The pass blocking was not even close to what we were used to last year and he continues to commit far too many drive killing penalties. He is my biggest concern with this team next year.

I think he'll be fine. He's still extremely athletic. Was the pass protection of a problem of incompetent starters (who have been pro-bowlers the year before), or a new quarterback running all over the place making it very difficult to protect for him?

I tend to believe its the latter. I think Clifton will be fine. I definitely think there are much bigger concerns on the OL, and I still think without a doubt he's a top 10 LT.

I do think Favre had a better feel for the rush, but that comes with experience

I don't think AROD's scrambling was much of a factor in our OL issues. Maybe occasional..........but not that noticeable

[SnakeLH2006]

Did Clifton go from stud to dud overnight?

I think the answer is yes. Clifton at his best was a great pass protector and a below average run blocker. The pass blocking was not even close to what we were used to last year and he continues to commit far too many drive killing penalties. He is my biggest concern with this team next year.

I think he'll be fine. He's still extremely athletic. Was the pass protection of a problem of incompetent starters (who have been pro-bowlers the year before), or a new quarterback running all over the place making it very difficult to protect for him?

I tend to believe its the latter. I think Clifton will be fine. I definitely think there are much bigger concerns on the OL, and I still think without a doubt he's a top 10 LT.

I do think Favre had a better feel for the rush, but that comes with experience

I don't think AROD's scrambling was much of a factor in our OL issues. Maybe occasional..........but not that noticeable

Cliffy really looks done. His whole game is athleticism, and when it slips with bad legs, he loses his magic. He been slowly slipping from 3 years ago, but really fell off this last year. No doubt this is his last year.

[Scott Campbell]

Colledge had more false start penalties than Clifton in 2008 (4 to 3)


Very interesting - only 3 for the year. Is there a good source for looking that stuff up? I'd like to see how many he's had over the course of his career. It feels like a ton, but maybe I'm smoking crack.

[Scott Campbell]

I do think Favre had a better feel for the rush, but that comes with experience....



I think Favre always had a terrific feel for the rush. He kept a lot of plays alive even as an older plyer, but with subtle movement more than athleticism.

[Pacopete4]

I do think Favre had a better feel for the rush, but that comes with experience....



I think Favre always had a terrific feel for the rush. He kept a lot of plays alive even as an older plyer, but with subtle movement more than athleticism.


though, even Favre at times, felt too much of a rush and didnt let plays develop..

[pbmax]

I disagree with you 100% on the AFC East. Two best coaches in the NFL. Two of the best QBs, etc.

Even Hall of Fame coaches have bad seasons. And both Belicheck and Parcells got beat by some average teams.


Number 6 scoring offense is above-average. I don't care how many points they run up against scrubs. They cannot score against decent teams. The image of people blaming the D in a game where the offense scores 16-20 points is ridic... Against the Vikes they scored one offensive touchdown yet people blame the D for losing the game despite the offense getting blown out...

The offense did struggle at times. So did the QB. But that isn't unexpected of a first year starter at QB. The Packer schedule wasn't a collection of East Carolina's. It may surprise you, but very good offenses score A LOT of points against bad teams and not as many against good teams.


The offense that I saw and remember and was a crystal clear reflection of our record is the one that couldn't score against Jax, Tenn, Minn or Tampa. Awful, awful, awful. Put a presentable offense on the field and we're 10-6 and in the playoffs instead of 6-10.

You are just burying the lede here. The defense was terrible and coughed up a lot of fourth quarter leads after the offense had scored. The offense isn't perfect, but it played very well. The defense and special teams were a tire fire. Without the offense, we would have been drafting Matthew Stafford instead of the Lions.

[Fred's Slacks]

Did Clifton go from stud to dud overnight?

I think the answer is yes. Clifton at his best was a great pass protector and a below average run blocker. The pass blocking was not even close to what we were used to last year and he continues to commit far too many drive killing penalties. He is my biggest concern with this team next year.

I think he'll be fine. He's still extremely athletic. Was the pass protection of a problem of incompetent starters (who have been pro-bowlers the year before), or a new quarterback running all over the place making it very difficult to protect for him?

I tend to believe its the latter. I think Clifton will be fine. I definitely think there are much bigger concerns on the OL, and I still think without a doubt he's a top 10 LT.

I hope you're right. If we can have Cliffy in close to prime form, that would go a long way towards solidifying the Offense.

Maybe I'm unfair to Clifton but he was one of my biggest disappointments last season. I remember him doing a pretty good job against Allen week 1 but having a lot of penalties and generally playing sloppy. I remember him playing badly against Tampa and Atlanta and 1 penalty from the second MN game sticks out in my mind. It appeared that we had a beautiful fade route TD to Jennings only to find that Clifton false started. Instead of 6 we had 3rd and 15 and had to settle for a FG.

I do remember how well he played against Freeny and the Colts. IIRC his improved play coincided with M3 making him practice everyday instead of letting him rest his knees. Hopefully they can carry that into this year succesfully.

[woodbuck27]

You still think Rodgers is not the real deal, huh Parsh?

Well, you and LEWCA can have that corner. It's going to be awfully lonely awfully quick.

Not the real deal? He's certainly not a top 5 quarterback imo. Most people in the world aren't. Define real deal. I think he's the 14-16 best starting QB in the NFL right now. Could get better, could get worse. He has an unbelievable amount of talent around him right now, and it will undoubtedly be significantly worse in the future.


I'd definitely put Rogers top 12; possibly top 10 with current performance.

Aaron Rodgers had a great first year as our starting QB in 2008. I was somewhat concerned about his durability previous to last season but he played very strong and was let down by a horrible defense. I see AR having an equally strong season in 2009. He has the confidence of his team behind him and we can look forward to an improved 'D' in 2009 and beyond.

Our record will improve to about 10 wins next season.

GO PACKERS!

That is not taking into account looking into the future

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote]WE have phenomenal receivers and they are blue chip. LOL

Didn't say that. We have a top 5 receiving corps in the NFL.


Is it possible at all that Rodgers play was improved due to the phenomenal receiving corps?

:oops:

I see, our phenominal receivers are phenominal (not that you said that :oops: , but they aren't blue chip. Sigh.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[RashanGary]

I agree with Bretsky. In Rodgers first year starting he was about a top 12 QB. I expect him to be better this year. I expect him to be in the probowl.

[ThunderDan]

I would gladly give in if I actually believed Rodgers was a star. He's not yet. He hasn't shown any reason to believe he will be. If the QB is not a star, move on imo. Too many things have to go right to build a consistent winner without a star at QB.

So being the 2nd QB EVER in the history of the league to throw for over 4,000 yards his 1st year starting gives you no hope at all?

What a complete joke!!! :oops:

[The Shadow]

I would gladly give in if I actually believed Rodgers was a star. He's not yet. He hasn't shown any reason to believe he will be. If the QB is not a star, move on imo. Too many things have to go right to build a consistent winner without a star at QB.

So being the 2nd QB EVER in the history of the league to throw for over 4,000 yards his 1st year starting gives you no hope at all?

What a complete joke!!! :oops:

Sometimes you just have to scratch your head.

[cpk1994]

I would gladly give in if I actually believed Rodgers was a star. He's not yet. He hasn't shown any reason to believe he will be. If the QB is not a star, move on imo. Too many things have to go right to build a consistent winner without a star at QB.

So being the 2nd QB EVER in the history of the league to throw for over 4,000 yards his 1st year starting gives you no hope at all?

What a complete joke!!! :oops:

Sometimes you just have to scratch your head.What I find amazing is that the Defense and ST were around 25th in the league in 2008 while the offense was top 10, and Partial blames Rodgers. :shock:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I would gladly give in if I actually believed Rodgers was a star. He's not yet. He hasn't shown any reason to believe he will be. If the QB is not a star, move on imo. Too many things have to go right to build a consistent winner without a star at QB.

So being the 2nd QB EVER in the history of the league to throw for over 4,000 yards his 1st year starting gives you no hope at all?

What a complete joke!!! :oops:

Sometimes you just have to scratch your head.What I find amazing is that the Defense and ST were around 25th in the league in 2008 while the offense was top 10, and Partial blames Rodgers. :shock:

Pack could go with high school players on ST and Defense...and he'd still find a way to blame it on Rodgers.

A. Stats are overrated.
B. You judge a QB on wins and loses

A is always correct, except when you want to validate your argument in regards to a 4 time all-pro (randall cunningham) by using stats. But, cannot be used to argue against Vince Young and his 68.8 passer rating or his 22 tds to 32 ints.

B is always correct, except when you want to diminish a QB like Cunningham who won 85 of 144. Which puts him in ahead of many qbs.

Using partial criteria: the punky QB is obviously a great QB..won about 70%.

Carson Palmer sucks...loses over half his games.

Archie Manning sucked with only 35 wins. :oops:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1808=1

[Partial]

[quote]WE have phenomenal receivers and they are blue chip. LOL

Didn't say that. We have a top 5 receiving corps in the NFL.


Is it possible at all that Rodgers play was improved due to the phenomenal receiving corps?

:oops:

I see, our phenominal receivers are phenominal (not that you said that :oops: , but they aren't blue chip. Sigh.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

You said Blue chip, not I. They are absolutely phenomenal. I love how you call me out on that, but fail to acknowledge the massive plate of crow I served you. I guess thats how losers play the game, though.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote]WE have phenomenal receivers and they are blue chip. LOL

Didn't say that. We have a top 5 receiving corps in the NFL.


Is it possible at all that Rodgers play was improved due to the phenomenal receiving corps?

:oops:

I see, our phenominal receivers are phenominal (not that you said that :oops: , but they aren't blue chip. Sigh.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

You said Blue chip, not I. They are absolutely phenomenal. I love how you call me out on that, but fail to acknowledge the massive plate of crow I served you. I guess thats how losers play the game, though.

I don't have time to go over some many errors. I just looked at the most glaring.

You said you never said phenomenal, you did.

But, now i we are getting a view of how you use adjectives...phenomenal/top 5 receiving crew doesn't equal blue chip. Unbelievable talent doesn't equal blue chip. :oops:


phenemenal
[b]highly extraordinary or prodigious; exceptional

Let me get this straight...highly extraordinary/exceptional isn't blue chip.
It might help if you learned your mother tongue. :lol:

Cunningham: You play with stats, and lie with them. Cunningham didn't start a game till his second year and tenth game.

He lead his team to the playoffs in his first starting year. Pro bowl consecutively 88, 89, 90. All pro 89, 90, 92. So, we can safely say that for a 5 year run he was at the top of his profession. Also, he punted and was very good at that as well.

It is hilarious to watch you argue against a player that was Vince Young before there was a Vince Young..and was better at it. In 90 he ran 942 yards..3rd most EVER..and 10th best in the league. :oops:

Blew out his ACL and came back the next year and was ALL-PRO and comeback player of the year. LOL

Next 2 years he had injuries and the eagles were in disarray coaching wise. He retired in 95.

Comes back after being out for a year and leads the Vikes to the playoffs...oops, we don't judge a qb on wins and losses do we?

In 98 he is again All-Pro. So, ten years into his career..with 2 missed seasons..one for injury, one retired...he is at the top of his game. So, he is 4 time all-pro while really only playing 7 seasons. :lol:

99 he was benched for to many ints...9 in 6 games..for Jeff George..hmm, seems like a viking decision. :roll:

After that he was a backup. That is what happens as you get older...in your late 30s.

I guess under your logic, if Brett plays this year..he is a journeyman. 4 teams to Cunninghams 4. :lol:

A player that passed for over 200 tds and threw less than 140 picks. :lol:

And, then you are stupid enough to bring up QB rating..which RC's career was 81.5 to Favre's 85.4. :lol:

And, Brett played with an offensive coach in Holmgren and a decent offense. Anyone who watched Buddy Ryan's teams would tell you there was no offensive philosophy..Ryan didn't care about offense.

RC played for Ryan and rich kotite. LOL

The rest of your shit is just stupid. You think Plax isn't as good as DD. Plax is a dominant receiver, you have to game plan for him..DD not so much. Plax has played and started on SB winners...DD, not so much.

You think our TE is good...that is why we spent a high draft pick on a te.

You think our line was good last year. :lol:

Keep digging.

[LEWCWA]

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

[Fritz]

I would gladly give in if I actually believed Rodgers was a star. He's not yet. He hasn't shown any reason to believe he will be. If the QB is not a star, move on imo. Too many things have to go right to build a consistent winner without a star at QB.

So being the 2nd QB EVER in the history of the league to throw for over 4,000 yards his 1st year starting gives you no hope at all?

What a complete joke!!! :oops:

Sometimes you just have to scratch your head.What I find amazing is that the Defense and ST were around 25th in the league in 2008 while the offense was top 10, and Partial blames Rodgers. :shock:

Pack could go with high school players on ST and Defense...and he'd still find a way to blame it on Rodgers.

A. Stats are overrated.
B. You judge a QB on wins and loses

A is always correct, except when you want to validate your argument in regards to a 4 time all-pro (randall cunningham) by using stats. But, cannot be used to argue against Vince Young and his 68.8 passer rating or his 22 tds to 32 ints.

B is always correct, except when you want to diminish a QB like Cunningham who won 85 of 144. Which puts him in ahead of many qbs.

Using partial criteria: the punky QB is obviously a great QB..won about 70%.

Carson Palmer sucks...loses over half his games.

Archie Manning sucked with only 35 wins. :oops:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1808=1

Tyrone's post has the perhaps unintended effect for me of pointing out that Partial is much like Big Brother in Orwell's 1984.

Wow. Partial, do you serve bad gin at parties?

[RashanGary]

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

This is an honest, reasonable view for supporting Favre. It's not based in pseudo facts or fairytales. It's another persons opinion. I agree to disagree, but still, I can't argue your reasoning and I can't hate on it. We're just different.

Partial's problem is that he's just wrong.

[Bossman641]

But, now i we are getting a view of how you use adjectives...phenomenal/top 5 receiving crew doesn't equal blue chip. Unbelievable talent doesn't equal blue chip.

Quote:
phenemenal
[b]highly extraordinary or prodigious; exceptional


Let me get this straight...highly extraordinary/exceptional isn't blue chip.
It might help if you learned your mother tongue.

