Aaron gets a big win

[Partial]

Massive props to Aaron for getting the job done today against a good, winning team. That run on 3rd down where he took the hit told me everything I needed to know about how much he wanted this game. Sure, that drive resulted in a punt due to a sack, but he played a very good game all things considered. He made the plays when they were there, didn't make mistakes, etc.

Props on a job well done.

[outflow]

It's about damn time. It's also damn time they ran more than 1 screen play.

[g4orce]

A game where he made enough plays in the right times and won. Very nice to see. A little sloppy at times, but it was nice to see him do the things we needed on 3rd downs and in the red zone late in the game. I'll take this Arod over the girly one that usually shows up in big games any day.

[gbgary]

A game where he made enough plays in the right times and won. Very nice to see. A little sloppy at times, but it was nice to see him do the things we needed on 3rd downs and in the red zone late in the game. I'll take this Arod over the girly one that usually shows up in big games any day.


agree except for the "girly" comment. he's far from that. a veeeery tough guy.

[g4orce]

A game where he made enough plays in the right times and won. Very nice to see. A little sloppy at times, but it was nice to see him do the things we needed on 3rd downs and in the red zone late in the game. I'll take this Arod over the girly one that usually shows up in big games any day.


agree except for the "girly" comment. he's far from that. a veeeery tough guy.


Sorry, shouldn't of wrote it that way. I meant usually when he "has" to make a play, some other guy shows up. Today was a different story, I liked it!

[Cheesehead Craig]

ARod did a great job of getting rid of the ball when he needed to. You could tell that he was conscious of not taking the sack.

[Zool]

He finally started throwing people open today. Not sure who finally listened on the coaching staff but I've been yelling for short timing routes for 9 games. A running game and short passing game are the easiest ways to slow down a rush.

[channtheman]

He finally started throwing people open today. Not sure who finally listened on the coaching staff but I've been yelling for short timing routes for 9 games. A running game and short passing game are the easiest ways to slow down a rush.

Todays game was ALL short routes. Only a couple of long passes were in there. But this is what the offense looked like with Favre. Short passes that are your run game.

Also, Rodgers had a great running TD last week in the loss. Doesn't get credit for that though because we lost? Because it was against a bad team? I don't get it. Please explain why Rodgers doesn't get credit for big plays like that Partial and G4orce.

I thought one of the best things about today was the special teams. No real big returns and the fair catches on punts are way better than a 3 yard return with holding.

[Scott Campbell]

His protection was horrific again today. They're going to get the guy killed.

[3irty1]

Aaron did a good job of playing within the offense and making just enough plays to keep the chains moving. Its nice to know that Arod is capable of it although I think I prefer the Arod who's got time to shred a D.

It takes a lot of practice for them to play the way they did today. All the quick timing and whatnot. Props to MM.

[g4orce]

Also, Rodgers had a great running TD last week in the loss. Doesn't get credit for that though because we lost? Because it was against a bad team? I don't get it. Please explain why Rodgers doesn't get credit for big plays like that Partial and G4orce.

K I see you'd like to act like a douche to me. I've never ripped on Arods athletic ability one time. I've also never ripped on his toughness about playing hurt or things like that. I've only been a "hater" as I'm sure u want to call it cuz he crumbles with the game on the line. Many times he's had the ball in hiS hands late in the 4th quarter and failed. This is very upsetting to me as our qb. I also hate how he reads defenses. He's scared to make a throw a lot of the time. Not everyones gonna be open by 2 steps. Throw to spots n make ur WR make a play. I also think this has created a lot of our offesuve woes this year and last. You want to crown him as this elite qb but he's not there yet. Hopefully he'll get there as today he made several plays when needed. Oh and about last week he stunk plain and simple. He was a big reason along with several other reasons we lost to a terrible team. But ya sure, great run Arod! Ya happy?

[HarveyWallbangers]

How was chann being a douche? I thought he was cordial. This is why it's hard to come here anymore.

[digitaldean]

Harv,

I understand how you feel. The hypersensitivity and/or instant spewback on replies is getting more than a little childish.

[Partial]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/70165147.html

[g4orce]

How was chann being a douche? I thought he was cordial. This is why it's hard to come here anymore.
Youre not constantly attacked like a few are here for having a different stance on matters so I wouldn't expect u to understand.

