Rodgers has highest rating in the league

[denverYooper]

:shock:

He also has the lead in 40+ pass plays, and in sacks :(

Crazy! Drew Brees can pass him tonight with a big game vs. the Falcons, but... :shock:

I was actually looking at the stats on nfl/espn to get his splits because I was originally going to write a post about a new plan:

Someone needs to make Aaron Rodgers believe they're already behind and he needs to catch up every time he gets on the field, especially in big games. He seems more decisive and gets the ball out faster when he just needs to score.

ESPN splits has:
BY PT DIFF CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT ATT YDS AVG LNG TD
Ahead 48 74 709 64.9 9.58 71 5 1 8.0 113.0 15 64 4.3 19 1
Behind 64 97 885 66.0 9.12 62 8 0 14.0 122.6 10 105 10.5 35 0
Tied 35 54 395 64.8 7.32 47 1 1 9.0 85.0 4 19 4.8 15 0

[Zool]

CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT ATT YDS AVG LNG TD

Ahead
48 74 709 64.9 9.58 71 5 1 8.0 113.0 15 64 4.3 19 1

Behind
64 97 885 66.0 9.12 62 8 0 14.0 122.6 10 105 10.5 35 0

Tied
35 54 395 64.8 7.32 47 1 1 9.0 85.0 4 19 4.8 15 0

[denverYooper]

Thanks for the format!

Do you just wrap it in a code block to make it line up nicely?

[FritzDontBlitz]

If there was a stat for taking sacks because of holding the ball too long he'd lead there, too.

Srsly. He needs to throw the damn ball away more.

[denverYooper]

If there was a stat for taking sacks because of holding the ball too long he'd lead there, too.

Srsly. He needs to throw the damn ball away more.

Agreed. JSO clocks him @6.46 seconds on the 3 & 5 sack when they had the ball on MN's 16 after the fumble.

[HarveyWallbangers]

If there was a stat for taking sacks because of holding the ball too long he'd lead there, too.

Srsly. He needs to throw the damn ball away more.

Agreed. JSO clocks him @6.46 seconds on the 3 & 5 sack when they had the ball on MN's 16 after the fumble.

See. I don't have a problem with that one. It's 3rd down. If he doesn't wait for something to open, what good does it do? He throws it away, and we kick the FG anyways. Sure, he holds the ball too long at times, but think of all of the big plays that he makes when he buys time or scrambles. You start harping on the sacks, then you take away a lot of the big plays. Of course, I hope he gets more alert on when it's a good time to throw it away and when it's a good time to try to let something develop.

[pbmax]

If there was a stat for taking sacks because of holding the ball too long he'd lead there, too.

Srsly. He needs to throw the damn ball away more.

Agreed. JSO clocks him @6.46 seconds on the 3 & 5 sack when they had the ball on MN's 16 after the fumble.

See. I don't have a problem with that one. It's 3rd down. If he doesn't wait for something to open, what good does it do? He throws it away, and we kick the FG anyways. Sure, he holds the ball too long at times, but think of all of the big plays that he makes when he buys time or scrambles. You start harping on the sacks, then you take away a lot of the big plays. Of course, I hope he gets more alert on when it's a good time to throw it away and when it's a good time to try to let something develop.
But its a matter of end resault. He can wait and then throw it away or take off for a run, but he is getting killed taking sacks. He clearly isn't fragile, but no one gets pummeled 64 times in a season and emerges healthy.

[Scott Campbell]

If there was a stat for taking sacks because of holding the ball too long he'd lead there, too.

Srsly. He needs to throw the damn ball away more.

Agreed. JSO clocks him @6.46 seconds on the 3 & 5 sack when they had the ball on MN's 16 after the fumble.

See. I don't have a problem with that one. It's 3rd down. If he doesn't wait for something to open, what good does it do? He throws it away, and we kick the FG anyways. Sure, he holds the ball too long at times, but think of all of the big plays that he makes when he buys time or scrambles. You start harping on the sacks, then you take away a lot of the big plays. Of course, I hope he gets more alert on when it's a good time to throw it away and when it's a good time to try to let something develop.
But its a matter of end resault. He can wait and then throw it away or take off for a run, but he is getting killed taking sacks. He clearly isn't fragile, but no one gets pummeled 64 times in a season and emerges healthy.




You have to live to play another down. And 2nd and 18 isn't living.

[imscott72]

Someone needs to make Aaron Rodgers believe they're already behind and he needs to catch up every time he gets on the field, especially in big games. He seems more decisive and gets the ball out faster when he just needs to score.



Someone needs to make him believe he's not going to get killed on every play. Imagine how good he'd be with a solid line.

[sharpe1027]

Someone needs to make Aaron Rodgers believe they're already behind and he needs to catch up every time he gets on the field, especially in big games. He seems more decisive and gets the ball out faster when he just needs to score.



Someone needs to make him believe he's not going to get killed on every play. Imagine how good he'd be with a solid line.

Someone = T.J. Lang and Alan Barbre.

[chain_gang]

That 3rd and 5 play was a big play in my opinion. I was shocked when he didn't take off and run for the 1st, he had the angle and the defenders backs were turned when he rolled out. I know he was looking downfield to make a play, but that's a situation where you take the sure thing, and I think it was a sure thing that he gets that 1st down. Now do the Packers score a TD on that drive? Maybe, maybe not, but that would of been a big momentum shift and put a ton of pressure on the Vikings D. That play stands out to me as much as the Jolly personal foul.

[Dabaddestbear]

Although Rodgers is a good QB, his rating can be misleading since he would rather hold on and take a sack than throw the ball away for an incompletion. That will push up his sack total but keep his QB rating much higher. Brett didnt have a good a QB rating on a regular, but he won more games because of the chances he took. When Rodgers start taking more chances and try to fit a ball in small windows beyond the simple 5 yard slants or curls then he will move up a level.

[Sparkey]

On pace for 4,546 yards passing w/ 32 TD's and 5 Int's and 71 sacks!

Would be nice to have a running game to complement the passing and a line that knows not only how to pass block, but who to block as well.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Yes, Arod needs to stop those 5 yard slants and curls. I blame it on MM. Stop calling so many slants. :roll:

[Bossman641]

On pace for 4,546 yards passing w/ 32 TD's and 5 Int's and 71 sacks!

Mind blowing numbers, all 4 of them.

[woodbuck27]

If there was a stat for taking sacks because of holding the ball too long he'd lead there, too.

Srsly. He needs to throw the damn ball away more.

Agreed. JSO clocks him @6.46 seconds on the 3 & 5 sack when they had the ball on MN's 16 after the fumble.

Yea! Who does he think he is? Brett Favre.

[Scott Campbell]

Although Rodgers is a good QB, his rating can be misleading since he would rather hold on and take a sack than throw the ball away for an incompletion. That will push up his sack total but keep his QB rating much higher. Brett didnt have a good a QB rating on a regular, but he won more games because of the chances he took. When Rodgers start taking more chances and try to fit a ball in small windows beyond the simple 5 yard slants or curls then he will move up a level.



I guess that explains Cutler never getting his QB rating out of the 80's. In his prime, Brett routinely posted excellent QB ratings in the 90's.

[denverYooper]

If there was a stat for taking sacks because of holding the ball too long he'd lead there, too.

Srsly. He needs to throw the damn ball away more.

Agreed. JSO clocks him @6.46 seconds on the 3 & 5 sack when they had the ball on MN's 16 after the fumble.

Yea! Who does he think he is? Brett Favre.

:lol: I thought the same thing when I saw that time. Last game, we were so pissed about Favre getting 7 seconds to throw on one of his plays.

[LEWCWA]

If there was a stat for taking sacks because of holding the ball too long he'd lead there, too.

Srsly. He needs to throw the damn ball away more.

Agreed. JSO clocks him @6.46 seconds on the 3 & 5 sack when they had the ball on MN's 16 after the fumble.

See. I don't have a problem with that one. It's 3rd down. If he doesn't wait for something to open, what good does it do? He throws it away, and we kick the FG anyways. Sure, he holds the ball too long at times, but think of all of the big plays that he makes when he buys time or scrambles. You start harping on the sacks, then you take away a lot of the big plays. Of course, I hope he gets more alert on when it's a good time to throw it away and when it's a good time to try to let something develop.


If your talking about the fumble and sack in the first quarter. Rodgers had Jones wide open early and didn't take it. Then got sacked....piss poor!

[rbaloha1]

Big deal. The Packers are still 4-3 with a small chance of winning the division.

[BallHawk]

Big deal. The Packers are still 4-3 with a small chance of winning the division.

And I'm sure the Falcons and Texans both suck because they have a small chance of winning the division. :roll:

[Zool]

Yeah....losers. They should just forfeit the rest of the season.

[channtheman]

Yeah....losers. They should just forfeit the rest of the season.

Agreed. Wildcard? What?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Yeah....losers. They should just forfeit the rest of the season.

Brilliant! That leaves us plenty of time to ruminate on the Bucks!