Would you expect anything else from someone who once broke down the QB categories as

Elite 1-4
Average 5-25
Terrible 26-32

[Scott Campbell]

Partial's problem is that he's just wrong.


I'd like to coin a new phrase - Partially correct.

[retailguy]

But, now i we are getting a view of how you use adjectives...phenomenal/top 5 receiving crew doesn't equal blue chip. Unbelievable talent doesn't equal blue chip.

Quote:
phenemenal
[b]highly extraordinary or prodigious; exceptional


Let me get this straight...highly extraordinary/exceptional isn't blue chip.
It might help if you learned your mother tongue.

Would you expect anything else from someone who once broke down the QB categories as

Elite 1-4
Average 5-25
Terrible 26-32

Look. Don't you think the "partial bashing" has gone on long enough?

What did he miss? Above average, below average? So, you split the "middle category" to accomodate those. If that's not the problem, then how many "elite" QB's do you think we have? What I read from all of this is that "partial is a fool" because he ranked Rodgers at 12, and several here think he's "top 8". So 4 spots takes you from genius to fool. Yeah.

I really have to laugh. When this whole "debate" started after the season, Partial commented that he saw Rodgers as about "top 12". He got summarily bashed for that. Yet, just a couple pages back in this very thread, his main "basher", said he thought Rodgers was "top 12".

Ironic? You decide.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Actually, Partial had ARod around 18 originally, but has changed his tune slightly.

EDIT: I think he said around 18 originally, but I can't verify that. I could find where he said Rodgers was in the 12-17 range. Personally, I don't think that's even the point. It's the constant, ill-informed Rodgers bashing wherever possible that gets old. Since I had to show Partial how to throw a football, I don't take it too seriously though.
:D

[KYPack]

Partial bashing has probably gone too far, tis true.

It survives bc it is fun.

[Zool]

LEAVE PARTIAL ALONE!!!!

http://talkingheadtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/leave-britney-alone-guy.jpg

[Scott Campbell]

Look. Don't you think the "partial bashing" has gone on long enough?


I bet Vince Young thinks so.

[RashanGary]

RG, I see a difference between saying his first year he was a top 12 QB and all of the other things Partial says.

Partial says his elite talent made Rodgers what he was last year
Then he says in 2007 that Favre made the offense elite

Partial says the Packers gave up on an average player for a great one
The stats and actions show they gave up a below average old player with a bad attitude for a really good young one with a good attitude.


My problem with Partials take is that he manipulates the evidence one way to prop up the guy he likes while manipulating the evidence the exact opposite way to knock down the guy he doesn’t like.

Using any set of statistical criteria, the evidence shows Rodgers is the better QB right now. Common sense says he’s going to get even better. He’s still making the case that the Packers screwed up in letting Favre go. We’ve put it to vote several times. Partial and a handful of others are the only ones that believe that so of course when he continues to perpetuate that argument you’re going to get a majority that oppose it. Looking at the votes of the past, it’s clear the minority is so small that maybe we’re not bashing but maybe it’s just that extreme and deserves to be called out as such.

[bobblehead]

Partial only runs into problems where BF and AR get discussed. Short of that he is a solid contributor to the forum. Unfortunately all we have atm is BF and AR stuff.

At some point he will mature (as will others) and admit TT did the right thing last year.

[retailguy]

RG, I see a difference between saying his first year he was a top 12 QB and all of the other things Partial says.

So do I, but I also see that the "other evidence" largely came as defenses to criticism that were taken out of context and applied in ways that were either inappropriate, or against things that he didn't consider. Then those led to other defenses, and those to other, and now there is "so much" material, you guys just pull it, regardless of the context and make point after point.



Partial says his elite talent made Rodgers what he was last year
Then he says in 2007 that Favre made the offense elite

So, the Greg Jennings of 2007 is the same as the Greg Jennings of 2008? The Donald Drive of 2007 is the same as the Donald Driver of 2008? The Darryn Colledge of 2007 is the same as the Colledge of 2008? Spitz? Clifton? Tauscher? These players either regressed or improved between those year.

At a "base level" what do you say about the Packers offensive talent from 2007 to 2008? You've continually talked about "building from within" and that's the way to do it. Wouldn't an improvement of the talent be expected? Could you say Rodgers would have led the team to 13-3 in 2007? I can't. Could you say Favre would have led the team to 6-10 in 2008? I can't say that either. It might have been better, it might have been worse. But it isn't reasonable to say it'd be the same, is it?



Partial says the Packers gave up on an average player for a great one
The stats and actions show they gave up a below average old player with a bad attitude for a really good young one with a good attitude.

I'm not sure you phrased the 1st sentence correctly. I think you'd maintain that it's the opposite. I'd say that the Packers gave up on a declining great player with limited to zero upside for an unproven player with great upside. We agree, that's what they "should have" done. But, is it really unreasonable to say that we "might" have had a better 2008 with favre? Yes, that has some long term implications, but, if your focus isn't long term is that really unreasonable?

I certainly wouldn't argue the attitude part, Favre has clearly shown us that he isn't the person we thought he was. Well, most of us, anyhow.



My problem with Partials take is that he manipulates the evidence one way to prop up the guy he likes while manipulating the evidence the exact opposite way to knock down the guy he doesn’t like.

And, you and the rest of the band don't do this?

JH, you're a serious homer. You've had the blinders on since day one. Some of your beliefs have been spot on, and some have been downright foolish. You forget the foolish ones and focus on your "hits". You remember all of Partials foolish ones and forget the good.

You maginfy the good and minimize the bad. The OL has stunk for the past 3 years. You think it got a lot better at the end of last year and it's fine now. I'm not so sure. I'm no where near as enamoured with Colledge as most of the "crowd" around here. Does that make me an idiot?




Using any set of statistical criteria, the evidence shows Rodgers is the better QB right now. Common sense says he’s going to get even better.

Except for one. Favre has a track record of blowing games, but he also has a track record for finding ways to win. Rodgers doesn't have that.

To effectively compare Rodgers to ANYONE, you need more data than ONE year. Any statistician will tell you that. Any mathematical analysis is inherently flawed right now because there isn't enough data. It's simply flawed. Your belief on the "promise", your belief on the "potential" aren't mathematically viable in a statistical analysis.

You have to factor in "intangible" analysis to state that Rodgers is the better quarterback. 3 years from now if Rodgers "flops" Partial will be right. If he doesn't, you'll be right. Neither of you is "right" today from a statistical viewpoint.




He’s still making the case that the Packers screwed up in letting Favre go.

SO WHAT? How do you know it's wrong? It is possible that the Packers would have been a better team in 2008 with Favre leading the offense.

Long term it clearly wasn't, but short term? It might have been. I don't like the impact that having Favre in 2008 would have created in the long term, but we might have sniffed a playoff berth with him? maybe not, but NO ONE knows for certain.



We’ve put it to vote several times. Partial and a handful of others are the only ones that believe that so of course when he continues to perpetuate that argument you’re going to get a majority that oppose it. Looking at the votes of the past, it’s clear the minority is so small that maybe we’re not bashing but maybe it’s just that extreme and deserves to be called out as such.

This whole "community vote" thing is ridiculous. Just because 12 believe it and 2 don't doesn't matter. It just makes it easier to "gang up" on someone. That's all it proves. 6-10 ought to prove that you guys aren't geniuses either. Go back and look at the 2008 prediction thread. You're fallible too.

[RashanGary]

And I agree. Those of us who make an attempt at using our knowledge to predict the future are going to be wrong.

I predicted 9-7 last year because I thought the DL would struggle. I also thought the ST’s would be dominate. I was wrong about the ST’s (VERY VERY wrong) and my prediction suffered. I’ll agree that I am fallible but as wrong as partial consistently? No way.

I’m still going to have opinions. If I believe strongly enough in them, I’ll bet on them. If I’m wrong I’ll admit it. The reason you don’t see anyone ganging up on me is because when I’m wrong, I admit it and move on.

[retailguy]

And I agree. Those of us who make an attempt at using our knowledge to predict the future are going to be wrong.

Are you sure that knowledge is the correct word? I'd substitute passion for knowledge. There are few and far between on here that have true football "knowledge". Plenty have passion and experience from the fan perspective, Partial included.

I understand why you used the word "knowledge". You wanted to illustrate a level of difference between your analysis and Partials. I actually see them as similar, just on opposite sides of the issue.

When I think of "knowledge" three names come to mind. Patler, KY and Harvey (I'm confident there are others). Patler is the "best" of the three from my perspective as he has the uncanny ability to separate his passion and enthusiasm for "his team" and discuss issues from a rational perspective. Few of the rest of us can even attempt that. That would, probably by your own admission, not be a skill of yours. Not a skill of mine either.



I predicted 9-7 last year because I thought the DL would struggle. I also thought the ST’s would be dominate. I was wrong about the ST’s (VERY VERY wrong) and my prediction suffered. I’ll agree that I am fallible but as wrong as partial consistently? No way.

Again, another "intangible" comment. Would be interesting to "tally" those opinions over the last 4 years and really look at those "predictions". My guess is neither of you would get a passing grade. Nor would I.



I’m still going to have opinions. If I believe strongly enough in them, I’ll bet on them. If I’m wrong I’ll admit it. The reason you don’t see anyone ganging up on me is because when I’m wrong, I admit it and move on.

You should have opinions, but so should Partial. If your opinions were "scrutinized" and "criticised" as much as his, you'd be gone. I don't think you could take it.

Manning up, hasn't been my experience with you. I don't think you man up about the big stuff. The little stuff? Sure. You aren't ready to throw in the towel on big issues yet.

You've got a bunch of excuses, and rationalizations about the OL still to this day. It stunk over the last 3 years. The improvement is far from a sure thing yet today. Ted's ability to make it "world class"? Today? Clearly in doubt in my mind. A success in yours. Time will tell, won't it?

If it "flops" this year, will we see your "mea culpa" stickied to the top of the forum for a week? Or, like the New York Times, will we find it buried on page 42? Again, time will tell.

[ThunderDan]

Look. Don't you think the "partial bashing" has gone on long enough?


The real problem is that Partial will never admit to when he is wrong. In fact to prove he isn't wrong he was willing to argue the definition of "grooming". Until some one quoted him from Websters.

[vince]

This is funny.

There's an easy way for people to let up on Partial. He should stop repeatedly continuing to be a broken record and repeatedly making ridiculous false assertions and insinuations that Rodgers is a bust - which he clearly is not. He's done it repeatedly in the past and repeatedly been creamed for it. He continues to repeat this activity it at every opportunity - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He repeatedly makes assertions that are quickly and easily incontrovertibly denounced with facts to the contrary, and he repeatedly ignores those facts and repeatedly jumps to another illogical criticism of Rodgers, while repeatedly denigrating those who repeatedly prove him wrong.

In this thread, he didn't say that Rodgers is top 12. He said that the guy who predicted Rodgers to be his big bust for the year is "not far off point." Then when reminded that the guy predicted Rodgers to be his biggest bust of the year, he retorted, "How was he not?"

I'm sure Partial remembers the responses he receives when he continously attacks Rodgers' play at every opening. Yet he continues to do it - repeatedly.

[retailguy]

This is funny.

There's an easy way for people to let up on Partial. He should stop repeatedly continuing to be a broken record and repeatedly making ridiculous false assertions and insinuations that Rodgers is a bust - which he clearly is not. He's done it repeatedly in the past and repeatedly been creamed for it. He continues to repeat this activity it at every opportunity - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He repeatedly makes assertions that are quickly and easily incontrovertibly denounced with facts to the contrary, and he repeatedly ignores those facts and repeatedly jumps to another illogical criticism of Rodgers, while repeatedly denigrating those who repeatedly prove him wrong.

In this thread, he didn't say that Rodgers is top 12. He said that the guy who predicted Rodgers to be his big bust for the year is "not far off point." Then when reminded that the guy predicted Rodgers to be his biggest bust of the year, he retorted, "How was he not?"

I'm sure Partial remembers the responses he receives when he continously attacks Rodgers' play at every opening. Yet he continues to do it - repeatedly.

So, if I read this right, Partial should just accept "the wisdom" he is being offered from right minded folk like you, right Vince?

This would be the same "right minded folk" who can say based off of ONE season that Rodgers isn't a "bust".

Doesn't it take more than one season to determine that?

Rodgers played a damn good 16 game season last year. That doesn't make a career. Do you think that Culpepper is a better QB than Rodgers? Clearly not, though Viking fans were saying that after his "break out" season a few years back, weren't they? What are they saying now? Hmm. Is Partial receiving "right minded advice" or "kool-aid goggled homerism", or something in-between? I'd say the jury is still out on that, but the information we have today is very favorable. But NOT guaranteed.

Maybe if your advice to Partial wasn't presented as a "sure thing", his wouldn't be presented back to you as the same "sure thing"... :idea: Just a thought Vince, do with it what you will.

[retailguy]

those who repeatedly prove him wrong.



Re-read this Vince. Prove? Really? Proof? Are you sure?

Please explain to me EXACTLY what 16 games "prove"? I really, really don't get that part. You, and others like you are presenting Rodgers career like it is "past tense". It is just beginning, and there is much more that is not known than there is that is "known".

Neither, you, nor Partial, nor JH have "proof". It hasn't been written yet. Not to argue about what you're arguing about anyhow.

[cpk1994]

I think many of you miss the point here. Thing is the Packers probably made the right decision. My only concern is if the Packers suck or are mediocre for the next 5 years, I would have rather watched Favre for 1 or 2 more years...Brett is a once in a generation type player and I will never get enough of watching him play. I hope Rodgers leads this team to a superbowl and "great success", but chances are he will end his career as an average to slightly above average quarterback for one reason or another and we will have missed out on Favre finishing his career here for us.I also agree to disagree with your point. THe way I'm looking at it, it was right to move on after Favre becuase Rodgers was ready. IF you stick with Favre 1-2 more years, Rodgers is gone, basically devoloping a Qb for another team at no cost to them, and you have ??? as your own QB. Splitting with Favre early at least stablizes the most important postion for the forseeable future.

[retailguy]

The real problem is that Partial will never admit to when he is wrong. In fact to prove he isn't wrong he was willing to argue the definition of "grooming". Until some one quoted him from Websters.