[Zool]

How was chann being a douche? I thought he was cordial. This is why it's hard to come here anymore.
Youre not constantly attacked like a few are here for having a different stance on matters so I wouldn't expect u to understand.

You polarize yourself here. No one can do that for you.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

How was chann being a douche? I thought he was cordial. This is why it's hard to come here anymore.
Youre not constantly attacked like a few are here for having a different stance on matters so I wouldn't expect u to understand.

You dont' have a "stance," you are just being an ass.

Let's look at how you describe Arod:

1. Girly
2. Crumbles with the game on the line
3. You hate how he reads defenses...like you have any clue what he is doing
4. Arod is scared
5. Arod has created our woes this year and last

If that is your stance, you shouldn't wonder or complain about people attacking you.

You wanna have the balls to make such pronouncements..then have the balls to stand up to the attacks. Stop being a pussy.

[channtheman]

Also, Rodgers had a great running TD last week in the loss. Doesn't get credit for that though because we lost? Because it was against a bad team? I don't get it. Please explain why Rodgers doesn't get credit for big plays like that Partial and G4orce.

K I see you'd like to act like a douche to me. I've never ripped on Arods athletic ability one time. I've also never ripped on his toughness about playing hurt or things like that. I've only been a "hater" as I'm sure u want to call it cuz he crumbles with the game on the line. Many times he's had the ball in hiS hands late in the 4th quarter and failed. This is very upsetting to me as our qb. I also hate how he reads defenses. He's scared to make a throw a lot of the time. Not everyones gonna be open by 2 steps. Throw to spots n make ur WR make a play. I also think this has created a lot of our offesuve woes this year and last. You want to crown him as this elite qb but he's not there yet. Hopefully he'll get there as today he made several plays when needed. Oh and about last week he stunk plain and simple. He was a big reason along with several other reasons we lost to a terrible team. But ya sure, great run Arod! Ya happy?

WTF? I merely asked a question and all of a sudden you come out guns a blazing putting words into my mouth and criticizing me of all sorts of things. Seriously WTF? I don't even want argue with someone like you.

[3irty1]

How was chann being a douche? I thought he was cordial. This is why it's hard to come here anymore.
Youre not constantly attacked like a few are here for having a different stance on matters so I wouldn't expect u to understand.

You say that almost as if its gone on for years and years...

[mission]

How was chann being a douche? I thought he was cordial. This is why it's hard to come here anymore.
Youre not constantly attacked like a few are here for having a different stance on matters so I wouldn't expect u to understand.

You say that almost as if its gone on for years and years...

What's the use/point of banning pacopete if he can just come back and signup under a different name?

[g4orce]

Cry mission. Please. My lord. Partial makes a post complimenting Arod and he's still got guys like Chann calling him out. Why? Just stfu about it. And then he brought me into it for no other reason than to irk both of us but I'm sure he'll play the hurt child now.

[Zool]

Think....Type.....think some more....reread the post....think...make any changes to your post....think...then hit submit.

[Scott Campbell]

I didn't notice Aaron taking any sacks because of holding the ball too long yesterday. The D-Line pressure was almost always immediate, and not of the variety that you blame on the QB for not getting it out quicker.

I'm not sure how he's supposed to get more experience when he's constantly running for his life back there.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I didn't notice Aaron taking any sacks because of holding the ball too long yesterday. The D-Line pressure was almost always immediate, and not of the variety that you blame on the QB for not getting it out quicker.

I'm not sure how he's supposed to get more experience when he's constantly running for his life back there.
I agree. He did a great job of avoiding about 2-3 more sacks with his footwork.

[denverYooper]

I didn't notice Aaron taking any sacks because of holding the ball too long yesterday. The D-Line pressure was almost always immediate, and not of the variety that you blame on the QB for not getting it out quicker.

I'm not sure how he's supposed to get more experience when he's constantly running for his life back there.
I agree. He did a great job of avoiding about 2-3 more sacks with his footwork.

Second. He made some huge third and long throws also when they really needed that score, some of the biggest of the year.

[gbgary]

i seem to remember a few "throw the F'n ball" posts during the game thread. wasn't his fumble on one such play?

[Tony Oday]

i seem to remember a few "throw the F'n ball" posts during the game thread. wasn't his fumble on one such play?

LOL I remember saying that a couple of times as well. :)

I think AR played a solid game.