[BallHawk]

Yeah....losers. They should just forfeit the rest of the season.

Brilliant! That leaves us plenty of time to ruminate on the Bucks!

We can have a Jennings vs. Jennings debate.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Yeah....losers. They should just forfeit the rest of the season.

Brilliant! That leaves us plenty of time to ruminate on the Bucks!

We can have a Jennings vs. Jennings debate.

Which first round pick has been the biggest disappointment?

Sub category: White big men, the Search for Nessie.

[MOBB DEEP]

Should sacks be figured into the QB Rating formula? Means SO much with regards to qb "performance"

[Smidgeon]

Should sacks be figured into the QB Rating formula? Means SO much with regards to qb "performance"

I think it's debatable that sacks mean SO much. With a horrible offensive line, how can a 2 second sack be indicative of anything the QB has done? Conversely, the QB already takes a hit for things in the rating that aren't his fault: dropped passes. At some point you have to let the formula be because it will never, ever be perfect.

[Zool]

Yeah....losers. They should just forfeit the rest of the season.

Brilliant! That leaves us plenty of time to ruminate on the Bucks!

We can have a Jennings vs. Jennings debate.

Which first round pick has been the biggest disappointment?

Sub category: White big men, the Search for Nessie.

How soft is Bogurt. News at 11.

[rbaloha1]

I just don't want Aaron to become a stat guy, leading in all these areas but not having won anything. We have too many of those quarterbacks. You have to win the big game.

Leroy Butler

[FritzDontBlitz]

I just don't want Aaron to become a stat guy, leading in all these areas but not having won anything. We have too many of those quarterbacks. You have to win the big game.

Leroy Butler

QFT.

Or, if you have no idea what QFT means....."Lynn Dickey."

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Yeah....losers. They should just forfeit the rest of the season.

Brilliant! That leaves us plenty of time to ruminate on the Bucks!

We can have a Jennings vs. Jennings debate.

Which first round pick has been the biggest disappointment?

Sub category: White big men, the Search for Nessie.

How soft is Bogurt. News at 11.

Macho Aussie. LOL

Stick to poker playing. Wussies.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I just don't want Aaron to become a stat guy, leading in all these areas but not having won anything. We have too many of those quarterbacks. You have to win the big game.

Leroy Butler

QFT.

Or, if you have no idea what QFT means....."Lynn Dickey."

Butler is an idiot.

The packers "have too many of those quarterbacks."

I don't know which org he has been following for the past 40 years, but we rarely had any QB putting up great stats, leading in all those areas, cept for Favre. But, he got us a SB, so we don't count him in Leroy's view.

If you count Dickey, then Arod would be the 2nd.

Blaming Dickey. LOL

Blaming Arod. LOL

Way to many variables for both teams to even try to assess and assign blame.

[Partial]

WSSP brought up an interesting topic tonight that I've not considered. If the Pack don't make the playoffs, ARods next huge game will against the Vikings next year. Can you even imagine the kind of questions that will be facing ARod and the Pack if they don't make the playoffs when they face those guys next year?

He absolutely has to beat Dallas.

I imagine Favre is back next year if they don't win the big one this year. What if Rodgers and the TT/MM regime went 0-4 against the man? That would make them look really, really inept.

[MichiganPackerFan]

A win against a quality team would go a long ways for confidence building

[Tyrone Bigguns]

WSSP brought up an interesting topic tonight that I've not considered. If the Pack don't make the playoffs, ARods next huge game will against the Vikings next year. Can you even imagine the kind of questions that will be facing ARod and the Pack if they don't make the playoffs when they face those guys next year?

He absolutely has to beat Dallas.

I imagine Favre is back next year if they don't win the big one this year. What if Rodgers and the TT/MM regime went 0-4 against the man? That would make them look really, really inept.

Imagine if Favre came back this year and beat the pack but didnt' win the SB. What a choke job. A fully loaded team. A team so great he felt that off season conditioning wasn't necessary. That training camp wasn't necessary. A team just a QB away from winning it.

That would really suck for Favre. How miserable would he be knowing that all he did was beat the pack. Cause he didn't come back to beat us or show up MM, TT, the assistant PR director, etc. He came back to win the SB.

Imagine the intense pressure Favre would face to actually be in shape. Imagine the intense pressure for Favre to attend OTAs. Imagine Favre actually attending a full training camp. Imagine knowing you have a limited window and you have to win. Lot of pressure, and imagine knowing that you have lost 2 SBs now, or that you failed to get the Vikes into the SB.

Imagine the viking vets and YOUNG guys Bert's commitment if he doesn't do these things.

Can you imagine the Vikes fan knowingly comment to themselves that beating the pack is all good, but that wasn't the reason they got favre. Ty is shivering in anticipation.

Wow. That would make him look pretty stupid and sad. Sullying a legacy to win a championship and then just being another old guy who hung on to long. Imagine that.

[g4orce]

Imagine if Favre came back this year and beat the pack but didnt' win the SB. What a choke job. A fully loaded team. A team so great he felt that off season conditioning wasn't necessary. That training camp wasn't necessary. A team just a QB away from winning it.

That would really suck for Favre. How miserable would he be knowing that all he did was beat the pack. Cause he didn't come back to beat us or show up MM, TT, the assistant PR director, etc. He came back to win the SB.

Imagine the intense pressure Favre would face to actually be in shape. Imagine the intense pressure for Favre to attend OTAs. Imagine Favre actually attending a full training camp. Imagine knowing you have a limited window and you have to win. Lot of pressure, and imagine knowing that you have lost 2 SBs now, or that you failed to get the Vikes into the SB.

Imagine the viking vets and YOUNG guys Bert's commitment if he doesn't do these things.

Can you imagine the Vikes fan knowingly comment to themselves that beating the pack is all good, but that wasn't the reason they got favre. Ty is shivering in anticipation.

Wow. That would make him look pretty stupid and sad. Sullying a legacy to win a championship and then just being another old guy who hung on to long. Imagine that.


:crazy: You really think Favres not back to win a Super Bowl? You're crazy man! Ya tearing up the Packers was a good motivator for him but his sole goal was/is winning the whole friggin thing and he's finally got a team thats capable of doing so.

[Smidgeon]

Imagine if Favre came back this year and beat the pack but didnt' win the SB. What a choke job. A fully loaded team. A team so great he felt that off season conditioning wasn't necessary. That training camp wasn't necessary. A team just a QB away from winning it.

That would really suck for Favre. How miserable would he be knowing that all he did was beat the pack. Cause he didn't come back to beat us or show up MM, TT, the assistant PR director, etc. He came back to win the SB.

Imagine the intense pressure Favre would face to actually be in shape. Imagine the intense pressure for Favre to attend OTAs. Imagine Favre actually attending a full training camp. Imagine knowing you have a limited window and you have to win. Lot of pressure, and imagine knowing that you have lost 2 SBs now, or that you failed to get the Vikes into the SB.

Imagine the viking vets and YOUNG guys Bert's commitment if he doesn't do these things.

Can you imagine the Vikes fan knowingly comment to themselves that beating the pack is all good, but that wasn't the reason they got favre. Ty is shivering in anticipation.

Wow. That would make him look pretty stupid and sad. Sullying a legacy to win a championship and then just being another old guy who hung on to long. Imagine that.


:crazy: You really think Favres not back to win a Super Bowl? You're crazy man! Ya tearing up the Packers was a good motivator for him but his sole goal was/is winning the whole friggin thing and he's finally got a team thats capable of doing so.

Which is why if he doesn't it will make the whole thing slightly (or more than slightly) comical.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Imagine if Favre came back this year and beat the pack but didnt' win the SB. What a choke job. A fully loaded team. A team so great he felt that off season conditioning wasn't necessary. That training camp wasn't necessary. A team just a QB away from winning it.

That would really suck for Favre. How miserable would he be knowing that all he did was beat the pack. Cause he didn't come back to beat us or show up MM, TT, the assistant PR director, etc. He came back to win the SB.

Imagine the intense pressure Favre would face to actually be in shape. Imagine the intense pressure for Favre to attend OTAs. Imagine Favre actually attending a full training camp. Imagine knowing you have a limited window and you have to win. Lot of pressure, and imagine knowing that you have lost 2 SBs now, or that you failed to get the Vikes into the SB.

Imagine the viking vets and YOUNG guys Bert's commitment if he doesn't do these things.

Can you imagine the Vikes fan knowingly comment to themselves that beating the pack is all good, but that wasn't the reason they got favre. Ty is shivering in anticipation.

Wow. That would make him look pretty stupid and sad. Sullying a legacy to win a championship and then just being another old guy who hung on to long. Imagine that.


:crazy: You really think Favres not back to win a Super Bowl? You're crazy man! Ya tearing up the Packers was a good motivator for him but his sole goal was/is winning the whole friggin thing and he's finally got a team thats capable of doing so.

Dude. I'm gonna be nice. Just read it again. This time, take some time, think about what i wrote, then feel free to post again.