Couldn't that be said about a lot of folks on your side of the aisle too Dan?

Seriously. Think about that. That's my whole point. Again, you guys talk about Rodgers like it's "past tense". You got 16 games, THAT'S IT.

Are you positive you want to stand on that mountain with 16 games of data? Really?

[cpk1994]

This is funny.

There's an easy way for people to let up on Partial. He should stop repeatedly continuing to be a broken record and repeatedly making ridiculous false assertions and insinuations that Rodgers is a bust - which he clearly is not. He's done it repeatedly in the past and repeatedly been creamed for it. He continues to repeat this activity it at every opportunity - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He repeatedly makes assertions that are quickly and easily incontrovertibly denounced with facts to the contrary, and he repeatedly ignores those facts and repeatedly jumps to another illogical criticism of Rodgers, while repeatedly denigrating those who repeatedly prove him wrong.

In this thread, he didn't say that Rodgers is top 12. He said that the guy who predicted Rodgers to be his big bust for the year is "not far off point." Then when reminded that the guy predicted Rodgers to be his biggest bust of the year, he retorted, "How was he not?"

I'm sure Partial remembers the responses he receives when he continously attacks Rodgers' play at every opening. Yet he continues to do it - repeatedly.

So, if I read this right, Partial should just accept "the wisdom" he is being offered from right minded folk like you, right Vince?

This would be the same "right minded folk" who can say based off of ONE season that Rodgers isn't a "bust".

Doesn't it take more than one season to determine that?

Rodgers played a damn good 16 game season last year. That doesn't make a career. Do you think that Culpepper is a better QB than Rodgers? Clearly not, though Viking fans were saying that after his "break out" season a few years back, weren't they? What are they saying now? Hmm. Is Partial receiving "right minded advice" or "kool-aid goggled homerism", or something in-between? I'd say the jury is still out on that, but the information we have today is very favorable. But NOT guaranteed.

Maybe if your advice to Partial wasn't presented as a "sure thing", his wouldn't be presented back to you as the same "sure thing"... :idea: Just a thought Vince, do with it what you will.But just the same, shouldn't Partial give Rodgers more time instead of calling him a "bust" before he even took a snap as a starter? How about giving ARod a chance instead of constantly bashing him and not giving him any credit, but giving him all the blame? This street goes both ways you know.

[retailguy]

But just the same, shouldn't Partial give Rodgers more time instead of calling him a "bust" before he even took a snap as a starter? How about giving ARod a chance instead of constantly bashing him and not giving him any credit, but giving him all the blame? This street goes both ways you know.

Precisely. Where do you see the vast majority saying that Rodgers might not be a sure thing? You read the same posts by Vince and JH that I did.

Where does it say the jury is still out? How are their posts different from Partials, other than they have the opposite opinion?

What I see is people saying "if Partial shuts up FIRST, then I'll shut up". Am I the only one that sees this as either the funniest thing of the offseason, or 10 five year olds pitching a temper tantrum? :?:

[ThunderDan]

The real problem is that Partial will never admit to when he is wrong. In fact to prove he isn't wrong he was willing to argue the definition of "grooming". Until some one quoted him from Websters.

Couldn't that be said about a lot of folks on your side of the aisle too Dan?

Seriously. Think about that. That's my whole point. Again, you guys talk about Rodgers like it's "past tense". You got 16 games, THAT'S IT.

Are you positive you want to stand on that mountain with 16 games of data? Really?

What side of the aisle am I on???

I have stated time after time that I am excited about Rodgers' potential future based on his 2008 season. Hell even JH came after me during the year for being too hard on Rodgers.

[RashanGary]

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

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

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

[retailguy]

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

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

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

Nobody believes me? About what exactly?

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

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

[cpk1994]

But just the same, shouldn't Partial give Rodgers more time instead of calling him a "bust" before he even took a snap as a starter? How about giving ARod a chance instead of constantly bashing him and not giving him any credit, but giving him all the blame? This street goes both ways you know.

Precisely. Where do you see the vast majority saying that Rodgers might not be a sure thing? You read the same posts by Vince and JH that I did.

Where does it say the jury is still out? How are their posts different from Partials, other than they have the opposite opinion?

What I see is people saying "if Partial shuts up FIRST, then I'll shut up". Am I the only one that sees this as either the funniest thing of the offseason, or 10 five year olds pitching a temper tantrum? :?:But Partial doesn't stop at "ARod might not be a sure thing", He blamesd ARod for every loss even though the defense blew numerous last minute leads. Partial blames ARod for all the Packers problems despite the defense and special teams going from top 10 to bottom 10. Depsite doing what only one other qB has done in the history and he still says "ARod sucks". It's Partial's refusal to give ARod any credit for anything. T

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

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

[retailguy]

What side of the aisle am I on???

I have stated time after time that I am excited about Rodgers' potential future based on his 2008 season. Hell even JH came after me during the year for being too hard on Rodgers.

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

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

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

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

[Bossman641]

those who repeatedly prove him wrong.



Re-read this Vince. Prove? Really? Proof? Are you sure?

Please explain to me EXACTLY what 16 games "prove"? I really, really don't get that part. You, and others like you are presenting Rodgers career like it is "past tense". It is just beginning, and there is much more that is not known than there is that is "known".

Neither, you, nor Partial, nor JH have "proof". It hasn't been written yet. Not to argue about what you're arguing about anyhow.

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

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

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

[retailguy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is truly nuts.

[Lurker64]

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

[Zool]

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

[cheesner]

The real problem is that Partial will never admit to when he is wrong. In fact to prove he isn't wrong he was willing to argue the definition of "grooming". Until some one quoted him from Websters.

Couldn't that be said about a lot of folks on your side of the aisle too Dan?

Seriously. Think about that. That's my whole point. Again, you guys talk about Rodgers like it's "past tense". You got 16 games, THAT'S IT.

Are you positive you want to stand on that mountain with 16 games of data? Really?
Sure it is passionate Packer fans - they see Rodgers as a great Packer in the making and they support him. It takes a bit of NFL acumen to analyze a player, a team, a GM, a coach, etc. Can Rodgers continue his success? I see no reason to think otherwise. I will read any post and consider it carefully and it potentially could sway my opinion. My opinions on issues have changed based upon intelligent debates on this board.

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

This does not make for very informative threads.

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

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

[retailguy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[retailguy]

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

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

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

[cpk1994]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It isn't any different. There's just more of you picking on him, then there are picking on you. That's the ONLY difference.Labeling Rodgers in the Top 8 does not = guarantee. That's ludicrous. That's where I ranked him based on last year's performace. That changes as his performace changes. And nowhere did ANYONE label ARod as perfect, so speaking for myself I cede that there are risks.

[Bossman641]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[vince]

those who repeatedly prove him wrong.



Re-read this Vince. Prove? Really? Proof? Are you sure?

Please explain to me EXACTLY what 16 games "prove"? I really, really don't get that part. You, and others like you are presenting Rodgers career like it is "past tense". It is just beginning, and there is much more that is not known than there is that is "known".

Neither, you, nor Partial, nor JH have "proof". It hasn't been written yet. Not to argue about what you're arguing about anyhow.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[LEWCWA]

I think many of you miss the point here. Thing is the Packers probably made the right decision. My only concern is if the Packers suck or are mediocre for the next 5 years, I would have rather watched Favre for 1 or 2 more years...Brett is a once in a generation type player and I will never get enough of watching him play. I hope Rodgers leads this team to a superbowl and "great success", but chances are he will end his career as an average to slightly above average quarterback for one reason or another and we will have missed out on Favre finishing his career here for us.I also agree to disagree with your point. THe way I'm looking at it, it was right to move on after Favre becuase Rodgers was ready. IF you stick with Favre 1-2 more years, Rodgers is gone, basically devoloping a Qb for another team at no cost to them, and you have ??? as your own QB. Splitting with Favre early at least stablizes the most important postion for the forseeable future.

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

[RashanGary]

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

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

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

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

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

[PlantPage55]

Partial only runs into problems where BF and AR get discussed. Short of that he is a solid contributor to the forum. Unfortunately all we have atm is BF and AR stuff.

At some point he will mature (as will others) and admit TT did the right thing last year.

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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

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

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

Actually, you should try and follow along.

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

The guy was wrong. There is no argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[falco]

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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

Are you suggesting at some point in time he dismounted? :wink:

[ThunderDan]

The real problem is that Partial will never admit to when he is wrong. In fact to prove he isn't wrong he was willing to argue the definition of "grooming". Until some one quoted him from Websters.

Couldn't that be said about a lot of folks on your side of the aisle too Dan?

Seriously. Think about that. That's my whole point. Again, you guys talk about Rodgers like it's "past tense". You got 16 games, THAT'S IT.

Are you positive you want to stand on that mountain with 16 games of data? Really?

He argued about a definition of a word. Not Rodgers stats in that thread a definition of a word.

Do you now understand? A word!!! Not until Vince (I think it was Vince) posted the Webster's definition did he admit anything.

[Scott Campbell]

...... but personally I would rather watch Brett for 2 years than Jake for 6!



Yeah, if it's 2 years in the late 90's I would too. But Brett Favre circa 2009? :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

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



I don't think this is so hard to figure out.

Aaron Rodgers is the guy that made Brett Favre expendable. He will never get a fair shake from some people because of that.

[Partial]

Wow, just wow. :D Thanks for having the voice of rationality of RG.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wow, just wow. :D Thanks for having the voice of rationality of RG.

We are all awaiting your defense of the blue chip WRs in philly when cunninngham was an all-pro.
:oops:

[Lurker64]

It is obvious, however, that the claim that Rodgers would be a bust (in fantasy) was absolutely, and laughably wrong.

Looking at my league, Rodgers was good for 369 fantasy points. Looking at the top 5 fantasy QBs of last year, by total fantasy points we have:

1- Drew Brees: 422
2- Phillip Rivers: 372
T3- Kurt Warner: 369
T3- Aaron Rodgers: 369
5: Jay Cutler: 366

Anybody who followed the advice of the guy in the linked video and avoided Rodgers in fantasy, made a bad decision.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It is obvious, however, that the claim that Rodgers would be a bust (in fantasy) was absolutely, and laughably wrong.

Looking at my league, Rodgers was good for 369 fantasy points. Looking at the top 5 fantasy QBs of last year, by total fantasy points we have:

1- Drew Brees: 422
2- Phillip Rivers: 372
T3- Kurt Warner: 369
T3- Aaron Rodgers: 369
5: Jay Cutler: 366

Anybody who followed the advice of the guy in the linked video and avoided Rodgers in fantasy, made a bad decision.

If you aren't top 3, like partial's def of elite..you are a BUST. :roll:

[Partial]

Wow, just wow. :D Thanks for having the voice of rationality of RG.

We are all awaiting your defense of the blue chip WRs in philly when cunninngham was an all-pro.
:oops:

I never watched Randall Cunningham. Too young. Only his year in Minne. Beyond that, how did I make a single thing up as you claim? What did I make up? I took every data point directly from his NFL.com stat sheet.

Sure, he may have been a great player, but look at his passing numbers. Historically poor outside of years with elite wideouts like Moss.

[Scott Campbell]

Sure, he may have been a great player, but look at his passing numbers. Historically poor outside of years with elite wideouts like Moss.

1990
30 TD's
13 Int's
3466 Yards
91.6 QB Rating


Historically poor passing stats? Vince Young would kill for these numbers. There weren't any elite receivers on that team. His top pass catcher was Fullback Keith Byars with a whopping 819 yards.

[Bretsky]

1990
30 TD's
13 Int's
3466 Yards
91.6 QB Rating


Historically poor passing stats? Vince Young would kill for these numbers. Dayum.




Shall we start calling your Mobb Jr? :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

1990
30 TD's
13 Int's
3466 Yards
91.6 QB Rating


Historically poor passing stats? Vince Young would kill for these numbers. Dayum.




Shall we start calling your Mobb Jr? :lol:


BRING BLACK ANTONIO FREEMAN!

[th87]

It's not Partial's thesis statement that gets him in trouble (i.e. that Rodgers is average).

It's how he argues it that does. He attempts to back it up with "facts" that get proven wrong over and over again. And instead of conceding that his backing is faulty, he'll stubbornly move onto another "fact" that will be proven wrong again. Then he will assert that he never said the now debunked fact, which is ridiculous, since it can so easily be checked.

For example, a Partial-type arguer would make a statement logically akin to:

Thesis: The Packers are one of the worst teams in the NFL.
Support: Because they went 4-12 last year.

Someone will come in and say, no, the Packers went 6-10 last year, not 4-12. Then this Partial-type arguer will at first assert that he never said they went 4-12. Then he'll say that they weren't a top 10 offense. Someone will then post offensive stats, showing that they were a top 5 offense. Then another refutable argument will be presented, and predictably refuted. Finally, in a last-ditch effort, the Partial-type arguer will say, "Yeah, well, the Packers lack the 'it' factor to be anything better than a bad team." This of course is an unprovable position, which enables the Partial-type arguer to delude himself into thinking he has a winning argument.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wow, just wow. :D Thanks for having the voice of rationality of RG.

We are all awaiting your defense of the blue chip WRs in philly when cunninngham was an all-pro.
:oops:

I never watched Randall Cunningham. Too young. Only his year in Minne. Beyond that, how did I make a single thing up as you claim? What did I make up? I took every data point directly from his NFL.com stat sheet.

Sure, he may have been a great player, but look at his passing numbers. Historically poor outside of years with elite wideouts like Moss.

Pro bowl and all pro without great receivers.

You said his career was made by blue chips. Do i need to post that as well.

BTW, why would we look at his passing numbers? Didn't you tell all of us that numbers mean nothing. Wins and losses.

Now, you are back to your numbers. LOL

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sure, he may have been a great player, but look at his passing numbers. Historically poor outside of years with elite wideouts like Moss.

1990
30 TD's
13 Int's
3466 Yards
91.6 QB Rating


Historically poor passing stats? Vince Young would kill for these numbers. There weren't any elite receivers on that team. His top pass catcher was Fullback Keith Byars with a whopping 819 yards.

Scott,

I already posted all of that.