[sheepshead]

Massive props to Aaron for getting the job done today against a good, winning team. That run on 3rd down where he took the hit told me everything I needed to know about how much he wanted this game. Sure, that drive resulted in a punt due to a sack, but he played a very good game all things considered. He made the plays when they were there, didn't make mistakes, etc.

Props on a job well done.

Not bad for an average quarterback, huh?

[channtheman]

Cry mission. Please. My lord. Partial makes a post complimenting Arod and he's still got guys like Chann calling him out. Why? Just stfu about it. And then he brought me into it for no other reason than to irk both of us but I'm sure he'll play the hurt child now.

WTF dude? How was my question a shot at you or Partial? I was asking him to explain it to me!

[pbmax]

I didn't notice Aaron taking any sacks because of holding the ball too long yesterday. The D-Line pressure was almost always immediate, and not of the variety that you blame on the QB for not getting it out quicker.

I'm not sure how he's supposed to get more experience when he's constantly running for his life back there.
I don't know about that. The sack Lang gave up to the OLB not named Ware was quick but not a jaibreak and Rodgers saw him coming. Almost escaped but when he cut under to avoid the sack, he had the LB on top of him and lost Lang's protection.

[pbmax]

i seem to remember a few "throw the F'n ball" posts during the game thread. wasn't his fumble on one such play?
Don't remember the fumble but he had one play where he held onto it well past the point of prudence.

[Partial]

Massive props to Aaron for getting the job done today against a good, winning team. That run on 3rd down where he took the hit told me everything I needed to know about how much he wanted this game. Sure, that drive resulted in a punt due to a sack, but he played a very good game all things considered. He made the plays when they were there, didn't make mistakes, etc.

Props on a job well done.

Not bad for an average quarterback, huh?

I want to be clear that I don't think he played great by any means, but he played well enough to get it done.

However, all four facets of the game were working and as a result he didn't have to do much.

One of the GBPG guys yesterday was talking about how some scouts that he talks to rank Aaron even lower than I do. They had them ranked in the upper teens to the low twenties (if I remember correctly).

[Partial]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/70430057.html

Good article. I agree. He was money on third down when it mattered against the 'boys.

[Waldo]

One of the GBPG guys yesterday was talking about how some scouts that he talks to rank Aaron even lower than I do. They had them ranked in the upper teens to the low twenties (if I remember correctly).

So?

Scout implies some sort of professional that watches players at a very detailed level and grades them all, some sort of oracle that knows more than the commoner.

Sadly this rarely is the case with most "scouts" mentioned. I mean Cliffy lets us know who his great scout is, some assistant HS coach as a school in nowhere Wi.

Even if it were the case with those scouts, there is a reason they are scouts and not general managers. Much of the scouting that the minor pro scouts do is nothing more than data collection for the big dogs to quickly sift through. In other words, nobody really cares about their opinion all that much.

Just as many "scouts" rank him very highly.

But that doesn't fit their story, now does it. :wink:

[MOBB DEEP]

Is this the first time aaron is 3 games over .500 as our QB?

This dude is off the chain; how blessed we are to transition SO nicely from one HOFer to ANOTHER...!!

Brees who?

[Partial]

He's playing well, thats for sure.

[ThunderDan]

He's playing well, thats for sure.

Which is it?

He's the next big deal, He sucks, he's good, he's average, he sucks, he's playing well.

[Partial]

He's playing well, thats for sure.

Which is it?

He's the next big deal, He sucks, he's good, he's average, he sucks, he's playing well.

He's playing well right now, that doesn't mean he is a star player or even a good player. You cannot look at a few game stretch and ignore the entire body of work. He's still below .500 as a starter.

Tom Peliserro just was talking about Rodgers with scouts and they ranked him in around 20, very similar to where the scouts McGinn talked to ranked him. I have him higher than that as I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and see that he has talent, but he's probably around the 10-12 best QB in the NFL. Middle third.

[ThunderDan]

He's playing well, thats for sure.

Which is it?

He's the next big deal, He sucks, he's good, he's average, he sucks, he's playing well.

He's playing well right now, that doesn't mean he is a star player or even a good player. You cannot look at a few game stretch and ignore the entire body of work. He's still below .500 as a starter.