You are in the big leagues now. You don't wanna strikeout 2x in a row. :wink:

[g4orce]

Imagine if Favre came back this year and beat the pack but didnt' win the SB. What a choke job. A fully loaded team. A team so great he felt that off season conditioning wasn't necessary. That training camp wasn't necessary. A team just a QB away from winning it.

That would really suck for Favre. How miserable would he be knowing that all he did was beat the pack. Cause he didn't come back to beat us or show up MM, TT, the assistant PR director, etc. He came back to win the SB.

Imagine the intense pressure Favre would face to actually be in shape. Imagine the intense pressure for Favre to attend OTAs. Imagine Favre actually attending a full training camp. Imagine knowing you have a limited window and you have to win. Lot of pressure, and imagine knowing that you have lost 2 SBs now, or that you failed to get the Vikes into the SB.

Imagine the viking vets and YOUNG guys Bert's commitment if he doesn't do these things.

Can you imagine the Vikes fan knowingly comment to themselves that beating the pack is all good, but that wasn't the reason they got favre. Ty is shivering in anticipation.

Wow. That would make him look pretty stupid and sad. Sullying a legacy to win a championship and then just being another old guy who hung on to long. Imagine that.


:crazy: You really think Favres not back to win a Super Bowl? You're crazy man! Ya tearing up the Packers was a good motivator for him but his sole goal was/is winning the whole friggin thing and he's finally got a team thats capable of doing so.

Dude. I'm gonna be nice. Just read it again. This time, take some time, think about what i wrote, then feel free to post again.

You are in the big leagues now. You don't wanna strikeout 2x in a row. :wink:

I guess I'm missing something. It just sounded as though u thought all he came back for was for 2 games, and I just don't believe that for a second.

[packerbacker1234]

Packers season isn't gone, but only two wins against teams that had winning records going into the game in the last 2 seasons isn't going to cut it. I am not sure on the texans situation: Maybe they have actually beaten teams that are worth a damn?

What I do know is... we haven't. Until we do, it's going to be hard to get a WC. I still want us to get it, but... We have to beat teams like the giants... dallas... don't we still have Pitt and the ravens too? The second half of this schedule is brutal, and chaulk full of playoff contenders. We have to beat not just one, but "many" teams that have winning records to get in.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

:crazy: You really think Favres not back to win a Super Bowl? You're crazy man! Ya tearing up the Packers was a good motivator for him but his sole goal was/is winning the whole friggin thing and he's finally got a team thats capable of doing so.


Dude. I'm gonna be nice. Just read it again. This time, take some time, think about what i wrote, then feel free to post again.

You are in the big leagues now. You don't wanna strikeout 2x in a row. :wink:


I guess I'm missing something. It just sounded as though u thought all he came back for was for 2 games, and I just don't believe that for a second.

How old are you?


That would really suck for Favre. How miserable would he be knowing that all he did was beat the pack. Cause he didn't come back to beat us or show up MM, TT, the assistant PR director, etc. He came back to win the SB.

Which part of this paragraph confuses you?

[Brandon494]

Should sacks be figured into the QB Rating formula? Means SO much with regards to qb "performance"

No because its not the QB's job to protect himself.

[Smidgeon]

Should sacks be figured into the QB Rating formula? Means SO much with regards to qb "performance"

No because its not the QB's job to protect himself.

By that same vein, it's not the QB's job to catch the ball, but WR drops are still factored as incompletions.

[mraynrand]

Should sacks be figured into the QB Rating formula? Means SO much with regards to qb "performance"

No because its not the QB's job to protect himself.

QBs can contribute mightily to sacks. Ever watch Rob Johnson play. Simple common sense should tell you this if you haven't watched enough football to know it from experience. Rodgers has contributed to many of his sacks. McCarthy has said so.

[Brandon494]

Should sacks be figured into the QB Rating formula? Means SO much with regards to qb "performance"

No because its not the QB's job to protect himself.

QBs can contribute mightily to sacks. Ever watch Rob Johnson play. Simple common sense should tell you this if you haven't watched enough football to know it from experience. Rodgers has contributed to many of his sacks. McCarthy has said so.

I understand that, my point is its no way to make pocket awareness a stat.

[SnakeLH2006]

:shock:

He also has the lead in 40+ pass plays, and in sacks :(

Crazy! Drew Brees can pass him tonight with a big game vs. the Falcons, but... :shock:

I was actually looking at the stats on nfl/espn to get his splits because I was originally going to write a post about a new plan:

Someone needs to make Aaron Rodgers believe they're already behind and he needs to catch up every time he gets on the field, especially in big games. He seems more decisive and gets the ball out faster when he just needs to score.

ESPN splits has:
BY PT DIFF CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT ATT YDS AVG LNG TD
Ahead 48 74 709 64.9 9.58 71 5 1 8.0 113.0 15 64 4.3 19 1
Behind 64 97 885 66.0 9.12 62 8 0 14.0 122.6 10 105 10.5 35 0
Tied 35 54 395 64.8 7.32 47 1 1 9.0 85.0 4 19 4.8 15 0

I could give a fuck when QB rating doesn't take into effect throwing it out of bounds (incompletion percentage), sacks just killing drives (2nd and 20, 3rd and 18 anyone)?

Stats don't mean shit.....look at Carson Palmer. I saw all I needed to see with a 40 year old last week getting the ball off without taking sacks to keep drives alive. They need to redo that QB rating as Arod looks like David Carr back there flopping all over the field killing drive after drive. Any doubt why Favre won all those games. In 2004 (Brett had 14 sacks all season....in 2 games vs. the Vikes in 2009, Arod eclipsed that and lost both games).....Just sayin.

[mraynrand]

Should sacks be figured into the QB Rating formula? Means SO much with regards to qb "performance"

No because its not the QB's job to protect himself.

QBs can contribute mightily to sacks. Ever watch Rob Johnson play. Simple common sense should tell you this if you haven't watched enough football to know it from experience. Rodgers has contributed to many of his sacks. McCarthy has said so.

I understand that, my point is its no way to make pocket awareness a stat.

I get your point. Sorry for the shitty post. Reading it back, I sound like a total asshole. sorry about that.

[Partial]

Give me a winner over a statistician any day.

[mraynrand]

Give me a winner over a statistician any day.

How about a winner who is a statistician? Give me a guy who can figure out linear regressions and which fucking student t test to use over a fullback dive any day.

[Partial]

Give me a winner over a statistician any day.

How about a winner who is a statistician? Give me a guy who can figure out linear regressions and which fucking student t test to use over a fullback dive any day.

Your ray is no match...

Aaron is okay but he's not great. He has the physical tools but he isn't special or rare. He can be a good player with elite talent surrounding him. He's about the 10th best quarteback in the NFL according to my asssessment (which admittedly isn't as informed as I'd like it to be as I'm not .

[Gunakor]

Stats don't mean shit.....look at Carson Palmer. I saw all I needed to see with a 40 year old last week getting the ball off without taking sacks to keep drives alive. They need to redo that QB rating as Arod looks like David Carr back there flopping all over the field killing drive after drive. Any doubt why Favre won all those games. In 2004 (Brett had 14 sacks all season....in 2 games vs. the Vikes in 2009, Arod eclipsed that and lost both games).....Just sayin.

If Rodgers is killing drive after drive, why do the Packers have a top 10 offense, averaging 370+ yards of offense per game? Why was he voted player of the month for October? Why is he 11th in completion percentage and top 10 in pretty much every other catagory? Why are the Packers the 8th best scoring team in the NFL?

And why, if Aaron Rodgers looks so much like David Carr, why couldn't Carr do any of these things for the Texans?

[Partial]

Stats don't mean shit.....look at Carson Palmer. I saw all I needed to see with a 40 year old last week getting the ball off without taking sacks to keep drives alive. They need to redo that QB rating as Arod looks like David Carr back there flopping all over the field killing drive after drive. Any doubt why Favre won all those games. In 2004 (Brett had 14 sacks all season....in 2 games vs. the Vikes in 2009, Arod eclipsed that and lost both games).....Just sayin.

If Rodgers is killing drive after drive, why do the Packers have a top 10 offense, averaging 370+ yards of offense per game? Why was he voted player of the month for October? Why is he 11th in completion percentage and top 10 in pretty much every other catagory? Why are the Packers the 8th best scoring offense in the NFL?

And why, if Aaron Rodgers looks so much like David Carr, why couldn't Carr do any of these things for the Texans?

Lack of talent surrounding him.

I'm not saying Rodgers is Carr, he's much betetr, but lets get real here, he's not an elite QB. Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit. At the end of the day I don't give a flying fudge how spectacular my QB is between the 20s. I want a guy who is unafraid to penentrate.

[SnakeLH2006]

I want a guy who is unafraid to penentrate.

Homo.

[Gunakor]

Stats don't mean shit.....look at Carson Palmer. I saw all I needed to see with a 40 year old last week getting the ball off without taking sacks to keep drives alive. They need to redo that QB rating as Arod looks like David Carr back there flopping all over the field killing drive after drive. Any doubt why Favre won all those games. In 2004 (Brett had 14 sacks all season....in 2 games vs. the Vikes in 2009, Arod eclipsed that and lost both games).....Just sayin.