But, you are falling into the Partial trap. Numbers/passing stats don't mean anything...see Vince Young, Arod, etc.

Wins and losses mean EVERYTHING.

[Partial]

I guess two years over 90... not good passing wise.

[Scott Campbell]

I guess two years over 90... not good passing wise.


That isn't what you said Partial.


Sure, he may have been a great player, but look at his passing numbers. Historically poor outside of years with elite wideouts like Moss.


I did what you asked and looked at his passing numbers. He was not historically poor outside of years with elite wideouts like Moss. You were wrong.

[SkinBasket]

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

I'm with Zool on this one, and not just because he might be my illegitimate son.

We've been through several iterations of this kind of episode and what it comes down to is that when a poster makes a ridiculous argument, they are going to receive an overwhelming contrary response. That's not "ganging up" or "bashing." It's the logical progression of someone attempting, for whatever reason, to make the case for an opinion (being foisted as "fact," "reason," or the "truth") that is only unpopular because it is unsustainable through argument.

Asking the majority of posters to somehow show restraint simply because they're the majority on a topic doesn't make any kind of sense unless you also believe in stifling every other opinion that's held by the majority because it's supportable by fact and reason. Should we have a cap on supportable argument and a quota for inane babble to strike some kind of humanisticly appropriate balance that won't offend those who are habitually wrong?

[Bossman641]

Should we have a cap on supportable argument and a quota for inane babble to strike some kind of humanisticly appropriate balance that won't offend those who are habitually wrong?

Yes. Every post should be met with encouragement and gold stars.

[Zool]

Should we have a cap on supportable argument and a quota for inane babble to strike some kind of humanisticly appropriate balance that won't offend those who are habitually wrong?

Yes. Every post should be met with encouragement and gold stars.

Ringo: Look guys I wrote a song

Paul: thats great Ringo, I'm gonna put it here on the fridge so we can look at it every day.

Partial is our Ringo.

[PlantPage55]

Partial is our Ringo.

So this argument is Octopus's Garden? :x

[cpk1994]

Should we have a cap on supportable argument and a quota for inane babble to strike some kind of humanisticly appropriate balance that won't offend those who are habitually wrong?

Yes. Every post should be met with encouragement and gold stars.When did this board go to Socialism?

[Zool]

Partial is our Ringo.

So this argument is Octopus's Garden? :x

Pretty much. Once in a while we'll get a Yellow Submarine that's catchy, but usually he'd like to be under the sea.

[Administrator]

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

Are you suggesting at some point in time he dismounted? :wink:

It took me a long time to read through this thread. Very passionate on both sides.

I picked this series of posts to respond to, because I can find no way that these contributed to the discussion, other than to personally bash one of the posters. Falco, was there another reason that I'm unaware of? Tyrone? How is this different than the Brando WV references?

My take is this - I don't disagree with Skinbasket for the most part. However, his point is only valid on things that can be "proven". The discussion on ARod largely centers on things that can't be proven.

Retailguy is right in this regard, you've got 16 games of proof. It isn't enough, especially for the stuff that's been directed at Partial. It stopped being about the issue a long time ago, it has become about the poster. That's unfortunate, because it had the potential of being a good debate.

A number of you made statements that "he brings this on himself". Ok, but isn't that true of all of us at times? Can't we discuss issues without personal slams like the above? Saying he won't admit wrong is beside the point, a significant number of you on the "majority" side of the fence are displaying that also.

Several of you pulled previous references without resorting to "you're a moron".

I appreciate the spirited discussion. It is what a lot of us come here to read and participate. It is my goal to provide an environment where those discussions can not only take place, but can be hotly debated, without the distraction of personal insults.

I thank all of you long timers for speaking up, your voices will silence this stuff. I would hope that as time goes on, that posts like the ones I've quoted above will cease. It's starting to happen, and I hope it can continue without stifling good debates. I personally enjoy reading those especially in the offseason.

Thanks for reading.

[retailguy]

The real problem is that Partial will never admit to when he is wrong. In fact to prove he isn't wrong he was willing to argue the definition of "grooming". Until some one quoted him from Websters.

Couldn't that be said about a lot of folks on your side of the aisle too Dan?

Seriously. Think about that. That's my whole point. Again, you guys talk about Rodgers like it's "past tense". You got 16 games, THAT'S IT.

Are you positive you want to stand on that mountain with 16 games of data? Really?

He argued about a definition of a word. Not Rodgers stats in that thread a definition of a word.

Do you now understand? A word!!! Not until Vince (I think it was Vince) posted the Webster's definition did he admit anything.

Dan,

I'm not defending everything Partial has or hasn't done since birth. I'm talking about ARod and the viciousness (is that a word? :?: ) of the debate. That's all.

Partial has wacky ideas at times. I don't agree with him on Arod. I'm excited about Arod. But I get his concern, and I don't get the vitrole.

Vince posted in this thread too. Go back and read it. Used the term "overwhelming proof", and gave what I expect as the typical Vince, I know I'm right, attitude. Heck, I wouldn't give ground to that either. Vince is a passionate fellow with some good ideas, but he doesn't get it all right either. He wanted to "lock up" Bigby after like 4 or 5 games.... Bigby has been a fine player, but looking back it was way premature to do anything with his contract, and it still hasn't happened. So, the majority isn't always rock solid in their thoughts either.

Dan, the kid is 24. You've talked multiple times here about being a CPA, chances are you've got a bit more experience than he does. I don't know about you, but I had some crazy ideas when I was 24... It'll pass.

Just think, if ARod doesn't flop, he'll learn something, and we'll watch winning football at the same time. win win. I think.

[Scott Campbell]

Several of you pulled previous references without resorting to "you're a moron".



I doubt anyone has had more fun calling posters morons over the years than I have. But I get it, and agree. Hate the post - not the poster.

There are other PackerRats sub forums available as a creative outlet for this kind of horseplay.

[PlantPage55]

and I don't get the vitrole.


For me, it's the fact that Partial said that we have seen nothing from Rodgers that says he can be elite and that we should move on already because of it. He said that. That's going to cause vitriol.

[SkinBasket]

I respectfully disagree with Administrator concerning the "bashing" quoted. Most of us have been around each other for years. Asking that we all forget our history together kind of defeats the purpose of remaining together. If claiming another poster who has a history of holding his idea of moral authority over other poster's heads (no offense RG, that's simply how some view you) is on a high horse is "personal" then I don't think we're going to have any kind of discussion here that doesn't turn "personal" without everyone being logged in as "guest." Even then it wouldn't take more than a couple posts to have everyone sorted out. As a group, we're not terribly complicated communicators.

Similarly, most people here probably "jumped" on Partial's argument because he has a history of making some rather... er... strange claims and has tended to argue them in an unyielding and less than respectful manner regarding other poster's points of view. And there's nothing wrong with that. People talk football that way all the time. But he's built his own reputation here over the years, so that's how people will respond to him. Obviously the same goes for anyone here.

I'm assuming people keep coming back here because he have a diverse group of strong personalities and tangled relationships that weave through just about every discussion here and it keeps things interesting. Reading "I think Rodgers is already an awesome QB" is far less interesting than reading "I think Rodgers is already an awesome QB even if that crazy cootie Partial hates him." I'm all for people not being personally attacked. But I don't think we can equate mocking, barbing, or nettling a poster based on his or her history of posts to attacking the person making the posts - even if things become a little heated sometimes.

I can see coming down on people for throwing nasty curses around, but for simply referencing past discussions and differences of opinion? That seems kind of heavy handed. Not that my opinion matters, because the SkinBasket is a pervert. And I'm okay with that.

Although I do feel like Forum Utopia is materializing before our very eyes...

[retailguy]

I respectfully disagree with Administrator concerning the "bashing" quoted. Most of us have been around each other for years. Asking that we all forget our history together kind of defeats the purpose of remaining together. If claiming another poster who has a history of holding his idea of moral authority over other poster's heads (no offense RG, that's simply how some view you) is on a high horse is "personal" then I don't think we're going to have any kind of discussion here that doesn't turn "personal" without everyone being logged in as "guest." Even then it wouldn't take more than a couple posts to have everyone sorted out. As a group, we're not terribly complicated communicators.



Yeah, some view me that way. They don't want to hear that it isn't true. So they remain unconvinced. Don't really care any more. Those that have met me know that it isn't true, they've stated it, and no one cares. Can't admit wrong? Perhaps. Don't know them, don't care.

Same with Partial, and his detractors for that matter. Kind of the point that I was trying to get across in a way. We have opinions of them too.

I didn't take offense to your comment. Lord knows we've clashed and everyone one knows we don't particularly care for one another. I appreciate the "no offense" comment, FWIW.

I snipped the rest of your comment, but forum utopia isn't possible. We could probably stop personally insulting others, I'm trying to do that, but there are a few here who I'll never like. I'm sure that's true for you too.

I've made a couple of really good friends here. It was unexpected. I wasn't looking for that, I was just looking for good Packer talk. So, I'm on board with the changes, and we'll see where it goes.

I'm just happy that I'm not responsible for this anymore. Gladly leave that to others.

[cpk1994]

and I don't get the vitrole.


For me, it's the fact that Partial said that we have seen nothing from Rodgers that says he can be elite and that we should move on already because of it. He said that. That's going to cause vitriol.This is meat of it right here, I agree.

[retailguy]

and I don't get the vitrole.


For me, it's the fact that Partial said that we have seen nothing from Rodgers that says he can be elite and that we should move on already because of it. He said that. That's going to cause vitriol.This is meat of it right here, I agree.

Yeah, I got that. But both of you, what are you going to do if he's right? No wiggle room in these statements. Are you going to man up?

I don't see ARod failing either. But Jay Fiedler and Daunte Culpepper looked a whole lot like winners for a while too.

Hell, Culpepper looked all world for one season. Then fumblina appeared and the rest is history... Applying that to ARod makes me sick, I don't think it's likely, but we're kinda screwed if it materializes, aren't we?

[cpk1994]

and I don't get the vitrole.


For me, it's the fact that Partial said that we have seen nothing from Rodgers that says he can be elite and that we should move on already because of it. He said that. That's going to cause vitriol.This is meat of it right here, I agree.

Yeah, I got that. But both of you, what are you going to do if he's right? No wiggle room in these statements. Are you going to man up?

I don't see ARod failing either. But Jay Fiedler and Daunte Culpepper looked a whole lot like winners for a while too.

Hell, Culpepper looked all world for one season. Then fumblina appeared and the rest is history... Applying that to ARod makes me sick, I don't think it's likely, but we're kinda screwed if it materializes, aren't we?Since Culpeppers funbles were attributed to his small hands, I don't have that kind of conrecn with ARod. Bsically I am saying that Culpepper's problem was an anomaly becuase of the size of his hands.

As for ARod possibly failing, sure I'll man up. I have never ever said that Rodgers wouldn't fail. But he has steadily improved over each of his yers in Gb and that is good reason to believe it will continue. However, based on history, I doubt Partial will do the same.

[PlantPage55]

Yeah, I got that. But both of you, what are you going to do if he's right? No wiggle room in these statements. Are you going to man up?


Well...I never said he was elite already or was going to be elite. I've enjoyed what I've seen of Rodgers so far and expect him to get better. I'm not the one saying we are set for 10 years or anything. I think we should be excited to see how Rodgers progresses. It's a simple and fair way to look at it.

Partial is the one saying that we should dump him and move on NOW. I don't think that's fair to Rodgers or our team. In fact, I think it's outrageous.

And so what if he's not elite? Can't he just be "really good" or "great" and we'll still be very well off? It's incredibly difficult to find an elite QB - some teams have spent their entire existence trying to do it. Why scrap something that could be on the verge of "great" just to make a shot in the dark with someone else?

Will I man up if Rodgers busts? Well, yeah. But I don't see why that is being asked of me. I'm not the one that made a ridiculous statement. In fact, I made no prediction at all, except to say that the Packers would be better off seeing where Rodgers goes from here, given his very good season last year.

It's actually really frustrating to be asked this, when it has no relevance.

[Partial]

You guys take and twist words. Dump him now? For whom, exactly? I said they should continue to look to improve the position actively, because in my opinion, unless you have a top 5 QB, its tough to have consistent annual long term success.

My god, you people think that I'm a hater for thinking he's in the 12-14 range? That is awfully generous given he's A) done it once and B) couldn't close out close games like Vince Young, whom you rate significantly lower, and C) injury prone.

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year or you better be men and be prepared to take your massive serving of crow.

[Zool]

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year or you better be men and be prepared to take your massive serving of crow.

Because thats exactly what you would do.

[SkinBasket]

I'm just happy that I'm not responsible for this anymore. Gladly leave that to others.

I agree it isn't a fun job for anyone to decide how much is too much. Essentially however, anyone that posts here builds their own reputation, whether or not it's an accurate representation of who they are as a person. It's for each poster to decide how much their virtual representation matches their real life persona, and shouldn't be the concern of the rest of the forum, who are going to respond to the reputation, no matter how much that may or may not hit home with the person's ego.

I guess I just don't see anything personal in this thread, and was rather surprised that it was singled out and made an example of. If anything, it seemed rather mild mannered and pretty damned boring since it's only like the 247th time it's been rehashed in the last 6 months. Yeah, there's lots of responses against Partial and how he posts. But to me, that's nothing more than him taking an unpopular and difficult to support stance and having to account for the reputation and relations he's built with other posters. Maybe I missed a post, but I didn't see anything that went any deeper than that.

[Bossman641]

You guys take and twist words. Dump him now? For whom, exactly? I said they should continue to look to improve the position actively, because in my opinion, unless you have a top 5 QB, its tough to have consistent annual long term success.

My god, you people think that I'm a hater for thinking he's in the 12-14 range? That is awfully generous given he's A) done it once and B) couldn't close out close games like Vince Young, whom you rate significantly lower, and C) injury prone.

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year or you better be men and be prepared to take your massive serving of crow.

What does actively mean? Drafting QB's in the first round? Second? Third?

You know what else makes it difficult to have success? A defense that sucks ass and repeatedly gives up leads LATE in the 4th quarter.

Must be tough for Vince Young to close out games from the bench, he really is a playmaker.