Tom Peliserro just was talking about Rodgers with scouts and they ranked him in around 20, very similar to where the scouts McGinn talked to ranked him. I have him higher than that as I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and see that he has talent, but he's probably around the 10-12 best QB in the NFL. Middle third.

Please tell me you're joking!

[Lurker64]

Please tell me you're joking!

I agree with your hope, but knowing a little about Partial I fear that he's not joking.

It's beyond me how a player who has started every game deep into a season and currently ranks 4th in completions, 9th in completion percentage, 2nd in yards, 2nd in YPA, 1st in TDs, 4th in "fewest INTs), and 3rd in QB rating is "average" or "in the middle tier".

You can say that Rodgers is near the bottom of the top third of QBs, but the middle third is guys like Hasselbeck, David Garrard, Jason Campbell, Alex Smith, and Trent Edwards. Rodgers is clearly a cut above these guys. The only reason I can think of to underrate Rodgers so vastly is by being spoiled by years of solid QB play for the Packers. The average standard of NFL Quarterbacking is profoundly mediocre; the middle of the road guys stink, and the bottom of the barrel guys really stink.

[Partial]

Please tell me you're joking!

I agree with your hope, but knowing a little about Partial I fear that he's not joking.

It's beyond me how a player who has started every game deep into a season and currently ranks 4th in completions, 9th in completion percentage, 2nd in yards, 2nd in YPA, 1st in TDs, 4th in "fewest INTs), and 3rd in QB rating is "average" or "in the middle tier".

You can say that Rodgers is near the bottom of the top third of QBs, but the middle third is guys like Hasselbeck, David Garrard, Jason Campbell, Alex Smith, and Trent Edwards. Rodgers is clearly a cut above these guys. The only reason I can think of to underrate Rodgers so vastly is by being spoiled by years of solid QB play for the Packers. The average standard of NFL Quarterbacking is profoundly mediocre; the middle of the road guys stink, and the bottom of the barrel guys really stink.

If those are the middle tier guys, then who are the bad starters?!?

I personally think Hass is a better player, though he's had a lot of injury issues, etc. He's been successful over a long period of time and made it to a super bowl, so you owe him some credit.

My top 12 (on todays talent) right now in no particular order are as follows:

1. Peyton Manning
2. Tom Brady
3. Eli Manning (throwing to absolute garbage receivers..)
4. Carson Palmer
5. Ben Roethlisberger
6. Phillip Rivers
7. Aaron Rodgers
8. Donovan McNabb
9. Matt Ryan
10. Drew Brees
11. Tony Romo
12. Kurt Warner

He's playing very well right now. I'm a reasonable person and give credit where credit is due. He may even make a pro bowl if the team continues to ascend towards the playoffs and win games.

He's playing like a good player right now. Not elite, but good. Better than solid. Continue to do this and win games and I'll consider him a good player. Start carrying the team on your back and pulling out games they should not win and I will start to think of him as elite. Both of these are fair, rational thoughts.

Ultimately, a QB is an extension of the coach and is "quarterbacking" the offense. How often is the person whose responsible for a teams success, say a manager at work, is referred to as "quarterbacking" the team? Often. I judge largely in the same way I judge a coach. On wins. Sure, there are obviously more factors, namely a defense and quality of supporting cast, etc, but ultimately I feel that most GMs and personnel professionals judge a QB in this manner as well. Win the ball game and you get credit. Lose and you take the blame.

I don't know what I'd be joking about. I said where I ranked him and that is reasonable. I said where some scouts have mentioned and that is there opinion, which mine doesn't jive very well with, but it just goes to show that not everyone is universally super high on him..

update: WOW, I didn't even put Favre in the list..

[Lurker64]

If those are the middle tier guys, then who are the bad starters?!?


This year? Guys like Brady Quinn, Jamarcus Russell, Derek Anderson, Matthew Stafford (rookie), Mark Sanchez (rookie), Kerry Collins, Matt Cassell, Jake Delhomme, Jay Cutler (say what you want about his talent, but he hasn't played well), and Marc Bulger.

[Partial]

If those are the middle tier guys, then who are the bad starters?!?


This year? Guys like Brady Quinn, Jamarcus Russell, Derek Anderson, Matthew Stafford (rookie), Mark Sanchez (rookie), Kerry Collins, Matt Cassell, Jake Delhomme, Jay Cutler (say what you want about his talent, but he hasn't played well), and Marc Bulger.