If Rodgers is killing drive after drive, why do the Packers have a top 10 offense, averaging 370+ yards of offense per game? Why was he voted player of the month for October? Why is he 11th in completion percentage and top 10 in pretty much every other catagory? Why are the Packers the 8th best scoring offense in the NFL?

And why, if Aaron Rodgers looks so much like David Carr, why couldn't Carr do any of these things for the Texans?

Lack of talent surrounding him.

I'm not saying Rodgers is Carr, he's much betetr, but lets get real here, he's not an elite QB. Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit. At the end of the day I don't give a flying fudge how spectacular my QB is between the 20s. I want a guy who is unafraid to penentrate.

And we are 4-3, only having been beat by 2 teams this year. We are 2nd place in the division, one game out of a wild card spot. We're winning. We just got beat twice by a superior football team in Minnesota. We aren't the best football team in the division, but that's not Rodgers' fault. In fact, I'd say it's to Rodgers' credit that we've scored as many points as we have. Maybe if there was a better team surrounding Rodgers - specifically in front of Rodgers and behind Rodgers as they line up in formation - maybe we'd be winning more games. But it's not like we're losing to teams we should be beating.

Since wins and losses are the only stat to judge a quarterback's eliteness on, how many games do the Packers have to win in one season for Rodgers to be considered an elite quarterback? 10? 13? 16? Please put a number on it so I can understand what it takes to be elite.

[Partial]

Stats don't mean shit.....look at Carson Palmer. I saw all I needed to see with a 40 year old last week getting the ball off without taking sacks to keep drives alive. They need to redo that QB rating as Arod looks like David Carr back there flopping all over the field killing drive after drive. Any doubt why Favre won all those games. In 2004 (Brett had 14 sacks all season....in 2 games vs. the Vikes in 2009, Arod eclipsed that and lost both games).....Just sayin.

If Rodgers is killing drive after drive, why do the Packers have a top 10 offense, averaging 370+ yards of offense per game? Why was he voted player of the month for October? Why is he 11th in completion percentage and top 10 in pretty much every other catagory? Why are the Packers the 8th best scoring offense in the NFL?

And why, if Aaron Rodgers looks so much like David Carr, why couldn't Carr do any of these things for the Texans?

Lack of talent surrounding him.

I'm not saying Rodgers is Carr, he's much betetr, but lets get real here, he's not an elite QB. Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit. At the end of the day I don't give a flying fudge how spectacular my QB is between the 20s. I want a guy who is unafraid to penentrate.

And we are 4-3, only having been beat by 2 teams this year. We are 2nd place in the division, one game out of a wild card spot. We're winning. We just got beat twice by a superior football team in Minnesota. We aren't the best football team in the division, but that's not Rodgers' fault. In fact, I'd say it's to Rodgers' credit that we've scored as many points as we have. Maybe if there was a better team surrounding Rodgers - specifically in front of Rodgers and behind Rodgers as they line up in formation - maybe we'd be winning more games. But it's not like we're losing to teams we should be beating.

Since wins and losses are the only stat to judge a quarterback's eliteness on, how many games do the Packers have to win in one season for Rodgers to be considered an elite quarterback? 10? 13? 16? Please put a number on it so I can understand what it takes to be elite.

With Peyton Manning this team is undefeated imo. With Favre this team is undefeated imo. With Rodgers we're barely above .500.

Can you argue with this reasonably? You think TJack would burn us like Favre? I do not. You think with Favre we lose to the Bengals? I do not.

[SnakeLH2006]

He's no Kerry Collins. :shock: :lol:

[Gunakor]

Stats don't mean shit.....look at Carson Palmer. I saw all I needed to see with a 40 year old last week getting the ball off without taking sacks to keep drives alive. They need to redo that QB rating as Arod looks like David Carr back there flopping all over the field killing drive after drive. Any doubt why Favre won all those games. In 2004 (Brett had 14 sacks all season....in 2 games vs. the Vikes in 2009, Arod eclipsed that and lost both games).....Just sayin.

If Rodgers is killing drive after drive, why do the Packers have a top 10 offense, averaging 370+ yards of offense per game? Why was he voted player of the month for October? Why is he 11th in completion percentage and top 10 in pretty much every other catagory? Why are the Packers the 8th best scoring offense in the NFL?

And why, if Aaron Rodgers looks so much like David Carr, why couldn't Carr do any of these things for the Texans?

Lack of talent surrounding him.

I'm not saying Rodgers is Carr, he's much betetr, but lets get real here, he's not an elite QB. Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit. At the end of the day I don't give a flying fudge how spectacular my QB is between the 20s. I want a guy who is unafraid to penentrate.

And we are 4-3, only having been beat by 2 teams this year. We are 2nd place in the division, one game out of a wild card spot. We're winning. We just got beat twice by a superior football team in Minnesota. We aren't the best football team in the division, but that's not Rodgers' fault. In fact, I'd say it's to Rodgers' credit that we've scored as many points as we have. Maybe if there was a better team surrounding Rodgers - specifically in front of Rodgers and behind Rodgers as they line up in formation - maybe we'd be winning more games. But it's not like we're losing to teams we should be beating.

Since wins and losses are the only stat to judge a quarterback's eliteness on, how many games do the Packers have to win in one season for Rodgers to be considered an elite quarterback? 10? 13? 16? Please put a number on it so I can understand what it takes to be elite.

With Peyton Manning this team is undefeated imo. With Favre this team is undefeated imo. With Rodgers we're barely above .500.

Can you argue with this reasonably? You think TJack would burn us like Favre? I do not. You think with Favre we lose to the Bengals? I do not.

Here's what I think. I think if Rodgers were the QB for the Vikings they'd have beaten us twice, same as what happened with Favre being the QB for the Vikings. And the Vikings would be no worse off than they are now at 6-1. I think Rodgers is every bit as capable of winning on teams like the Colts and the Vikings as Favre and Manning are. I'm not sure how much more capable either would be on our team, but undefeated is more than a stretch. This isn't a 7-0 team no matter who the quarterback is.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question. How many games must our TEAM win in order for Rodgers to be considered elite? What's that magic number?

[gex]

Packers season isn't gone, but only two wins against teams that had winning records going into the game in the last 2 seasons isn't going to cut it. I am not sure on the texans situation: Maybe they have actually beaten teams that are worth a damn?

What I do know is... we haven't. Until we do, it's going to be hard to get a WC. I still want us to get it, but... We have to beat teams like the giants... dallas... don't we still have Pitt and the ravens too? The second half of this schedule is brutal, and chaulk full of playoff contenders. We have to beat not just one, but "many" teams that have winning records to get in.

Is this true? How many teams with winning records has this TT squad really beaten in the last 2 years? :shock:

[Smidgeon]

Aaron is okay but he's not great. He has the physical tools but he isn't special or rare.
He's about the 10th best quarterback in the NFL according to my assessment.
Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit.How do you know these things? Is it because of the wins/losses record? Your ability as a scout to sift through hours upon hours of film and games to accurately judge a QB in the midst of an entire team?

I'm assuming the scout thing because it certainly can't be by record. The following is a list of some of the greatest QBs ever, as well as some are still playing that would likely be on your list (plus Aaron Rodgers at the end for comparison). This list has their first year of starting more than one game and their record during that year:

Johnny Unitas (1956) - 3-4
Sonny Jurgensen (1957) - 2-3
Bart Starr (1957) - 3-8
Fran Tarkenton (1961) - 2-8
Len Dawson (1962) - 11-3
Roman Gabriel (1962) - 0-3-1
Joe Namath (1965) - 3-5-1
Bob Griese (1967) - 3-7
Roger Staubach (1970) - 2-1
Terry Bradshaw (1970) - 3-5
Ken Anderson (1971) - 0-4
Dan Fouts (1973) - 0-5-1
Joe Montana (1980) - 2-5
Dan Marino (1983) - 7-2
John Elway (1983) - 4-6
Warren Moon (1984) - 3-13
Steve Young (1986) - 1-4
Jim Kelly (1986) - 4-12
Troy Aikman (1989) - 0-11
Brett Favre (1992) - 8-5
Peyton Manning (1998) - 3-13
Tom Brady (2001) - 11-3
Drew Brees (2002) - 8-8
Aaron Rodgers (2008) - 6-10

A couple of notes:
* Only 5 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their first year (Dawson, Staubach, Marino, Favre, Brady).
* Only 12 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their second year (not shown).
* Only 4 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their first two years (Dawson was the odd one out).
* 11 of the 24 QBs didn't have a record above .500 in either of their first two years.