BTW, Favre's career QB rating is 85.4. VY's is 68.8. It's a good thing stats don't matter...or do they? Which side of the argument are we on again??

http://benjskramer.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/businessman-banging-his-head-against-the-wall-ispc026073.jpg

[Scott Campbell]

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year..................


And this would make you happy because...................???


I'll eat my crow if its warranted. It wouldn't be the first time.

[Zool]

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year..................


And this would make you happy because...................???

This is the part that pisses me off. It seems like P would be happy if the Packers fail this year so he can be right.

[retailguy]

It's actually really frustrating to be asked this, when it has no relevance.

Maybe I wasn't very clear in what I was trying to get across. I wasn't calling you out, I was opening thinking about the possibility, however remote, that this ARod think doesn't work out the way we think it will.

That's it. Apologies if it sounded like anything else.

[Scott Campbell]

...........I was opening thinking about the possibility, however remote, that this ARod think doesn't work out the way we think it will.



Of course that's true. Favre could have suffered a career ending injury in 95, and ended up being just another guy on the GB QB carousel. You can't take anything for granted.


But when you examine Aaron's play from last year, it is very, very encouraging. P is just a lot more down on Rodgers than nearly everyone else is.

[PlantPage55]

B) couldn't close out close games like Vince Young, whom you rate significantly lower

This is SUCH transparent bullshit that it gives me diabetes.

How many times did VY's explosive special teams or defense close-out those games for him. I'll do the work for you for 2007, since I'm sure you won't:

The defense closed out the Saints game with a INT return, against Atl (despite 5 offensive turnovers!!!), against the Raiders, against the Panthers (Tennessee's defense had a good game as they sacked Carr 7 times and limited Carolina's offense to just 191 total yards.), against the Jets (For the rest of the game, Tennessee's defense kept New York from being any kind of threat.),

So there's 5 games that the Tennessee defense was described by recap articles as having held up in the final quarter of the game. How different would Rodgers be looked at, if his own defense could have done the same for him just a few more times?

Couple that with that fact that Vince Young had games in which he played to ridiculous levels of "awful" and a bad attitude, and you've got a guy that I wouldn't want leading my team ever.

[PlantPage55]

It's actually really frustrating to be asked this, when it has no relevance.

Maybe I wasn't very clear in what I was trying to get across. I wasn't calling you out, I was opening thinking about the possibility, however remote, that this ARod think doesn't work out the way we think it will.

That's it. Apologies if it sounded like anything else.

Yeah okay, well if that's the case, I'll still be around to say I was wrong.

Hell, I'll admit right now that I was wrong about the Jim Bates defense. I used to be a huge supporter of it. Now, I see that it is a VERY limited scheme (especially with a douche like Sanders running it). Even with a competent DC, the scheme can only go so far unless you have the perfect players for it. I was wrong.

I wish I was using the internet more when Sherman was coaching/GMing. Then, everyone would see that I'm not a homer or a jobber to the organization. Now THERE'S a guy that I couldn't see eye to eye with about running this team. :lol:

[RashanGary]

I wish I was using the internet more when Sherman was coaching/GMing. Then, everyone would see that I'm not a homer or a jobber to the organization. Now THERE'S a guy that I couldn't see eye to eye with about running this team. :lol:

Haha. I don't think that would do you much good with RG :lol:

[Partial]

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year..................


And this would make you happy because...................???

This is the part that pisses me off. It seems like P would be happy if the Packers fail this year so he can be right.

Absolutely after taking everyone's crap for months now. I don't think you people realize how offensive half the stuff you say is. I'm ashamed to be lumped in with "Packer fans' like a good amount of you, who cannot look at things objectively or accept that someone may have a differing opinion.

I would much rather have the Packers fail and have all the douches leave the forum. Absolutely.

[Scott Campbell]

I would much rather have the Packers fail and have all the douches leave the forum. Absolutely.




http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jTTkf511H94/SbFlOw8h3GI/AAAAAAAABww/EorQCT2nyUo/s400/inconceivable-1.jpg

[falco]

I respectfully disagree with Administrator concerning the "bashing" quoted. Most of us have been around each other for years. Asking that we all forget our history together kind of defeats the purpose of remaining together. If claiming another poster who has a history of holding his idea of moral authority over other poster's heads (no offense RG, that's simply how some view you) is on a high horse is "personal" then I don't think we're going to have any kind of discussion here that doesn't turn "personal" without everyone being logged in as "guest." Even then it wouldn't take more than a couple posts to have everyone sorted out. As a group, we're not terribly complicated communicators.

Similarly, most people here probably "jumped" on Partial's argument because he has a history of making some rather... er... strange claims and has tended to argue them in an unyielding and less than respectful manner regarding other poster's points of view. And there's nothing wrong with that. People talk football that way all the time. But he's built his own reputation here over the years, so that's how people will respond to him. Obviously the same goes for anyone here.

I'm assuming people keep coming back here because he have a diverse group of strong personalities and tangled relationships that weave through just about every discussion here and it keeps things interesting. Reading "I think Rodgers is already an awesome QB" is far less interesting than reading "I think Rodgers is already an awesome QB even if that crazy cootie Partial hates him." I'm all for people not being personally attacked. But I don't think we can equate mocking, barbing, or nettling a poster based on his or her history of posts to attacking the person making the posts - even if things become a little heated sometimes.

I can see coming down on people for throwing nasty curses around, but for simply referencing past discussions and differences of opinion? That seems kind of heavy handed. Not that my opinion matters, because the SkinBasket is a pervert. And I'm okay with that.

Although I do feel like Forum Utopia is materializing before our very eyes...

Skinbasket, not sure if you are directly defending or me not, but if you are I am appreciative. I agree that my comment was certainly not a kind one, but it was certainly not calling anyone a moron - retailguy has shown himself to be an egocentric poster (I avoid the word pretentious since I mistakenly used it to describe KYPack, of whom I have become recently much more fond) - and I was referencing that fact based on his recent escapade.

But admin, it is your forum and I will bend to your request. This place is going to be getting pretty boring soon...

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Should we have a cap on supportable argument and a quota for inane babble to strike some kind of humanisticly appropriate balance that won't offend those who are habitually wrong?

Yes. Every post should be met with encouragement and gold stars.

Ringo: Look guys I wrote a song

Paul: thats great Ringo, I'm gonna put it here on the fridge so we can look at it every day.

Partial is our Ringo.

Piss poor analogy. Ringo had a modicum of talent.

Partail is our Stuart Sutcliffe.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

Are you suggesting at some point in time he dismounted? :wink:

It took me a long time to read through this thread. Very passionate on both sides.

I picked this series of posts to respond to, because I can find no way that these contributed to the discussion, other than to personally bash one of the posters. Falco, was there another reason that I'm unaware of? Tyrone? How is this different than the Brando WV references?.

Is it not fair to note when someone is acting stubborn, erratic, arrogant?

RG has a long history of appearing to be on a high horse. Someone is noting that.

My comment isn't bashing him. My comment is that he has always been this way..and most likely will continue to appear that way.

If someone thinks my posts are condesceding...is noting that bad?

BTW, i find it funny, amusing, interesting that you have chosen to note this post. Yet, I never see you noting or asking about this when Kiwon is feminizing my name, calling me gay, or calling me transgendered.

All of which are completely true, but still!!!

Or, when mranyrand calls me condescending.

Or, when sheephead routinely gets personal.

I'm not saying that you have singled me out for persecution, just that in the scheme of things..these 2 posts are mild mannered compared to what else is posted.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You guys take and twist words. Dump him now? For whom, exactly? I said they should continue to look to improve the position actively, because in my opinion, unless you have a top 5 QB, its tough to have consistent annual long term success.

My god, you people think that I'm a hater for thinking he's in the 12-14 range? That is awfully generous given he's A) done it once and B) couldn't close out close games like Vince Young, whom you rate significantly lower, and C) injury prone.

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year or you better be men and be prepared to take your massive serving of crow.

This is it in a nutshell.

1. Partial tells us not to use numbers, wins and losses are how you judge a QB, but then we should be prepared for massive crow if he doesn't put up an 85. But, i thought wins and losses defined a QB.
2. Makes a comparison to VY and closing out games. VY doesn't have a large enough sample size to draw conclusions about his ability to close out games.
3. Compares VY to Arod...how?
4. Comes back with the injury prone argument. Did he miss any games last year? No. Brett was always injured, but Brett is a warrior.
5. Be prepared to eat massive crow. Admin...if you don't see how he is asking for it then..well, you are just being kind. If we are suppose to be ready for crow..then he and you should be prepared for us to serve him crow...right now, since he is foolish.

[falco]

I'm not sure what's worse, that I'm being lumped in a category with Tyrone or that the forum policing has gone to a new level of invasiveness...


:lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year..................


And this would make you happy because...................???

This is the part that pisses me off. It seems like P would be happy if the Packers fail this year so he can be right.

Absolutely after taking everyone's crap for months now. I don't think you people realize how offensive half the stuff you say is. I'm ashamed to be lumped in with "Packer fans' like a good amount of you, who cannot look at things objectively or accept that someone may have a differing opinion.

I would much rather have the Packers fail and have all the douches leave the forum. Absolutely.

And, there it is.

1. Poor, poor partial. Taking all this crap. Partial has nothing to do with it. He never gives crap. Partial never makes stupid statements. Never bumps old posts to proclaim a victory. NEVER!!!
2. Partial never says anything offensive. Never. He is like Hamlet..suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
3. Partail is always objective. To deny this is to be unobjective. :roll:
4. Others are douches, not him. BTW, admin....i dont' think douche is a compliment, but i could be wrong. And, even if it isn't said, but implied thru his posts, is that not offensive...and should we not mention it?

Partial is like Hamlet..our forum/team is so wretched that complete non-existence would be decidedly preferable to what we have.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I would much rather have the Packers fail and have all the douches leave the forum. Absolutely.




http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jTTkf511H94/SbFlOw8h3GI/AAAAAAAABww/EorQCT2nyUo/s400/inconceivable-1.jpg

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Partial when the packer season is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm not sure what's worse, that I'm being lumped in a category with Tyrone or that the forum policing has gone to a new level of invasiveness...


:lol:

I thought you were going to respect the admin's desires. :wink:

Admin, this post hurt my feelings. It was directly personal. I will expect a swift and summary banning. :roll:

[RashanGary]

Admin seems to be doing a fair job here. It looks like he just wanted to end this messy little Partial, RG -v- Forum fight.

[falco]

I thought you were going to respect the admin's desires. :wink:

starting now, I promise! :oops:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I thought you were going to respect the admin's desires. :wink:

starting now, I promise! :oops:

I'm sorry, but you must be punished. You will appreciate what you had when you are banned for a couple of months.

Look at the good it did to Scott Campbell. Rehabilitated.

[falco]

I thought you were going to respect the admin's desires. :wink:

starting now, I promise! :oops:

I'm sorry, but you must be punished. You will appreciate what you had when you are banned for a couple of months.

Look at the good it did to Scott Campbell. Rehabilitated.

yeah, but I don't have three (or more) wives to keep me company during my hiatus!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I thought you were going to respect the admin's desires. :wink:

starting now, I promise! :oops:

I'm sorry, but you must be punished. You will appreciate what you had when you are banned for a couple of months.

Look at the good it did to Scott Campbell. Rehabilitated.

yeah, but I don't have three (or more) wives to keep me company during my hiatus!

Of course you don't. Who could stand to live with your mean spirited and vicious comments.

Perhaps you shoulda thought about that before you attacked me. I won't enjoy your banning, it hurts me as much as it hurts you, but it is for your own good. You will be better for it.

Ty will allow you to watch tv, won't take away phone privileges, and you can still go to the big dance next friday.

[Zool]

I would much rather have the Packers fail and have all the douches leave the forum. Absolutely.




http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jTTkf511H94/SbFlOw8h3GI/AAAAAAAABww/EorQCT2nyUo/s400/inconceivable-1.jpg

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Partial when the packer season is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

Now you're fucked. P put Iocane powder in both goblets.

[Partial]

TY, I ACTUALLY REALLY LIKE THIS POST




1. Partial tells us not to use numbers, wins and losses are how you judge a QB, but then we should be prepared for massive crow if he doesn't put up an 85. But, i thought wins and losses defined a QB.

BOTH MATTER TO A DEGREE. WHO CARES IF YOU HAVE PRETTY STATS AND LOSE? WHO CARES IF YOU HAVE UGLY STATS AND WIN? WINNING HAS TO HAPPEN FIRST AND FOREMOST.

2. Makes a comparison to VY and closing out games. VY doesn't have a large enough sample size to draw conclusions about his ability to close out games.

IF VY'S SAMPLE SIZE ISN'T BIG ENOUGH (ROTY AFTER HIS FIRST YEAR STARTING), THEN ITS PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT THE JURY IS STILL OUT ON RODGERS. I AGREE COMPLETELY THAT BOTH NEED MORE GAMES UNDER THEIR BELTS BEFORE WE CAN CONCLUDE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.


3. Compares VY to Arod...how?


I DIDN'T MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. SOMEONE ELSE INITIALLY MADE THAT COMPARISON, NOT ME. TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BALL PLAYERS. VY ISN'T SO MUCH A TRADITIONAL QB IN MY OPINION, AS I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG.

NFL IS CATCHING ON TO PARTIAL BALL. PAT WHITE AND THE WILD CAT ARE GONNA BE BIG. PUT YOUNG IN A ROLL WHERE HE ISN'T A REQUIRED TO BE A TRADITIONAL POCKET PASSER AND CAN USE HIS WHEELS AND HE'LL BE FINE.

4. Comes back with the injury prone argument. Did he miss any games last year? No. Brett was always injured, but Brett is a warrior.

NOPE, HE WAS HEALTHY IN HIS FIRST YEAR STARTING. HOWEVER, WE MISSED KEY GAMES IN 2007 WITH AN INJURY, HAD A BROKEN FOOT IN 2006, AND I BELIEVE HE GOT HURT BADLY IN 2005 AS WELL. HE'S NOT OUT OF THE WATER YET.

5. Be prepared to eat massive crow. Admin...if you don't see how he is asking for it then..well, you are just being kind. If we are suppose to be ready for crow..then he and you should be prepared for us to serve him crow...right now, since he is foolish.