Okay that is a fair list.

[Bossman641]

He's playing well, thats for sure.

Which is it?

He's the next big deal, He sucks, he's good, he's average, he sucks, he's playing well.

He's playing well right now, that doesn't mean he is a star player or even a good player. You cannot look at a few game stretch and ignore the entire body of work. He's still below .500 as a starter.

Tom Peliserro just was talking about Rodgers with scouts and they ranked him in around 20, very similar to where the scouts McGinn talked to ranked him. I have him higher than that as I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and see that he has talent, but he's probably around the 10-12 best QB in the NFL. Middle third.

Do you have a link to this? I'd love to see it.

[Partial]

He's playing well, thats for sure.

Which is it?

He's the next big deal, He sucks, he's good, he's average, he sucks, he's playing well.

He's playing well right now, that doesn't mean he is a star player or even a good player. You cannot look at a few game stretch and ignore the entire body of work. He's still below .500 as a starter.

Tom Peliserro just was talking about Rodgers with scouts and they ranked him in around 20, very similar to where the scouts McGinn talked to ranked him. I have him higher than that as I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and see that he has talent, but he's probably around the 10-12 best QB in the NFL. Middle third.

Do you have a link to this? I'd love to see it.

I believe it was in one of the articles you personally requested that I post, yet didn't even say thank you like a selfish jerk.

Go find it yourself. It's either in the list of articles I posted for you or JSO or GBPG. Coudln't be more than two weeks old.

Since I'm a really nice, great guy despite you being a total douchebag (it takes two seconds to say thank you, fucking really...), here is your link.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20091115/PKR01/311150118/-1/pkrchat/Read-the-transcript--Postgame-chat-with-Tom-Pelissero

On an unrelated note, I absolutely do not like these damn wrappers for content that break indexing content.

[Bossman641]

He's playing well, thats for sure.

Which is it?

He's the next big deal, He sucks, he's good, he's average, he sucks, he's playing well.

He's playing well right now, that doesn't mean he is a star player or even a good player. You cannot look at a few game stretch and ignore the entire body of work. He's still below .500 as a starter.

Tom Peliserro just was talking about Rodgers with scouts and they ranked him in around 20, very similar to where the scouts McGinn talked to ranked him. I have him higher than that as I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and see that he has talent, but he's probably around the 10-12 best QB in the NFL. Middle third.

Do you have a link to this? I'd love to see it.

I believe it was in one of the articles you personally requested that I post, yet didn't even say thank you like a selfish jerk.

Go find it yourself. It's either in the list of articles I posted for you or JSO or GBPG. Coudln't be more than two weeks old.

Whatever man. Gonna chalk this one up to you having a bad day.

I thanked you for the articles you had posted and then asked if you could do the same for Dallas when you had a chance. Didn't know I had to personally thank you again.

Thanks for blessing me with this post though

[Freak Out]

WTF? :) Must be the Turkey.

[Bossman641]

I believe it was in one of the articles you personally requested that I post, yet didn't even say thank you like a selfish jerk.

Go find it yourself. It's either in the list of articles I posted for you or JSO or GBPG. Coudln't be more than two weeks old.

Since I'm a really nice, great guy despite you being a total douchebag (it takes two seconds to say thank you, fucking really...), here is your link.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20091115/PKR01/311150118/-1/pkrchat/Read-the-transcript--Postgame-chat-with-Tom-Pelissero

On an unrelated note, I absolutely do not like these damn wrappers for content that break indexing content.

WTF is your deal

THANK YOU FOR THE LINK PARTIAL

[Waldo]

Tom Pelissero:
Rodgers is not an elite QB at this stage, no. Some scouts put him in the second group down. I talked to one AFC scout before the season who thought he was a little below average among starters -- somewhere between 16 and 20. He needs to win. That's a key stat for QBs

Oh remember my thoughts on scouts. LOL, friends, buddies, whatever that watch games. An AFC scout? A friend that is an Indy fan.

Anyway, the same Pelissero that still thinks that Cutler is the better QB between he and Rodgers. This chat actually prompted threads at other MB's. One in particular was "Pelissero is a douche". Everybody agreed.

[Bossman641]

Tom Peliserro just was talking about Rodgers with scouts and they ranked him in around 20, very similar to where the scouts McGinn talked to ranked him.