So I'm desperately hoping that when you say "he isn't special or rare" that you're referring to your ability as a scout to dissect a players ability and accurately place that ability within the modern realm of the sport in terms of capably leading a team in the future. Because it couldn't be his stats (which are historically high for a first year/second year starter), and it certainly couldn't be his winning record. Because if it were his winning record, by your estimation, it sounds like you'd also be ready to move on from players like Bart Starr, Fran Tarkenton, Joe Namath, Bob Griese, Terry Bradshaw, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Steve Young, Jim Kelly, and Troy Aikman, 10 of the 11 QBs who didn't have a winning record in either of their first two years (I'm leaving out Brees because his career isn't complete).

Among those 10, you have:
* 10 HOFers
* 16 NFL championships (including 3 pre-Super Bowl by Starr)
* 6 Super Bowl MVPs
* 26 Pro Bowl appearances
* 6 AFL All Star appearances (by Namath and Griese)
* the only player to be in both the NFL HOF and the Canadian HOF (Moon)
* the only QB to guide his team to 4 consecutive Super Bowls (Kelly)

**EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot to mention: all the above QBs played in the era where it was still okay to mug the WR on every play.**

I'm not saying at all that Aaron Rodgers is at their level. Not one bit. All I'm saying is that you can't judge a QB based on his first couple years starting. You have to judge him based on his career.

P.S. Your boy, Peyton Manning? 3-13 his first year as a starting. You would have run him out of town so fast he wouldn't have had a chance to pack his bags.

[Partial]

Stats don't mean shit.....look at Carson Palmer. I saw all I needed to see with a 40 year old last week getting the ball off without taking sacks to keep drives alive. They need to redo that QB rating as Arod looks like David Carr back there flopping all over the field killing drive after drive. Any doubt why Favre won all those games. In 2004 (Brett had 14 sacks all season....in 2 games vs. the Vikes in 2009, Arod eclipsed that and lost both games).....Just sayin.

If Rodgers is killing drive after drive, why do the Packers have a top 10 offense, averaging 370+ yards of offense per game? Why was he voted player of the month for October? Why is he 11th in completion percentage and top 10 in pretty much every other catagory? Why are the Packers the 8th best scoring offense in the NFL?

And why, if Aaron Rodgers looks so much like David Carr, why couldn't Carr do any of these things for the Texans?

Lack of talent surrounding him.

I'm not saying Rodgers is Carr, he's much betetr, but lets get real here, he's not an elite QB. Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit. At the end of the day I don't give a flying fudge how spectacular my QB is between the 20s. I want a guy who is unafraid to penentrate.

And we are 4-3, only having been beat by 2 teams this year. We are 2nd place in the division, one game out of a wild card spot. We're winning. We just got beat twice by a superior football team in Minnesota. We aren't the best football team in the division, but that's not Rodgers' fault. In fact, I'd say it's to Rodgers' credit that we've scored as many points as we have. Maybe if there was a better team surrounding Rodgers - specifically in front of Rodgers and behind Rodgers as they line up in formation - maybe we'd be winning more games. But it's not like we're losing to teams we should be beating.

Since wins and losses are the only stat to judge a quarterback's eliteness on, how many games do the Packers have to win in one season for Rodgers to be considered an elite quarterback? 10? 13? 16? Please put a number on it so I can understand what it takes to be elite.

With Peyton Manning this team is undefeated imo. With Favre this team is undefeated imo. With Rodgers we're barely above .500.

Can you argue with this reasonably? You think TJack would burn us like Favre? I do not. You think with Favre we lose to the Bengals? I do not.

Here's what I think. I think if Rodgers were the QB for the Vikings they'd have beaten us twice, same as what happened with Favre being the QB for the Vikings. And the Vikings would be no worse off than they are now at 6-1. I think Rodgers is every bit as capable of winning on teams like the Colts and the Vikings as Favre and Manning are. I'm not sure how much more capable either would be on our team, but undefeated is more than a stretch. This isn't a 7-0 team no matter who the quarterback is.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question. How many games must our TEAM win in order for Rodgers to be considered elite? What's that magic number?

There isn't a specific magic number but do you really think our team is elite? Our team is average. See their record, for example. They haven't a single quality win imo. Chicago might qualify but lets face it Cutler gave that game away.

Smidgeon, very tough to compare differene eras, etc. Manning is a good example. His was picked number one and started immediately for the worst team in the NFL. Rodgers inherited a team coming off an NFC title game with basically the entire cast back together. Unfair comparison. Manning took that team from 3-13 to 13-3 in the second year if I remember correctly. Edge certainly helped. Rodgers has more talent on the team and has not done that.

He's a fine QB but he isn't a winner in my opinion. This team is built to win now and the window is already starting to close. You cannot honestly tell me that you think TT and MM are happy with the way things are going and how competitive the team is, can you?

It's obviously not all Rodgers but he certainly isn't helping. He was fine in the second half against the Vikes but terrible in the first. Why? He is the reason why they were in such a huge hole. Then, when we started to dig them out of the hole he created, he ended up losing the game by coming up short and having to settle for a long field goal.

This is a results driven industry and while ARod has all the physical and leadership skills you want, he needs to start converting some of that to wins.

[Smidgeon]

It is results driven. I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is that you can't assume what a QB is until he's been doing it for several years. Not a year and a half. Several. Even the greatest QBs ever couldn't get it done in the first couple years.

And yes, our team, specifically the OL, is terrible in places. You can't blame those places on AR. You have to give him time.

[Partial]

It is results driven. I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is that you can't assume what a QB is until he's been doing it for several years. Not a year and a half. Several. Even the greatest QBs ever couldn't get it done in the first couple years.

And yes, our team, specifically the OL, is terrible in places. You can't blame those places on AR. You have to give him time.

The OL isn't that bad. They're bad, sure, but Rodgers had a lot of time on many of those sacks last week and in prior weeks. His limitations towards feeling and avoiding pressure of one of the reasons he is not elite.

[Chevelle2]

According to Partial, Kerry Collins was the best QB in 2008.

[Partial]

According to Partial, Kerry Collins was the best QB in 2008.

Peyton Manning.

[Brandon494]

Every game we have lost the defense has given up atleast 30 points, AR is not the problem. He does get alittle too greedy at times and looks for the big play instead of dumping it off but that will come along with experience. Aaron Rodgers might not have a winning record as a starter but he is no doubt our MVP.

[Partial]

Every game we have lost the defense has given up atleast 30 points, AR is not the problem. He does get alittle too greedy at times and looks for the big play instead of dumping it off but that will come along with experience. Aaron Rodgers might not have a winning record as a starter but he is no doubt our MVP.

Blaming the D... D can't be on the field the entire first half against Minne 'cause the O can't get it going.

D is fine. Not great or even good on third down, but they're solid against the run. Rod set them up for failure in the first half big time.

[Brandon494]

Every game we have lost the defense has given up atleast 30 points, AR is not the problem. He does get alittle too greedy at times and looks for the big play instead of dumping it off but that will come along with experience. Aaron Rodgers might not have a winning record as a starter but he is no doubt our MVP.

Blaming the D... D can't be on the field the entire first half against Minne 'cause the O can't get it going.

D is fine. Not great or even good on third down, but they're solid against the run. Rod set them up for failure in the first half big time.

You can blame AR all you want but they also couldnt stop them in the 2nd half in which they scored more points.

[Smidgeon]

Rodgers inherited a team coming off an NFC title game with basically the entire cast back together.

You're saying that almost as if the same team didn't go 8-8 the year before that or 4-12 the year before that.


Rodgers has more talent on the team and has not done that.

A team full of talent? Talent, yes. Ability to consistently display that talent? Certainly not. 2007 was full of games that were being won that always felt like the right things went right at the right time. Special teams won our first game, which was ugly. Mike Sherman undermined the talent of the team, and it's taken TT five years to restore that. Now the experience needs to kick in. QBs don't just come on the scene and be absolutely amazing from day 1.

As for comparing across eras, yes you can. You're talking about winning. Winning is the same in every era. They haven't changed the rules about winning. You still have to have more points than the other team when time runs out. I get the feeling that if you would have cut every single one of those Hall of Famers that didn't have a winning victory either of their first two years. Favre barely had winning seasons. He was 8-5 and 9-7 his first two seasons starting. What I found when I looked at these records is typically the third year is when the record follows. So I'm going to reserve judgment on him until the end of next year. Whether or not you do the same is up to you, but in my opinion it's way too early to even try to come to a conclusion.


The OL isn't that bad. They're bad, sure, but Rodgers had a lot of time on many of those sacks last week and in prior weeks. His limitations towards feeling and avoiding pressure of one of the reasons he is not elite.

The OL is bad. Favre had a lot of time on his throws too, but his OL kept him clean. How bad is our OL? It made a superstar out of the Bengal's Odom and was getting beat cleanly by the first 0-16 team in NFL's history's third string DL. Maybe they have the talent, but between injuries and inexperience, they just haven't used that talent consistently. Until they use that talent consistently, they will continue to be a bad OL.

[Partial]

CAPS...



Rodgers inherited a team coming off an NFC title game with basically the entire cast back together.

You're saying that almost as if the same team didn't go 8-8 the year before that or 4-12 the year before that.