NOT REALLY, NOTHING HAS BEEN SHOWN EITHER WAY. I DON'T THINK RODGERS HAD AS GOOD OF A SEASON AS MANY HERE DO. HE WAS 6-10. WINS AND LOSSES COME BEFORE STATS. SLIGHTLY BETTER OFFENSIVE PERFORMANCES IN A FEW OF THOSE CLOSE LOSSES AND NOT RELYING SO MUCH ON THE D AND THIS TEAM IS A PLAYOFF TEAM AND MY OPINION OF RODGERS IS MUCH DIFFERENT. HE CAN'T LAY AN EGG FOR 3 QUARTERS AGAINST GOOD TEAMS.

[cpk1994]

TY, I ACTUALLY REALLY LIKE THIS POST




1. Partial tells us not to use numbers, wins and losses are how you judge a QB, but then we should be prepared for massive crow if he doesn't put up an 85. But, i thought wins and losses defined a QB.

BOTH MATTER TO A DEGREE. WHO CARES IF YOU HAVE PRETTY STATS AND LOSE? WHO CARES IF YOU HAVE UGLY STATS AND WIN? WINNING HAS TO HAPPEN FIRST AND FOREMOST.

2. Makes a comparison to VY and closing out games. VY doesn't have a large enough sample size to draw conclusions about his ability to close out games.

IF VY'S SAMPLE SIZE ISN'T BIG ENOUGH (ROTY AFTER HIS FIRST YEAR STARTING), THEN ITS PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT THE JURY IS STILL OUT ON RODGERS. I AGREE COMPLETELY THAT BOTH NEED MORE GAMES UNDER THEIR BELTS BEFORE WE CAN CONCLUDE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.


3. Compares VY to Arod...how?


I DIDN'T MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. SOMEONE ELSE INITIALLY MADE THAT COMPARISON, NOT ME. TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BALL PLAYERS. VY ISN'T SO MUCH A TRADITIONAL QB IN MY OPINION, AS I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG.

NFL IS CATCHING ON TO PARTIAL BALL. PAT WHITE AND THE WILD CAT ARE GONNA BE BIG. PUT YOUNG IN A ROLL WHERE HE ISN'T A REQUIRED TO BE A TRADITIONAL POCKET PASSER AND CAN USE HIS WHEELS AND HE'LL BE FINE.

4. Comes back with the injury prone argument. Did he miss any games last year? No. Brett was always injured, but Brett is a warrior.

NOPE, HE WAS HEALTHY IN HIS FIRST YEAR STARTING. HOWEVER, WE MISSED KEY GAMES IN 2007 WITH AN INJURY, HAD A BROKEN FOOT IN 2006, AND I BELIEVE HE GOT HURT BADLY IN 2005 AS WELL. HE'S NOT OUT OF THE WATER YET.

5. Be prepared to eat massive crow. Admin...if you don't see how he is asking for it then..well, you are just being kind. If we are suppose to be ready for crow..then he and you should be prepared for us to serve him crow...right now, since he is foolish.

NOT REALLY, NOTHING HAS BEEN SHOWN EITHER WAY. I DON'T THINK RODGERS HAD AS GOOD OF A SEASON AS MANY HERE DO. HE WAS 6-10. WINS AND LOSSES COME BEFORE STATS. SLIGHTLY BETTER OFFENSIVE PERFORMANCES IN A FEW OF THOSE CLOSE LOSSES AND NOT RELYING SO MUCH ON THE D AND THIS TEAM IS A PLAYOFF TEAM AND MY OPINION OF RODGERS IS MUCH DIFFERENT. HE CAN'T LAY AN EGG FOR 3 QUARTERS AGAINST GOOD TEAMS.

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE DEFENSE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 6-10 NOT RODGRS. YOUR BULLSHIT IS GETTING OLD. QUIT GIVNG THE DEFENSE A FEE PASS. NO ONE IS BUIYING THE BULLSHIT YOU ARE SELLING!

[Zool]

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE ENTIRE TEAM WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 6-10 NOT JUST RODGRS. YOUR BULLSHIT IS GETTING OLD. QUIT GIVNG THE DEFENSE A FEE PASS. NO ONE IS BUIYING THE BULLSHIT YOU ARE SELLING!

fixored

[cpk1994]

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE ENTIRE TEAM WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 6-10 NOT JUST RODGRS. YOUR BULLSHIT IS GETTING OLD. QUIT GIVNG THE DEFENSE A FEE PASS. NO ONE IS BUIYING THE BULLSHIT YOU ARE SELLING!

fixoredCouldn't let me have my rant, could you? :lol:

[Bretsky]

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year..................


And this would make you happy because...................???

This is the part that pisses me off. It seems like P would be happy if the Packers fail this year so he can be right.


don't really buy it.

[Zool]

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE ENTIRE TEAM WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 6-10 NOT JUST RODGRS. YOUR BULLSHIT IS GETTING OLD. QUIT GIVNG THE DEFENSE A FEE PASS. NO ONE IS BUIYING THE BULLSHIT YOU ARE SELLING!

fixoredCouldn't let me have my rant, could you? :lol:

I was going to. I almost didn't post it, but although P is doing almost all of this because he likes being the anti-hero he occasionally lets out a nugget of truth. Rodgers didnt play like a vet QB. Granted he isn't one yet so that has a whole lot to do with it. Maybe if the O sustains 1-2 more drives for 3 more downs in the first half the D doesn't have to hold a 6 point lead in the 4th. Maybe a vet QB makes the correct check down on a 3rd and 3 more often than a newb.

Maybe if the D didn't play like a sieve in the 4th quarter maybe Rodgers doesn't have to have all this shit lumped on his shoulders. I mean the kid had to deal with Favre questions about 3-4 hours a day for 8 months. All the while being a first time starter in the NFL. And this is the crux of my problem with all the Rodgers bashing. Favre was a fucking moron in his first 2 seasons. People were calling for him to be replaced by Detmer. He turned out to be pretty good for a couple seasons after that.

Maybe instead of playing Retard Hatfields against Brain Damaged McCoys we could just let this discussion rest. It's not like either side is going to convince the other of anything.

[MJZiggy]

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year..................


And this would make you happy because...................???

This is the part that pisses me off. It seems like P would be happy if the Packers fail this year so he can be right.


Yo, he does not note that he'd be happy about this

Yet a couple posts later he states clearly that he hopes it'll happen...Packers first, Partial being right way down at the bottom of the list. Thankfully, barring catastrophic injury to several key players, I don't see him getting his wish.

[Zool]

Yo, he does not note that he'd be happy about this

Yet a couple posts later he states clearly that he hopes it'll happen.

As he has a couple times previously. That is why I have a hard time letting him slide on some of this crap.

[Bretsky]

Admin seems to be doing a fair job here. It looks like he just wanted to end this messy little Partial, RG -v- Forum fight.


agree

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I would much rather have the Packers fail and have all the douches leave the forum. Absolutely.




http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jTTkf511H94/SbFlOw8h3GI/AAAAAAAABww/EorQCT2nyUo/s400/inconceivable-1.jpg

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Partial when the packer season is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

Now you're fucked. P put Iocane powder in both goblets.

I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.

[Bretsky]

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year..................


And this would make you happy because...................???

This is the part that pisses me off. It seems like P would be happy if the Packers fail this year so he can be right.


Yo, he does not note that he'd be happy about this

Yet a couple posts later he states clearly that he hopes it'll happen...Packers first, Partial being right way down at the bottom of the list. Thankfully, barring catastrophic injury to several key players, I don't see him getting his wish.


still don't buy it...although...many have been disrespectful to the poster rather than the post. I think he's jerking you around...but believe what you want

[Tyrone Bigguns]

TY, I ACTUALLY REALLY LIKE THIS POST




1. Partial tells us not to use numbers, wins and losses are how you judge a QB, but then we should be prepared for massive crow if he doesn't put up an 85. But, i thought wins and losses defined a QB.

BOTH MATTER TO A DEGREE. WHO CARES IF YOU HAVE PRETTY STATS AND LOSE? WHO CARES IF YOU HAVE UGLY STATS AND WIN? WINNING HAS TO HAPPEN FIRST AND FOREMOST.

2. Makes a comparison to VY and closing out games. VY doesn't have a large enough sample size to draw conclusions about his ability to close out games.

IF VY'S SAMPLE SIZE ISN'T BIG ENOUGH (ROTY AFTER HIS FIRST YEAR STARTING), THEN ITS PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT THE JURY IS STILL OUT ON RODGERS. I AGREE COMPLETELY THAT BOTH NEED MORE GAMES UNDER THEIR BELTS BEFORE WE CAN CONCLUDE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.


3. Compares VY to Arod...how?


I DIDN'T MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. SOMEONE ELSE INITIALLY MADE THAT COMPARISON, NOT ME. TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BALL PLAYERS. VY ISN'T SO MUCH A TRADITIONAL QB IN MY OPINION, AS I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG.

NFL IS CATCHING ON TO PARTIAL BALL. PAT WHITE AND THE WILD CAT ARE GONNA BE BIG. PUT YOUNG IN A ROLL WHERE HE ISN'T A REQUIRED TO BE A TRADITIONAL POCKET PASSER AND CAN USE HIS WHEELS AND HE'LL BE FINE.

4. Comes back with the injury prone argument. Did he miss any games last year? No. Brett was always injured, but Brett is a warrior.

NOPE, HE WAS HEALTHY IN HIS FIRST YEAR STARTING. HOWEVER, WE MISSED KEY GAMES IN 2007 WITH AN INJURY, HAD A BROKEN FOOT IN 2006, AND I BELIEVE HE GOT HURT BADLY IN 2005 AS WELL. HE'S NOT OUT OF THE WATER YET.

5. Be prepared to eat massive crow. Admin...if you don't see how he is asking for it then..well, you are just being kind. If we are suppose to be ready for crow..then he and you should be prepared for us to serve him crow...right now, since he is foolish.

NOT REALLY, NOTHING HAS BEEN SHOWN EITHER WAY. I DON'T THINK RODGERS HAD AS GOOD OF A SEASON AS MANY HERE DO. HE WAS 6-10. WINS AND LOSSES COME BEFORE STATS. SLIGHTLY BETTER OFFENSIVE PERFORMANCES IN A FEW OF THOSE CLOSE LOSSES AND NOT RELYING SO MUCH ON THE D AND THIS TEAM IS A PLAYOFF TEAM AND MY OPINION OF RODGERS IS MUCH DIFFERENT. HE CAN'T LAY AN EGG FOR 3 QUARTERS AGAINST GOOD TEAMS.

I likes what i posted. I feel very dirty.

[Zool]

I would much rather have the Packers fail and have all the douches leave the forum. Absolutely.




http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jTTkf511H94/SbFlOw8h3GI/AAAAAAAABww/EorQCT2nyUo/s400/inconceivable-1.jpg

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Partial when the packer season is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

Now you're fucked. P put Iocane powder in both goblets.

I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.

As you wish sweet Wesley.

[cpk1994]

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE ENTIRE TEAM WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 6-10 NOT JUST RODGRS. YOUR BULLSHIT IS GETTING OLD. QUIT GIVNG THE DEFENSE A FEE PASS. NO ONE IS BUIYING THE BULLSHIT YOU ARE SELLING!

fixoredCouldn't let me have my rant, could you? :lol:

I was going to. I almost didn't post it, but although P is doing almost all of this because he likes being the anti-hero he occasionally lets out a nugget of truth. Rodgers didnt play like a vet QB. Granted he isn't one yet so that has a whole lot to do with it. Maybe if the O sustains 1-2 more drives for 3 more downs in the first half the D doesn't have to hold a 6 point lead in the 4th. Maybe a vet QB makes the correct check down on a 3rd and 3 more often than a newb.

Maybe if the D didn't play like a sieve in the 4th quarter maybe Rodgers doesn't have to have all this shit lumped on his shoulders. I mean the kid had to deal with Favre questions about 3-4 hours a day for 8 months. All the while being a first time starter in the NFL. And this is the crux of my problem with all the Rodgers bashing. Favre was a fucking moron in his first 2 seasons. People were calling for him to be replaced by Detmer. He turned out to be pretty good for a couple seasons after that.

Maybe instead of playing Retard Hatfields against Brain Damaged McCoys we could just let this discussion rest. It's not like either side is going to convince the other of anything.I agree about AFvre. But there is only one person calling for Rodgers to be replaced. Only one person who already believes that Rodgers is a bust, and will make up facts, change arguments when one doesn't work, and refuses to give that player a chance. Only one person.

[Bretsky]

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE ENTIRE TEAM WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 6-10 NOT JUST RODGRS. YOUR BULLSHIT IS GETTING OLD. QUIT GIVNG THE DEFENSE A FEE PASS. NO ONE IS BUIYING THE BULLSHIT YOU ARE SELLING!

fixoredCouldn't let me have my rant, could you? :lol:

I was going to. I almost didn't post it, but although P is doing almost all of this because he likes being the anti-hero he occasionally lets out a nugget of truth. Rodgers didnt play like a vet QB. Granted he isn't one yet so that has a whole lot to do with it. Maybe if the O sustains 1-2 more drives for 3 more downs in the first half the D doesn't have to hold a 6 point lead in the 4th. Maybe a vet QB makes the correct check down on a 3rd and 3 more often than a newb.

Maybe if the D didn't play like a sieve in the 4th quarter maybe Rodgers doesn't have to have all this shit lumped on his shoulders. I mean the kid had to deal with Favre questions about 3-4 hours a day for 8 months. All the while being a first time starter in the NFL. And this is the crux of my problem with all the Rodgers bashing. Favre was a fucking moron in his first 2 seasons. People were calling for him to be replaced by Detmer. He turned out to be pretty good for a couple seasons after that.

Maybe instead of playing Retard Hatfields against Brain Damaged McCoys we could just let this discussion rest. It's not like either side is going to convince the other of anything.I agree about AFvre. But there is only one person calling for Rodgers to be replaced. Only one person who already believes that Rodgers is a bust, and will make up facts, change arguments when one doesn't work, and refuses to give that player a chance. Only one person.


source ?