Rodgers is not an elite QB at this stage, no. Some scouts put him in the second group down. I talked to one AFC scout before the season who thought he was a little below average among starters -- somewhere between 16 and 20.

I'd say one scout ranking him 16-20 is a little different then "they" (scouts) ranking him around 20.

[Partial]

Tom Pelissero:
Rodgers is not an elite QB at this stage, no. Some scouts put him in the second group down. I talked to one AFC scout before the season who thought he was a little below average among starters -- somewhere between 16 and 20. He needs to win. That's a key stat for QBs

Oh remember my thoughts on scouts. LOL, friends, buddies, whatever that watch games. An AFC scout? A friend that is an Indy fan.

Anyway, the same Pelissero that still thinks that Cutler is the better QB between he and Rodgers. This chat actually prompted threads at other MB's. One in particular was "Pelissero is a douche". Everybody agreed.

You may be right about the scouts, I have no idea, but I completely disagree with you. What possible reason do you have to believe that they're lying when they say they are consulting scouts? Their integrity and careers are at stake... This is one of the more out there opinions I've heard of here yet. I mean why on earth would they lie about that?

Despite neither of them winning last year, Cutler was very close to Rodgers in statistical performance. Both put up great stats, but I think few would argue that Denver had the same type of healthy depth at wideout.

Yards (which are meaningless):
Rodgers - 4,038
Cutler - 4,526

YPA:
Rodgers - 7.5
Cutler - 7.3

TD:
Rodgers - 28
Cutler - 25

INT:
Rodgers - 13
Cutler - 18

Sack:
Rodgers - 34
Cutler - 11

Fumbles:
Rodgers - 10
Cutler - 5

Rating:
Rodgers - 93.8
Cutler - 86.0

Wins:
Rodgers - 6
Cutler - 8

As you can see, statistically it's very close, despite Rodgers surrounding talent coming a Bush recovered fumble away from the super bowl. Cutler's was coming off a 7-9 year. Seems to me that Rodgers had better talent around him.

I don't think Peliserro's assessment is unreasonable. Cutler has played awful this year, but that doesn't mean he's an awful player. It could very well mean that he is a rigid player who won't change his game to match the talent around him. That means he's playing badly, not necessarily a bad player. I imagine if both had quality talent around them both would have success.

[Lurker64]

Oh remember my thoughts on scouts. LOL, friends, buddies, whatever that watch games. An AFC scout? A friend that is an Indy fan.

It's also worth noting that every bad draft pick ever made, no matter how laughable? Some scout somewhere liked the guy. Scouts are wrong about players all the time. Just saying "a scout said..." is no guarantee of credibility. The best scouts are employed by NFL teams and won't tell you what they think of players.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Any scout that thinks Rodgers is ranked around the 20th best QB in the league should be fired immediately. 4500 yards, 32 passing TDs, 7 interceptions, 360 rushing yards, 5 TDs. That is what Rodgers is on pace for, and we are through 11 games.

[PlantPage55]

Any scout that thinks Rodgers is ranked around the 20th best QB in the league should be fired immediately. 4500 yards, 32 passing TDs, 7 interceptions, 360 rushing yards, 5 TDs. That is what Rodgers is on pace for, and we are through 11 games.

No shit.

Putting Rodgers outside the top 10 strains credibility. Putting him around TWENTY?! You're a fucking wacko with a vendetta, if you think that.

Based on youth and potential, there's no one I'd rather have than Rodgers.

As far as comparing him to QBs in the NFL RIGHT NOW, I'd say he's behind Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Brett Favre, and Tom Brady and that's it. I think that the only thing that these guys have on him is their experience to have seen almost anything that an NFL game will throw at you.

[sepporepi]

Just average the guy:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_active.htm


He is still 13-14 as a starter... :lol:

[retailguy]

Oh remember my thoughts on scouts. LOL, friends, buddies, whatever that watch games. An AFC scout? A friend that is an Indy fan.

Anyway, the same Pelissero that still thinks that Cutler is the better QB between he and Rodgers. This chat actually prompted threads at other MB's. One in particular was "Pelissero is a douche". Everybody agreed.

:roll: Everybody agreed? Well, it must be so, then. :roll:

[Fosco33]

Chatting with Pelissero after the game - a few tid bits:


In response to a fake Cutler, " Tom Pelissero: I don't think anyone has loads of respect for you right now, Jay. You're a pariah in Chicago. You have a better arm than Rodgers but by all indications a worse head."