WHAT IS SO UNEXPECTED ABOUT THAT? THIS IS ESSENTIALLY LINEAR PROGRESSION AS THE PLAYERS DRAFTED GREATLY IMPROVED..


Rodgers has more talent on the team and has not done that.

A team full of talent? Talent, yes. Ability to consistently display that talent? Certainly not.

I AGREE WITH THIS.

2007 was full of games that were being won that always felt like the right things went right at the right time. Special teams won our first game, which was ugly.

THATS ONE GAME. I AGREE THAT EARLIER IN THE YEAR THINGS WERE LIKE THIS. I FEEL LIKE HALF WAY THROUGH THE YEAR THINGS WERE GOING INCREDIBLY SMOOTHLY AND WE WERE REALLY ROLLING. A GAME OR TWO MIGHT BE DETERMINED ON LUCK AND CHANCE, NOT WEEK AFTER WEEK. THEY WERE A VERY GOOD TEAM.

Mike Sherman undermined the talent of the team, and it's taken TT five years to restore that. Now the experience needs to kick in. QBs don't just come on the scene and be absolutely amazing from day 1.

I AGREE. THIS IS RODGERS 5TH YEAR. HOW MANY MORE YEARS DOES HE GET A FREE PASS?

As for comparing across eras, yes you can. You're talking about winning. Winning is the same in every era. They haven't changed the rules about winning. You still have to have more points than the other team when time runs out. I get the feeling that if you would have cut every single one of those Hall of Famers that didn't have a winning victory either of their first two years. Favre barely had winning seasons. He was 8-5 and 9-7 his first two seasons starting. What I found when I looked at these records is typically the third year is when the record follows. So I'm going to reserve judgment on him until the end of next year. Whether or not you do the same is up to you, but in my opinion it's way too early to even try to come to a conclusion.

CAN'T COMPARE EVEN WINNING. LESS TEAMS BACK IN THE DAY. LESS ATHLETES. RACIAL ISSUES, ETC.


The OL isn't that bad. They're bad, sure, but Rodgers had a lot of time on many of those sacks last week and in prior weeks. His limitations towards feeling and avoiding pressure of one of the reasons he is not elite.

The OL is bad. Favre had a lot of time on his throws too, but his OL kept him clean. How bad is our OL? It made a superstar out of the Bengal's Odom and was getting beat cleanly by the first 0-16 team in NFL's history's third string DL. Maybe they have the talent, but between injuries and inexperience, they just haven't used that talent consistently. Until they use that talent consistently, they will continue to be a bad OL.

I AGREE THE OL IS BAD, BUT WHEN PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA/FORMER PLAYERS KEEP SAYING THAT RODGERS HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR HALF TO TWO THIRDS OF THE SACKS, HE IS PART OF THE PROBLEM TOO. M3 EVEN ALLUDED TO THAT RODGERS WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR A GOOD AMOUNT OF THE PRESSURE.

IT'S NOT AS BAD AS PEOPLE THINK IN MY OPINION.

[Partial]

[You can blame AR all you want but they also couldnt stop them in the 2nd half in which they scored more points.

Harmonic synergy. The system is set-up for success when everyone does their job. If the O can't stay on the field in the first half, what are the odds the D is going to have success in the second half. Unless they're an exceptional team, which most teams aren't, I don't think they're going to be successful.

I'm a believer that a lot of the good defenses do not have elite talent on their D. The O contributes a lot to the Ds success in my opinion. Just my opinion.

[3irty1]

Putting the blame on Rodgers is ridiculous. Yes he takes sacks, but he doesn't lose games. There are a lot of players on offense that are losing their battles including units that used to be elite like the WR corps. Better QBs than Rodgers have done much worse. Wins don't tell the story.

[mraynrand]

The best thing about Rodgers is that, even though he is playing extremely well, he can get much better. He is playing far better than Favre was at a comparable time in his career (starts). Rodgers will get quicker at the reads and the sky's the limit. Give him a more solid line and, as Retail will tell you, all his problems will disappear. Can't argue with that: bedtter line + more experience - injuries = HOF Rodgers.

[The Leaper]

Rodgers is the guy we build around going forward. He has the talent to be a top 5 QB in the league for the next 10+ years. Ted just has to go out and acquire a running game and OL that can compliment him.

[BZnDallas]

Rodgers is the guy we build around going forward. He has the talent to be a top 5 QB in the league for the next 10+ years. Ted just has to go out and acquire a running game and OL that can compliment him.



:bclap:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Aaron is okay but he's not great. He has the physical tools but he isn't special or rare.
He's about the 10th best quarterback in the NFL according to my assessment.
Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit.How do you know these things? Is it because of the wins/losses record? Your ability as a scout to sift through hours upon hours of film and games to accurately judge a QB in the midst of an entire team?

I'm assuming the scout thing because it certainly can't be by record. The following is a list of some of the greatest QBs ever, as well as some are still playing that would likely be on your list (plus Aaron Rodgers at the end for comparison). This list has their first year of starting more than one game and their record during that year:

Johnny Unitas (1956) - 3-4
Sonny Jurgensen (1957) - 2-3
Bart Starr (1957) - 3-8
Fran Tarkenton (1961) - 2-8
Len Dawson (1962) - 11-3
Roman Gabriel (1962) - 0-3-1
Joe Namath (1965) - 3-5-1
Bob Griese (1967) - 3-7
Roger Staubach (1970) - 2-1
Terry Bradshaw (1970) - 3-5
Ken Anderson (1971) - 0-4
Dan Fouts (1973) - 0-5-1
Joe Montana (1980) - 2-5
Dan Marino (1983) - 7-2
John Elway (1983) - 4-6
Warren Moon (1984) - 3-13
Steve Young (1986) - 1-4
Jim Kelly (1986) - 4-12
Troy Aikman (1989) - 0-11
Brett Favre (1992) - 8-5
Peyton Manning (1998) - 3-13
Tom Brady (2001) - 11-3
Drew Brees (2002) - 8-8
Aaron Rodgers (2008) - 6-10

A couple of notes:
* Only 5 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their first year (Dawson, Staubach, Marino, Favre, Brady).
* Only 12 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their second year (not shown).
* Only 4 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their first two years (Dawson was the odd one out).
* 11 of the 24 QBs didn't have a record above .500 in either of their first two years.

So I'm desperately hoping that when you say "he isn't special or rare" that you're referring to your ability as a scout to dissect a players ability and accurately place that ability within the modern realm of the sport in terms of capably leading a team in the future. Because it couldn't be his stats (which are historically high for a first year/second year starter), and it certainly couldn't be his winning record. Because if it were his winning record, by your estimation, it sounds like you'd also be ready to move on from players like Bart Starr, Fran Tarkenton, Joe Namath, Bob Griese, Terry Bradshaw, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Steve Young, Jim Kelly, and Troy Aikman, 10 of the 11 QBs who didn't have a winning record in either of their first two years (I'm leaving out Brees because his career isn't complete).

Among those 10, you have:
* 10 HOFers
* 16 NFL championships (including 3 pre-Super Bowl by Starr)
* 6 Super Bowl MVPs
* 26 Pro Bowl appearances
* 6 AFL All Star appearances (by Namath and Griese)
* the only player to be in both the NFL HOF and the Canadian HOF (Moon)
* the only QB to guide his team to 4 consecutive Super Bowls (Kelly)

**EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot to mention: all the above QBs played in the era where it was still okay to mug the WR on every play.**

I'm not saying at all that Aaron Rodgers is at their level. Not one bit. All I'm saying is that you can't judge a QB based on his first couple years starting. You have to judge him based on his career.

P.S. Your boy, Peyton Manning? 3-13 his first year as a starting. You would have run him out of town so fast he wouldn't have had a chance to pack his bags.

Great post. Ty was worried a bit after the Chambers debacle. But, you clearly spent some time and COMPLETELY redeemed yourself.

Now, unfortunately, none of this matters, as Partial will just find another reason to dismiss FACTS

Edit: Well, i say your post and responded. Boom, next page..there is partial in all his glorious ridiculousness. The different era theory. The racial theory. Difficult to compare theory.

It was just so predictable.

[Scott Campbell]

Aaron is okay but he's not great. He has the physical tools but he isn't special or rare.
He's about the 10th best quarterback in the NFL according to my assessment.
Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit.How do you know these things? Is it because of the wins/losses record? Your ability as a scout to sift through hours upon hours of film and games to accurately judge a QB in the midst of an entire team?