I don't know of anybody calling for Rodgers to be currently replaced

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I would much rather have the Packers fail and have all the douches leave the forum. Absolutely.




http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jTTkf511H94/SbFlOw8h3GI/AAAAAAAABww/EorQCT2nyUo/s400/inconceivable-1.jpg

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Partial when the packer season is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

Now you're fucked. P put Iocane powder in both goblets.

I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.

As you wish sweet Wesley.

I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE ENTIRE TEAM WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 6-10 NOT JUST RODGRS. YOUR BULLSHIT IS GETTING OLD. QUIT GIVNG THE DEFENSE A FEE PASS. NO ONE IS BUIYING THE BULLSHIT YOU ARE SELLING!

fixoredCouldn't let me have my rant, could you? :lol:

I was going to. I almost didn't post it, but although P is doing almost all of this because he likes being the anti-hero he occasionally lets out a nugget of truth. Rodgers didnt play like a vet QB. Granted he isn't one yet so that has a whole lot to do with it. Maybe if the O sustains 1-2 more drives for 3 more downs in the first half the D doesn't have to hold a 6 point lead in the 4th. Maybe a vet QB makes the correct check down on a 3rd and 3 more often than a newb.

Maybe if the D didn't play like a sieve in the 4th quarter maybe Rodgers doesn't have to have all this shit lumped on his shoulders. I mean the kid had to deal with Favre questions about 3-4 hours a day for 8 months. All the while being a first time starter in the NFL. And this is the crux of my problem with all the Rodgers bashing. Favre was a fucking moron in his first 2 seasons. People were calling for him to be replaced by Detmer. He turned out to be pretty good for a couple seasons after that.

Maybe instead of playing Retard Hatfields against Brain Damaged McCoys we could just let this discussion rest. It's not like either side is going to convince the other of anything.I agree about AFvre. But there is only one person calling for Rodgers to be replaced. Only one person who already believes that Rodgers is a bust, and will make up facts, change arguments when one doesn't work, and refuses to give that player a chance. Only one person.


source ?

I don't know of anybody calling for Rodgers to be currently replaced

Partial is. Partial believes that Arod isn't elite. Therefore you should be on the lookout for the elite QB. Elite QBs are the key to long term success.

Until Partial has deemed any GB QB elite they all should be replaced as soon as possible.

Partial is working on software to determine which children have the greatest chance of being elite.

[Bretsky]

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE ENTIRE TEAM WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 6-10 NOT JUST RODGRS. YOUR BULLSHIT IS GETTING OLD. QUIT GIVNG THE DEFENSE A FEE PASS. NO ONE IS BUIYING THE BULLSHIT YOU ARE SELLING!

fixoredCouldn't let me have my rant, could you? :lol:

I was going to. I almost didn't post it, but although P is doing almost all of this because he likes being the anti-hero he occasionally lets out a nugget of truth. Rodgers didnt play like a vet QB. Granted he isn't one yet so that has a whole lot to do with it. Maybe if the O sustains 1-2 more drives for 3 more downs in the first half the D doesn't have to hold a 6 point lead in the 4th. Maybe a vet QB makes the correct check down on a 3rd and 3 more often than a newb.

Maybe if the D didn't play like a sieve in the 4th quarter maybe Rodgers doesn't have to have all this shit lumped on his shoulders. I mean the kid had to deal with Favre questions about 3-4 hours a day for 8 months. All the while being a first time starter in the NFL. And this is the crux of my problem with all the Rodgers bashing. Favre was a fucking moron in his first 2 seasons. People were calling for him to be replaced by Detmer. He turned out to be pretty good for a couple seasons after that.

Maybe instead of playing Retard Hatfields against Brain Damaged McCoys we could just let this discussion rest. It's not like either side is going to convince the other of anything.I agree about AFvre. But there is only one person calling for Rodgers to be replaced. Only one person who already believes that Rodgers is a bust, and will make up facts, change arguments when one doesn't work, and refuses to give that player a chance. Only one person.


source ?

I don't know of anybody calling for Rodgers to be currently replaced

Partial is. Partial believes that Arod isn't elite. Therefore you should be on the lookout for the elite QB. Elite QBs are the key to long term success.

Until Partial has deemed any GB QB elite they all should be replaced as soon as possible.

Partial is working on software to determine which children have the greatest chance of being elite.


Not looking for "therefore's"

People have often asked Partial for a source

I'd like to see where/source saying he stated AROD needs to be replaced

No cause and effect stuff

Did he or did he not say that; and I understand you are not the person who noted this.

I doubt I'm the only one out here who's tired of the gang mentaility type tone lately

[HarveyWallbangers]

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year..................

And this would make you happy because...................???

This is the part that pisses me off. It seems like P would be happy if the Packers fail this year so he can be right.

don't really buy it.

Maybe my reading comprehension is poor, but he seems to clearly state this view.



This is the part that pisses me off. It seems like P would be happy if the Packers fail this year so he can be right.

Absolutely after taking everyone's crap for months now...

I would much rather have the Packers fail and have all the douches leave the forum. Absolutely.

[SnakeLH2006]

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

Snake was just about over the Favre shit (99%)..then you had to post that, LEWCWA... I think Arod can be an elite QB so Snake is happy with this now and in the future...but to :beat: you dragged up something Snake forgot why I was so salty last year on the "exodus". Ouch....and yeah, I was happy to see Favre go out on his last legs as a Packer for life, no matter how it happened, but not so in 2008....

But (big breath) I still am happy with Arod although his charisma/gameplay make me yearn for Brett (even now) but I won't let that cloud my mindstate in saying it WAS the best decision at that time to let Brett go. It sucks, but that bolded part makes Snake yearn for what if (it's not like we won 6 games under Arod and Brett still won 9) oh wait..that sux Brett still won more games (not trying to be Paco)..and don't wanna get into that anymore, but man, dude, you really made Snake think about shit...

Your post, just made me realize how much I loved watching Brett play. The only athlete I can compare him to for intensity/must watch (as this guy can just win ANY game is Michael Jordan) and I know some might drop/question me for those views, but it's true and can't shake the feeling he gave me on gameday. That is irreplaceable as a sports fan. I love/loved watching him play as an indestructible sports beast that can will a game....that is why I loved Brett, the player, and don't care about the drama in the offseasons. I like Arod, but damn if I'd pay to meet Arod and go drink with him at some pissy club with his Twitter buddies, but be sure Snake would pay to see Brett play one more year. That's what it comes down too and can see why some hate Brett now, but I really think he's ultra competive and worthy of TV time, even at 40, a testament to his media draw and stature as an ICON.

Thanks for inciting Snake into a frenzy, but we won't see another like Brett on the field for a long time. Manning is just a great player, but Brett transcended what football is to Snake. I loved his never say die attitude. Manning and Brady are pretty bland and hard to root for, and dont' bash me, but so is Arod. I root for him as a Packerfan, but not as a player...as he seems pretty bland, but hope he does well so our team does well.

Regardless, I love ARod, but damn Brett made me happy watching him play (and still would no matter where he plays/played...Jets, Vikes). That shit made me turn my view aside. Thanks much dude. :roll: :cry: :cry: That whole once in a generation comment really got to me though, and as good as ARod is/will be (Snake supports him and the Pack) I really am sad to see that we can't see the endrun of Brett in GB. You really got to Snake, dude, as that sums up how I was feeling a year ago, but now again. Damn it. Damn it all. This sucks. I wanna see Brett play. Love seeing him play and don't care about the drama. Damn. Snake is VERY sarcastic normally, but I mean that. Damn. Good ass post dude.

[cpk1994]

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE ENTIRE TEAM WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 6-10 NOT JUST RODGRS. YOUR BULLSHIT IS GETTING OLD. QUIT GIVNG THE DEFENSE A FEE PASS. NO ONE IS BUIYING THE BULLSHIT YOU ARE SELLING!

fixoredCouldn't let me have my rant, could you? :lol:

I was going to. I almost didn't post it, but although P is doing almost all of this because he likes being the anti-hero he occasionally lets out a nugget of truth. Rodgers didnt play like a vet QB. Granted he isn't one yet so that has a whole lot to do with it. Maybe if the O sustains 1-2 more drives for 3 more downs in the first half the D doesn't have to hold a 6 point lead in the 4th. Maybe a vet QB makes the correct check down on a 3rd and 3 more often than a newb.

Maybe if the D didn't play like a sieve in the 4th quarter maybe Rodgers doesn't have to have all this shit lumped on his shoulders. I mean the kid had to deal with Favre questions about 3-4 hours a day for 8 months. All the while being a first time starter in the NFL. And this is the crux of my problem with all the Rodgers bashing. Favre was a fucking moron in his first 2 seasons. People were calling for him to be replaced by Detmer. He turned out to be pretty good for a couple seasons after that.

Maybe instead of playing Retard Hatfields against Brain Damaged McCoys we could just let this discussion rest. It's not like either side is going to convince the other of anything.I agree about AFvre. But there is only one person calling for Rodgers to be replaced. Only one person who already believes that Rodgers is a bust, and will make up facts, change arguments when one doesn't work, and refuses to give that player a chance. Only one person.


source ?

I don't know of anybody calling for Rodgers to be currently replaced

Then you really aren't reading this forum close. Partial has called for Rodgers to be replaced. He said that if you are not a stud QB you should be replaced and that Rodgers isn't a stud QB. Good lord it weas obvious who I was referring to.

[cpk1994]

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE ENTIRE TEAM WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 6-10 NOT JUST RODGRS. YOUR BULLSHIT IS GETTING OLD. QUIT GIVNG THE DEFENSE A FEE PASS. NO ONE IS BUIYING THE BULLSHIT YOU ARE SELLING!

fixoredCouldn't let me have my rant, could you? :lol:

I was going to. I almost didn't post it, but although P is doing almost all of this because he likes being the anti-hero he occasionally lets out a nugget of truth. Rodgers didnt play like a vet QB. Granted he isn't one yet so that has a whole lot to do with it. Maybe if the O sustains 1-2 more drives for 3 more downs in the first half the D doesn't have to hold a 6 point lead in the 4th. Maybe a vet QB makes the correct check down on a 3rd and 3 more often than a newb.

Maybe if the D didn't play like a sieve in the 4th quarter maybe Rodgers doesn't have to have all this shit lumped on his shoulders. I mean the kid had to deal with Favre questions about 3-4 hours a day for 8 months. All the while being a first time starter in the NFL. And this is the crux of my problem with all the Rodgers bashing. Favre was a fucking moron in his first 2 seasons. People were calling for him to be replaced by Detmer. He turned out to be pretty good for a couple seasons after that.

Maybe instead of playing Retard Hatfields against Brain Damaged McCoys we could just let this discussion rest. It's not like either side is going to convince the other of anything.I agree about AFvre. But there is only one person calling for Rodgers to be replaced. Only one person who already believes that Rodgers is a bust, and will make up facts, change arguments when one doesn't work, and refuses to give that player a chance. Only one person.


source ?

I don't know of anybody calling for Rodgers to be currently replaced

Partial is. Partial believes that Arod isn't elite. Therefore you should be on the lookout for the elite QB. Elite QBs are the key to long term success.

Until Partial has deemed any GB QB elite they all should be replaced as soon as possible.

Partial is working on software to determine which children have the greatest chance of being elite.


Not looking for "therefore's"

People have often asked Partial for a source

I'd like to see where/source saying he stated AROD needs to be replaced

No cause and effect stuff

Did he or did he not say that; and I understand you are not the person who noted this.

I doubt I'm the only one out here who's tired of the gang mentaility type tone latelyTy is exactly right. There was no "therefore". It was directly impled.

[Partial]

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE ENTIRE TEAM WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 6-10 NOT JUST RODGRS. YOUR BULLSHIT IS GETTING OLD. QUIT GIVNG THE DEFENSE A FEE PASS. NO ONE IS BUIYING THE BULLSHIT YOU ARE SELLING!

fixoredCouldn't let me have my rant, could you? :lol:

I was going to. I almost didn't post it, but although P is doing almost all of this because he likes being the anti-hero he occasionally lets out a nugget of truth. Rodgers didnt play like a vet QB. Granted he isn't one yet so that has a whole lot to do with it. Maybe if the O sustains 1-2 more drives for 3 more downs in the first half the D doesn't have to hold a 6 point lead in the 4th. Maybe a vet QB makes the correct check down on a 3rd and 3 more often than a newb.

Maybe if the D didn't play like a sieve in the 4th quarter maybe Rodgers doesn't have to have all this shit lumped on his shoulders. I mean the kid had to deal with Favre questions about 3-4 hours a day for 8 months. All the while being a first time starter in the NFL. And this is the crux of my problem with all the Rodgers bashing. Favre was a fucking moron in his first 2 seasons. People were calling for him to be replaced by Detmer. He turned out to be pretty good for a couple seasons after that.

Maybe instead of playing Retard Hatfields against Brain Damaged McCoys we could just let this discussion rest. It's not like either side is going to convince the other of anything.I agree about AFvre. But there is only one person calling for Rodgers to be replaced. Only one person who already believes that Rodgers is a bust, and will make up facts, change arguments when one doesn't work, and refuses to give that player a chance. Only one person.


source ?

I don't know of anybody calling for Rodgers to be currently replaced

Then you really aren't reading this forum close. Partial has called for Rodgers to be replaced. He said that if you are not a stud QB you should be replaced and that Rodgers isn't a stud QB. Good lord it weas obvious who I was referring to.

Not true. This is part of the problem with this forum. People read what they want to read, not what is actually written.

I said, verbatim, "If you don't have a superstar QB, you should actively pursue improving this position until you do, just like any other position". You should not NOT draft Peyton Manning because you have ARod, for example

[Gunakor]

Partial has never directly said Rodgers needs to be replaced, as far as I can remember. However, he has indirectly implied as much. Repeatedly. He says that if a QB isn't in the elite class then the team should always be looking for an upgrade. Then he claims that Rodgers doesn't have the ever important "It" factor. Put 2 and 2 together and you come up with Partial indirectly saying that since Rodgers isn't elite, then the team should be looking for an upgrade. It's a pretty easy interpretation.

[cpk1994]

Not true. This is part of the problem with this forum. People read what they want to read, not what is actually written.