I'm assuming the scout thing because it certainly can't be by record. The following is a list of some of the greatest QBs ever, as well as some are still playing that would likely be on your list (plus Aaron Rodgers at the end for comparison). This list has their first year of starting more than one game and their record during that year:

Johnny Unitas (1956) - 3-4
Sonny Jurgensen (1957) - 2-3
Bart Starr (1957) - 3-8
Fran Tarkenton (1961) - 2-8
Len Dawson (1962) - 11-3
Roman Gabriel (1962) - 0-3-1
Joe Namath (1965) - 3-5-1
Bob Griese (1967) - 3-7
Roger Staubach (1970) - 2-1
Terry Bradshaw (1970) - 3-5
Ken Anderson (1971) - 0-4
Dan Fouts (1973) - 0-5-1
Joe Montana (1980) - 2-5
Dan Marino (1983) - 7-2
John Elway (1983) - 4-6
Warren Moon (1984) - 3-13
Steve Young (1986) - 1-4
Jim Kelly (1986) - 4-12
Troy Aikman (1989) - 0-11
Brett Favre (1992) - 8-5
Peyton Manning (1998) - 3-13
Tom Brady (2001) - 11-3
Drew Brees (2002) - 8-8
Aaron Rodgers (2008) - 6-10

A couple of notes:
* Only 5 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their first year (Dawson, Staubach, Marino, Favre, Brady).
* Only 12 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their second year (not shown).
* Only 4 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their first two years (Dawson was the odd one out).
* 11 of the 24 QBs didn't have a record above .500 in either of their first two years.

So I'm desperately hoping that when you say "he isn't special or rare" that you're referring to your ability as a scout to dissect a players ability and accurately place that ability within the modern realm of the sport in terms of capably leading a team in the future. Because it couldn't be his stats (which are historically high for a first year/second year starter), and it certainly couldn't be his winning record. Because if it were his winning record, by your estimation, it sounds like you'd also be ready to move on from players like Bart Starr, Fran Tarkenton, Joe Namath, Bob Griese, Terry Bradshaw, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Steve Young, Jim Kelly, and Troy Aikman, 10 of the 11 QBs who didn't have a winning record in either of their first two years (I'm leaving out Brees because his career isn't complete).

Among those 10, you have:
* 10 HOFers
* 16 NFL championships (including 3 pre-Super Bowl by Starr)
* 6 Super Bowl MVPs
* 26 Pro Bowl appearances
* 6 AFL All Star appearances (by Namath and Griese)
* the only player to be in both the NFL HOF and the Canadian HOF (Moon)
* the only QB to guide his team to 4 consecutive Super Bowls (Kelly)

**EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot to mention: all the above QBs played in the era where it was still okay to mug the WR on every play.**

I'm not saying at all that Aaron Rodgers is at their level. Not one bit. All I'm saying is that you can't judge a QB based on his first couple years starting. You have to judge him based on his career.

P.S. Your boy, Peyton Manning? 3-13 his first year as a starting. You would have run him out of town so fast he wouldn't have had a chance to pack his bags.



Ridiculously outstanding post. :bclap:

[bobblehead]

Stats don't mean shit.....look at Carson Palmer. I saw all I needed to see with a 40 year old last week getting the ball off without taking sacks to keep drives alive. They need to redo that QB rating as Arod looks like David Carr back there flopping all over the field killing drive after drive. Any doubt why Favre won all those games. In 2004 (Brett had 14 sacks all season....in 2 games vs. the Vikes in 2009, Arod eclipsed that and lost both games).....Just sayin.

If Rodgers is killing drive after drive, why do the Packers have a top 10 offense, averaging 370+ yards of offense per game? Why was he voted player of the month for October? Why is he 11th in completion percentage and top 10 in pretty much every other catagory? Why are the Packers the 8th best scoring offense in the NFL?

And why, if Aaron Rodgers looks so much like David Carr, why couldn't Carr do any of these things for the Texans?

Lack of talent surrounding him.

I'm not saying Rodgers is Carr, he's much betetr, but lets get real here, he's not an elite QB. Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit. At the end of the day I don't give a flying fudge how spectacular my QB is between the 20s. I want a guy who is unafraid to penentrate.

Go Look at ARods red zone numbers for last season and compare them to ANY season BF ever had....hell, compare them to any QB ever. At one point he had something like 19TD's and 3FG's in 24 red zone possessions. I saw that on the tube last year and almost spit up my beer. If anyone is good at digging it up, I would like to see his finals for last season.

[Scott Campbell]

Edit: Well, i say your post and responded. Boom, next page..there is partial in all his glorious ridiculousness. The different era theory. The racial theory. Difficult to compare theory.

It was just so predictable.



My personal favorite is the "harmonic synergy" theory. :lol:

[bobblehead]

Packers season isn't gone, but only two wins against teams that had winning records going into the game in the last 2 seasons isn't going to cut it. I am not sure on the texans situation: Maybe they have actually beaten teams that are worth a damn?

What I do know is... we haven't. Until we do, it's going to be hard to get a WC. I still want us to get it, but... We have to beat teams like the giants... dallas... don't we still have Pitt and the ravens too? The second half of this schedule is brutal, and chaulk full of playoff contenders. We have to beat not just one, but "many" teams that have winning records to get in.

Is this true? How many teams with winning records has this TT squad really beaten in the last 2 years? :shock:

Can we look at '07 as well, and the vikings this season....I mean, we wouldn't want to be intellectually dishonest would we??

[g4orce]

this may change...

[Partial]

Stats don't mean shit.....look at Carson Palmer. I saw all I needed to see with a 40 year old last week getting the ball off without taking sacks to keep drives alive. They need to redo that QB rating as Arod looks like David Carr back there flopping all over the field killing drive after drive. Any doubt why Favre won all those games. In 2004 (Brett had 14 sacks all season....in 2 games vs. the Vikes in 2009, Arod eclipsed that and lost both games).....Just sayin.

If Rodgers is killing drive after drive, why do the Packers have a top 10 offense, averaging 370+ yards of offense per game? Why was he voted player of the month for October? Why is he 11th in completion percentage and top 10 in pretty much every other catagory? Why are the Packers the 8th best scoring offense in the NFL?

And why, if Aaron Rodgers looks so much like David Carr, why couldn't Carr do any of these things for the Texans?

Lack of talent surrounding him.

I'm not saying Rodgers is Carr, he's much betetr, but lets get real here, he's not an elite QB. Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit. At the end of the day I don't give a flying fudge how spectacular my QB is between the 20s. I want a guy who is unafraid to penentrate.

Go Look at ARods red zone numbers for last season and compare them to ANY season BF ever had....hell, compare them to any QB ever. At one point he had something like 19TD's and 3FG's in 24 red zone possessions. I saw that on the tube last year and almost spit up my beer. If anyone is good at digging it up, I would like to see his finals for last season.

That is fair. I don't know any numbers but the Detroit game comes to mind this year where we had three red zone trips that should have been TDs instead of FGs. Kind of been like that all year to me.

[MOBB DEEP]

this may change...

:evil:

Last INT was favre-esque

[Partial]

1. Bucs QB Josh Freeman: Didn't have great stats (14 of 31, 205 yards, 3 TDs and 1 INT, 86.1 passer rating), but he played with poise and toughness and almost willed the Bucs to victory with his inspired play down the stretch.

I agree, and this is the attitude that I feel like Rodgers doesn't have in spades :(

[rbaloha1]

Stats dude -- big deal, 10-14 as a starter with few big wins.

Also do not like AR's response to holding the ball too long -- "well I only have 2 interceptions." Holds the ball too long today and throws 3 interceptions today. Loser!

[mraynrand]

Stats dude -- big deal, 10-14 as a starter with few big wins.

Also do not like AR's response to holding the ball too long -- "well I only ave 2 interceptions. Holds the ball too long today and throws 3 interceptions today. Loser!

Geez, I just don geddit. We hadd all dose deep patterns dialed up. We shoudda had four more tds offa dem. Cept the drive that was all runs

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/Workedem.jpg

[Partial]

To those saying Rodgers is running for his life....

From the horses mouth...


I thought (Rodgers) had plenty of time to throw,” McCarthy said. “I’m real curious to see the film because either they’re doing a hell of a job covering us, I mean there was time and again that our receivers were on crossing routes versus that coverage, I mean it’ll be curious to see what the film looks like.”

[g4orce]

To those saying Rodgers is running for his life....

From the horses mouth...


I thought (Rodgers) had plenty of time to throw,” McCarthy said. “I’m real curious to see the film because either they’re doing a hell of a job covering us, I mean there was time and again that our receivers were on crossing routes versus that coverage, I mean it’ll be curious to see what the film looks like.”


The protection hasnt been great, but its been good enough. Its pocket awareness thats killing him. He has no "feel" for the game. Its like he takes 5-6 seconds to process a play... well you don't have 5-6 seconds every play. Get the snap, read the D, throw the fucking thing!

[mraynrand]

To those saying Rodgers is running for his life....

From the horses mouth...


I thought (Rodgers) had plenty of time to throw,” McCarthy said. “I’m real curious to see the film because either they’re doing a hell of a job covering us, I mean there was time and again that our receivers were on crossing routes versus that coverage, I mean it’ll be curious to see what the film looks like.”


The protection hasnt been great, but its been good enough. Its pocket awareness thats killing him. He has no "feel" for the game. Its like he takes 5-6 seconds to process a play... well you don't have 5-6 seconds every play. Get the snap, read the D, throw the fucking thing!

You can see this on the empty backfield plays. He turned that one into a nice TD, but either he hesitated way too long or the receivers were totally covered. I couldn't tell for sure. Either way it's bad, even though on that particular play, he used his feet to turn it into something good. On those plays the ball has to come out right away. Maybe he just isn't seeing the whole field yet, and not fast enough. Painful

[packerbacker1234]

If I had a nickle for every time this year I shouted at the TV "Rodgers, GET RID OF THE BALL" - bam sacked.

I swear, I could buy an entire value meal and McDonalds.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Aaron is okay but he's not great. He has the physical tools but he isn't special or rare.
He's about the 10th best quarterback in the NFL according to my assessment.
Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit.How do you know these things? Is it because of the wins/losses record? Your ability as a scout to sift through hours upon hours of film and games to accurately judge a QB in the midst of an entire team?

I'm assuming the scout thing because it certainly can't be by record. The following is a list of some of the greatest QBs ever, as well as some are still playing that would likely be on your list (plus Aaron Rodgers at the end for comparison). This list has their first year of starting more than one game and their record during that year:

Johnny Unitas (1956) - 3-4
Sonny Jurgensen (1957) - 2-3
Bart Starr (1957) - 3-8
Fran Tarkenton (1961) - 2-8
Len Dawson (1962) - 11-3
Roman Gabriel (1962) - 0-3-1
Joe Namath (1965) - 3-5-1
Bob Griese (1967) - 3-7
Roger Staubach (1970) - 2-1
Terry Bradshaw (1970) - 3-5
Ken Anderson (1971) - 0-4
Dan Fouts (1973) - 0-5-1
Joe Montana (1980) - 2-5
Dan Marino (1983) - 7-2
John Elway (1983) - 4-6
Warren Moon (1984) - 3-13
Steve Young (1986) - 1-4
Jim Kelly (1986) - 4-12
Troy Aikman (1989) - 0-11
Brett Favre (1992) - 8-5
Peyton Manning (1998) - 3-13
Tom Brady (2001) - 11-3
Drew Brees (2002) - 8-8
Aaron Rodgers (2008) - 6-10

A couple of notes:
* Only 5 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their first year (Dawson, Staubach, Marino, Favre, Brady).
* Only 12 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their second year (not shown).
* Only 4 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their first two years (Dawson was the odd one out).
* 11 of the 24 QBs didn't have a record above .500 in either of their first two years.

So I'm desperately hoping that when you say "he isn't special or rare" that you're referring to your ability as a scout to dissect a players ability and accurately place that ability within the modern realm of the sport in terms of capably leading a team in the future. Because it couldn't be his stats (which are historically high for a first year/second year starter), and it certainly couldn't be his winning record. Because if it were his winning record, by your estimation, it sounds like you'd also be ready to move on from players like Bart Starr, Fran Tarkenton, Joe Namath, Bob Griese, Terry Bradshaw, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Steve Young, Jim Kelly, and Troy Aikman, 10 of the 11 QBs who didn't have a winning record in either of their first two years (I'm leaving out Brees because his career isn't complete).

Among those 10, you have:
* 10 HOFers
* 16 NFL championships (including 3 pre-Super Bowl by Starr)
* 6 Super Bowl MVPs
* 26 Pro Bowl appearances
* 6 AFL All Star appearances (by Namath and Griese)
* the only player to be in both the NFL HOF and the Canadian HOF (Moon)
* the only QB to guide his team to 4 consecutive Super Bowls (Kelly)

**EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot to mention: all the above QBs played in the era where it was still okay to mug the WR on every play.**

I'm not saying at all that Aaron Rodgers is at their level. Not one bit. All I'm saying is that you can't judge a QB based on his first couple years starting. You have to judge him based on his career.

P.S. Your boy, Peyton Manning? 3-13 his first year as a starting. You would have run him out of town so fast he wouldn't have had a chance to pack his bags.

Owned.

Nice research and solid argument there!!

[MichiganPackerFan]

I think YTD that Rodgers is responsible for a third of the sacks. I think yesterday he was responsible for more. Is it a question of receivers not getting open? Or is he waiting for them to be MORE open? I don't see a lot of replay's of the coverage... They have to play a smaller game to open up the big game.

[Brandon494]

I think YTD that Rodgers is responsible for a third of the sacks. I think yesterday he was responsible for more. Is it a question of receivers not getting open? Or is he waiting for them to be MORE open? I don't see a lot of replay's of the coverage... They have to play a smaller game to open up the big game.

AR gets alittle greedy at times and looks for the big play instead of dumping it off to the short reciever. Sometimes it works and he looks like a stud or other times he takes a sack for a 8 yard loss to kills a drive. We need to realize even though he has been around for awhile this is only his 2nd year starting and he is only a year older than Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco. With time comes experience and he will learn.

[Smidgeon]

Aaron is okay but he's not great. He has the physical tools but he isn't special or rare.
He's about the 10th best quarterback in the NFL according to my assessment.
Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit.How do you know these things? Is it because of the wins/losses record? Your ability as a scout to sift through hours upon hours of film and games to accurately judge a QB in the midst of an entire team?

I'm assuming the scout thing because it certainly can't be by record. The following is a list of some of the greatest QBs ever, as well as some are still playing that would likely be on your list (plus Aaron Rodgers at the end for comparison). This list has their first year of starting more than one game and their record during that year:

Johnny Unitas (1956) - 3-4
Sonny Jurgensen (1957) - 2-3
Bart Starr (1957) - 3-8
Fran Tarkenton (1961) - 2-8
Len Dawson (1962) - 11-3
Roman Gabriel (1962) - 0-3-1
Joe Namath (1965) - 3-5-1
Bob Griese (1967) - 3-7
Roger Staubach (1970) - 2-1
Terry Bradshaw (1970) - 3-5
Ken Anderson (1971) - 0-4
Dan Fouts (1973) - 0-5-1
Joe Montana (1980) - 2-5
Dan Marino (1983) - 7-2
John Elway (1983) - 4-6
Warren Moon (1984) - 3-13
Steve Young (1986) - 1-4
Jim Kelly (1986) - 4-12
Troy Aikman (1989) - 0-11
Brett Favre (1992) - 8-5
Peyton Manning (1998) - 3-13
Tom Brady (2001) - 11-3
Drew Brees (2002) - 8-8
Aaron Rodgers (2008) - 6-10

A couple of notes:
* Only 5 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their first year (Dawson, Staubach, Marino, Favre, Brady).
* Only 12 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their second year (not shown).
* Only 4 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their first two years (Dawson was the odd one out).
* 11 of the 24 QBs didn't have a record above .500 in either of their first two years.

So I'm desperately hoping that when you say "he isn't special or rare" that you're referring to your ability as a scout to dissect a players ability and accurately place that ability within the modern realm of the sport in terms of capably leading a team in the future. Because it couldn't be his stats (which are historically high for a first year/second year starter), and it certainly couldn't be his winning record. Because if it were his winning record, by your estimation, it sounds like you'd also be ready to move on from players like Bart Starr, Fran Tarkenton, Joe Namath, Bob Griese, Terry Bradshaw, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Steve Young, Jim Kelly, and Troy Aikman, 10 of the 11 QBs who didn't have a winning record in either of their first two years (I'm leaving out Brees because his career isn't complete).

Among those 10, you have:
* 10 HOFers
* 16 NFL championships (including 3 pre-Super Bowl by Starr)
* 8 Regular season MVPs
* 2 Regular season AFL MVPs (by Namath)
* 6 Super Bowl MVPs
* 26 Pro Bowl appearances
* 6 AFL All Star appearances (by Namath and Griese)
* the only player to be in both the NFL HOF and the Canadian HOF (Moon)
* the only QB to guide his team to 4 consecutive Super Bowls (Kelly)

**EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot to mention: all the above QBs played in the era where it was still okay to mug the WR on every play.**

I'm not saying at all that Aaron Rodgers is at their level. Not one bit. All I'm saying is that you can't judge a QB based on his first couple years starting. You have to judge him based on his career.

P.S. Your boy, Peyton Manning? 3-13 his first year as a starting. You would have run him out of town so fast he wouldn't have had a chance to pack his bags.

Forgot to put in the data for regular season MVPs for the NFL and AFL. Please see that data in the post above.

[SnakeLH2006]

It's been frustrating with ARod mainly because of the sacks IMO. But if they sign some FA guys with some skills for once on the OL or draft high, maybe we can fix the OL in the next year or so. Imagine if Arod threw the football behind the Vike's OL, for example. That would be scary.

[Cheesehead Craig]

To those saying Rodgers is running for his life....

From the horses mouth...


I thought (Rodgers) had plenty of time to throw,” McCarthy said. “I’m real curious to see the film because either they’re doing a hell of a job covering us, I mean there was time and again that our receivers were on crossing routes versus that coverage, I mean it’ll be curious to see what the film looks like.”

So a coach you have said stinks, you are now taking his word and analysis as proof that we need to get rid of a player that you believe has no hope of being a good player. Holy crap.