I said, verbatim, "If you don't have a superstar QB, you should actively pursue improving this position until you do, just like any other position". You should not NOT draft Peyton Manning because you have ARod, for exampleAnd you already made up your mind that ARod is not a superstar and refuse to give him a chacne to be so. You are IMPLYING that Rodgers should be replaced becuase he isn't a superstar.

[Partial]

Not true. This is part of the problem with this forum. People read what they want to read, not what is actually written.

I said, verbatim, "If you don't have a superstar QB, you should actively pursue improving this position until you do, just like any other position". You should not NOT draft Peyton Manning because you have ARod, for exampleAnd you already made up your mind that ARod is not a superstar and refuse to give him a chacne to be so. You are IMPLYING that Rodgers should be replaced becuase he isn't a superstar.

No, I'm implying he can hang around if he is A) a superstar (which I don't believe) or B) until they have a shot at a superstar in the draft or FA.

[LP]

[quote="Partial
No, I'm implying he can hang around if he is A) a superstar (which I don't believe) or B) until they have a shot at a superstar in the draft or FA.[/quote]

Just curious, do you think Ted should try to replace Rodgers with Vince Young?

[Fritz]

Partial, if you ever watched any Lost in Space re-runs:

"Danger! Danger, Will Robinson! Do not answer that question!"

Dr. Smith is up to no good.

[Bretsky]

Not true. This is part of the problem with this forum. People read what they want to read, not what is actually written.

I said, verbatim, "If you don't have a superstar QB, you should actively pursue improving this position until you do, just like any other position". You should not NOT draft Peyton Manning because you have ARod, for exampleAnd you already made up your mind that ARod is not a superstar and refuse to give him a chacne to be so. You are IMPLYING that Rodgers should be replaced becuase he isn't a superstar.


The implying argument is bullshit

Perhaps if people would stick to the facts and not try to make implications or quote a poster for something he never said it'd be more peaceful

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Not true. This is part of the problem with this forum. People read what they want to read, not what is actually written.

I said, verbatim, "If you don't have a superstar QB, you should actively pursue improving this position until you do, just like any other position". You should not NOT draft Peyton Manning because you have ARod, for exampleAnd you already made up your mind that ARod is not a superstar and refuse to give him a chacne to be so. You are IMPLYING that Rodgers should be replaced becuase he isn't a superstar.


The implying argument is bullshit

Perhaps if people would stick to the facts and not try to make implications or quote a poster for something he never said it'd be more peaceful

Maybe i'm missing it, but it sure seems like, according to partial we should be pursuing a superstar QB since Arod isn't one.

What am i missing? I really can't follow his logic at all....we shouldn't draft a peyton manning since we have Arod?

[Bretsky]

Not true. This is part of the problem with this forum. People read what they want to read, not what is actually written.

I said, verbatim, "If you don't have a superstar QB, you should actively pursue improving this position until you do, just like any other position". You should not NOT draft Peyton Manning because you have ARod, for exampleAnd you already made up your mind that ARod is not a superstar and refuse to give him a chacne to be so. You are IMPLYING that Rodgers should be replaced becuase he isn't a superstar.


The implying argument is bullshit

Perhaps if people would stick to the facts and not try to make implications or quote a poster for something he never said it'd be more peaceful

Maybe i'm missing it, but it sure seems like, according to partial we should be pursuing a superstar QB since Arod isn't one.

What am i missing? I really can't follow his logic at all....we shouldn't draft a peyton manning since we have Arod?


Has Partial left open the possibility that AROD can develop into one ?

I think his logic is simple and most do not agree with him

AROD had a decent year but not an exceptional one
AROD is still unproven and he can turn out much better or worse than year one
AROD could have engineered more late game comebacks
AROD is in the 12-16 range of QB's now; he may get better or worse
AROD is NOT the sole reason they lost all of those games but shares the blame in those losses

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Not true. This is part of the problem with this forum. People read what they want to read, not what is actually written.

I said, verbatim, "If you don't have a superstar QB, you should actively pursue improving this position until you do, just like any other position". You should not NOT draft Peyton Manning because you have ARod, for exampleAnd you already made up your mind that ARod is not a superstar and refuse to give him a chacne to be so. You are IMPLYING that Rodgers should be replaced becuase he isn't a superstar.


The implying argument is bullshit

Perhaps if people would stick to the facts and not try to make implications or quote a poster for something he never said it'd be more peaceful

Maybe i'm missing it, but it sure seems like, according to partial we should be pursuing a superstar QB since Arod isn't one.

What am i missing? I really can't follow his logic at all....we shouldn't draft a peyton manning since we have Arod?


Has Partial left open the possibility that AROD can develop into one ?

I think his logic is simple and most do not agree with him

AROD had a decent year but not an exceptional one
AROD is still unproven and he can turn out much better or worse than year one
AROD could have engineered more late game comebacks
AROD is in the 12-16 range of QB's now; he may get better or worse
AROD is NOT the sole reason they lost all of those games but shares the blame in those losses



No, I'm implying he can hang around if he is A) a superstar (which I don't believe) or B) until they have a shot at a superstar in the draft or FA.

1. For a first year starter, it was exceptional. The stats don't lie.
2. True. Nobody on this forum has suggested otherwise. Most were happy with him, and hope he continues to progress. This would be the case if Arod's predecessor was Brett, Majik, Dickey, Culpepper, Montana, etc.
3. False. Harv has shown this to false repeatedly. As has Patler.
4. Ok, but it is calling him average that bothers folks. Partial has shown little if any inclination to say he will get better.
5. Wrong. Partail puts most of the blame on the offense, the offense is lead by Arod. Arod is to blame. Partial puts the blame 50% at minimum on the offense. The fact that our ST and defense were poor, means nothing.

When we play against good defenses like tenn....arod blew it. Partial devalues the opponent at every turn to blame the offense.

Any and all success ARod had was due to the "unbelievable talent," "top 5 wr" and good TE, line and RBs. THat leaves him plenty of room to say if we lose those players and the offense sputters, "see, without great talent, he can't do anything."

[cpk1994]

No, I'm implying he can hang around if he is A) a superstar (which I don't believe) or B) until they have a shot at a superstar in the draft or FA.

1. For a first year starter, it was exceptional. The stats don't lie.
2. True. Nobody on this forum has suggested otherwise. Most were happy with him, and hope he continues to progress. This would be the case if Arod's predecessor was Brett, Majik, Dickey, Culpepper, Montana, etc.
3. False. Harv has shown this to false repeatedly. As has Patler.
4. Ok, but it is calling him average that bothers folks. Partial has shown little if any inclination to say he will get better.
5. Wrong. Partail puts most of the blame on the offense, the offense is lead by Arod. Arod is to blame. Partial puts the blame 50% at minimum on the offense. The fact that our ST and defense were poor, means nothing.

When we play against good defenses like tenn....arod blew it. Partial devalues the opponent at every turn to blame the offense.

Any and all success ARod had was due to the "unbelievable talent," "top 5 wr" and good TE, line and RBs.This pretty much sums Partial's bullshit up. Nice work.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Thanks.

Bretsky...i think you would be hardpressed to find anyone who is claiming Arod is a superstar or the greatest thing since sliced bread. We are pleased with what he showed and based upon that we hoping for better days ahead.

But, in the NFL, transitioning from one QB to the next...we sure appear to be in much better shape than many teams that have sputtered to find a qb: vikes, bears, bills, cleveland, rams, oakland, tampa, detroit, etc.

[Bretsky]

Thanks.

Bretsky...i think you would be hardpressed to find anyone who is claiming Arod is a superstar or the greatest thing since sliced bread. We are pleased with what he showed and based upon that we hoping for better days ahead.

But, in the NFL, transitioning from one QB to the next...we sure appear to be in much better shape than many teams that have sputtered to find a qb: vikes, bears, bills, cleveland, rams, oakland, tampa, detroit, etc.


Honestly our views are probably about the same; you comented on all of the points I made and I could poke holes in each one of your comments as well. And you could polk holes back...etc etc..

A while back RG was the guy everybody disrespected and bagged one....as a poster instead of his posts

Now I see P being that guy

[HarveyWallbangers]

Partial probably deserves it. I wish he'd talk about his supermodel girlfriend from Florida again. The ARod bit is getting stale.

[Bretsky]

The dirty talk has definitely been lacking around here lately

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Thanks.

Bretsky...i think you would be hardpressed to find anyone who is claiming Arod is a superstar or the greatest thing since sliced bread. We are pleased with what he showed and based upon that we hoping for better days ahead.

But, in the NFL, transitioning from one QB to the next...we sure appear to be in much better shape than many teams that have sputtered to find a qb: vikes, bears, bills, cleveland, rams, oakland, tampa, detroit, etc.


Honestly our views are probably about the same; you comented on all of the points I made and I could poke holes in each one of your comments as well. And you could polk holes back...etc etc..

A while back RG was the guy everybody disrespected and bagged one....as a poster instead of his posts

Now I see P being that guy

IF ours are probably the same...then you are with most of this forum..cept for the radicals who blindly hate.

Poke holes: Sorry, i doubt it. Those are the facts. I'd be curious as to the holes you would poke. I dont' think they would be holes..i think we/you would be refining the statements...a big difference.

Partial is being attacked for what he writes, for his logic..and his steadfast, unwavering wavering. When you get a large consensus of people who think differently and use different methodologies to come to mass agreement and conclusion on the nature of his posts....that speaks volumes.

I have had my arguments with Partial, yes, but they are over his facts and usage. Toss me out. Do you think that Patler should be tossed as well? The long list of posters arguing with partial is impressive in diversity.

Partial is like cancer. There are many ways to attack it. And, like cancer we only want to see him in remission or at least contained...so we all may enjoy our packer life.

[cpk1994]

The dirty talk has definitely been lacking around here latelyDon't give Skinbasket any exucse to post porn. :lol:

[LP]

Partial, if you ever watched any Lost in Space re-runs:

"Danger! Danger, Will Robinson! Do not answer that question!"

Dr. Smith is up to no good.


Hey now, I resemble that remark! :D

[Scott Campbell]

A while back RG was the guy everybody disrespected and bagged one....as a poster instead of his posts.


I didn't see it like that. The comments disrespected Sherman.


And I like Partial. We'd all probably miss him if he were gone.

[cpk1994]

A while back RG was the guy everybody disrespected and bagged one....as a poster instead of his posts.


I didn't see it like that. The comments disrespected Sherman.


And I like Partial. We'd all probably miss him if he were gone.

I wouldn't say "all".

[Scott Campbell]

A while back RG was the guy everybody disrespected and bagged one....as a poster instead of his posts.


I didn't see it like that. The comments disrespected Sherman.


And I like Partial. We'd all probably miss him if he were gone.

I wouldn't say "all".


Ok, I'm not going to take a roll call.

[SkinBasket]

A while back RG was the guy everybody disrespected and bagged one....as a poster instead of his posts

Now I see P being that guy

Bretsky, where is Partial being "disrespected?" I still don't get this. A lot of people seem to think he's being a troll or that his position is just plain wrong, but I haven't seen anyone "disrespect" him. Certainly not in the same way he's disrespected Chevelle or Harvey.

I think maybe you've seen some posters get frustrated by attempting to debate this with him, only to be met with an unwillingness to maintain a consistent argument or any kind of intellectual honesty in regards to statistics, analysis, and any other supporting evidence anyone presents.

If someone wants to hold a stubborn, unpopular position, and they want that position treated with "respect," I would think they need to make an honest argument in their favor. Instead, we're getting the equivalent of someone closing their eyes and plugging their ears and shouting at the top of his lungs, only pausing to tell everyone else they're mindless, thoughtless "douches" for disagreeing with him.

[cpk1994]

A while back RG was the guy everybody disrespected and bagged one....as a poster instead of his posts

Now I see P being that guy

Bretsky, where is Partial being "disrespected?" I still don't get this. A lot of people seem to think he's being a troll or that his position is just plain wrong, but I haven't seen anyone "disrespect" him. Certainly not in the same way he's disrespected Chevelle or Harvey.

I think maybe you've seen some posters get frustrated by attempting to debate this with him, only to be met with an unwillingness to maintain a consistent argument or any kind of intellectual honesty in regards to statistics, analysis, and any other supporting evidence anyone presents.

If someone wants to hold a stubborn, unpopular position, and they want that position treated with "respect," I would think they need to make an honest argument in their favor. Instead, we're getting the equivalent of someone closing their eyes and plugging their ears and shouting at the top of his lungs, only pausing to tell everyone else they're mindless, thoughtless "douches" for disagreeing with him.

:bclap: Preach on, Brother Skinbasket.

[Partial]

Respect? Are you joking Skin? Sometimes I wonder about you. As for Chevelle, I had no idea who he was until recently. How did I disrespect Harv? Harv stepped over a line last night and I'm done with him. He has shown me nothing but disrespect while I have been a Harvey supporter for years.

[MJZiggy]

Respect? Are you joking Skin? Sometimes I wonder about you. As for Chevelle, I had no idea who he was until recently.

So that mean's his opinion matters less and that he's fair game. Yet you must be respected. I get it. Just didn't know the rules.

[Partial]

Respect? Are you joking Skin? Sometimes I wonder about you. As for Chevelle, I had no idea who he was until recently.

So that mean's his opinion matters less and that he's fair game. Yet you must be respected. I get it. Just didn't know the rules.

I disrespected him. I was wrong and made a mistake. Fair enough. Now, where is everyone else man enough to step up? *hears crickets*

[falco]

and somehow i'm the one who gets singled out? ? ?

inmates running the asylum, i tell ya :P

[falco]

I disrespected him. I was wrong and made a mistake. Fair enough. Now, where is everyone else man enough to step up? *hears crickets*

hey, I apologize to KYPack for calling him pretentious. How quickly we forget...

[Scott Campbell]

Respect? Are you joking Skin? Sometimes I wonder about you. As for Chevelle, I had no idea who he was until recently.

So that mean's his opinion matters less and that he's fair game. Yet you must be respected. I get it. Just didn't know the rules.

I disrespected him. I was wrong and made a mistake. Fair enough. Now, where is everyone else man enough to step up? *hears crickets*


Am I supposed to step up? Or are you referring to other people.

I bust your balls, but like you well enough P.