Last time I checked this was a team effort. If Rodgers does well why does his team need to win to be recognized as a quality QB? Sometimes you can have a good QB on a bad team.

Tom Pelissero: That's very true. But QBs are judged more heavily on their team's record, because it's the most important position and an instant leadership role. Intangibles are huge. I've talked to scouts who think Rodgers has all those intangibles, but to get big-time respect, you need to win. That's why good QBs like Rodgers and Schaub and Romo don't make everybody's top 10, because they haven't proven they can lift a team and produce when it matters most.

Maybe Tom is turning...

[ThunderDan]

I believe it was in one of the articles you personally requested that I post, yet didn't even say thank you like a selfish jerk.

Go find it yourself. It's either in the list of articles I posted for you or JSO or GBPG. Coudln't be more than two weeks old.

Since I'm a really nice, great guy despite you being a total douchebag (it takes two seconds to say thank you, fucking really...), here is your link.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20091115/PKR01/311150118/-1/pkrchat/Read-the-transcript--Postgame-chat-with-Tom-Pelissero

On an unrelated note, I absolutely do not like these damn wrappers for content that break indexing content.

Way to go "Positvie Posterboy!"

[ThunderDan]

As you can see, statistically it's very close, despite Rodgers surrounding talent coming a Bush recovered fumble away from the super bowl. Cutler's was coming off a 7-9 year. Seems to me that Rodgers had better talent around him.



And Cutler had no talent around him in Denver? Marshall, Royal and down to their 7th string RB but still managed to rush for 1,800+ yards as a team ranking 12th in rushing. They had 3 offensive Pro Bowlers to our 0.

Than he goes to Chicago and all of the people who said Cutler would struggle because he doesn't have the weapons they do in Denver were told that your crazy and Cutler would elevate the whole Chicago offensive attack.

I guess we see that 1 QB doesn't make that great of a difference. Because if Cutler could he should have taken a 9-7 Chicago team last year with no "Awesome" QB to at least 11-5 because he has "it" and should be able to win the games that Sexy Rexy couldn't.

[pbmax]

Tom Pelissero: That's very true. But QBs are judged more heavily on their team's record, because it's the most important position and an instant leadership role. Intangibles are huge. I've talked to scouts who think Rodgers has all those intangibles, but to get big-time respect, you need to win. That's why good QBs like Rodgers and Schaub and Romo don't make everybody's top 10, because they haven
This is lazy thinking and horrible analysis. Essentially, he is saying two things:

We will know he is good after he proves to the most clueless observer that he is good by winning multiple playoff games.

And he is saying "I, Tom Pelissero, have no idea what it means to be a good NFL QB and therefore, neither do you. No one can predict the future and my job as a reporter is to just repeat what has been made obvious after the fact."

Someone should have followed up by having Tom explain why Jeff Hostetler and Mark Rypien and among the top 25 QBs of the last 40 some years.

Lazy moronic analysis.

[Smidgeon]

He's playing well, thats for sure.

Which is it?

He's the next big deal, He sucks, he's good, he's average, he sucks, he's playing well.

He's playing well right now, that doesn't mean he is a star player or even a good player. You cannot look at a few game stretch and ignore the entire body of work. He's still below .500 as a starter.

Again, why the ability for a QB to win during his first two starting years DOESN'T MATTER when judging him based on how good he is going to be overall. (http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?p=475470#475470)

[Fritz]

I've always been bothered by this idea that a player has to win a title in order to be considered truly great.

Was Ernie Banks not great because the Cubs organization wasn't good enough to get the talent it needed?

Was Barry Sanders not great because the Lions couldn't get enough talent to get over the top?

Archie Manning was a fine quarterback, as was Bert Jones. Dan Marino didn't "win" after his first year - did he get bad at his position?

[cheesner]

Any scout that thinks Rodgers is ranked around the 20th best QB in the league should be fired immediately. 4500 yards, 32 passing TDs, 7 interceptions, 360 rushing yards, 5 TDs. That is what Rodgers is on pace for, and we are through 11 games.

No shit.

Putting Rodgers outside the top 10 strains credibility. Putting him around TWENTY?! You're a fucking wacko with a vendetta, if you think that.

Based on youth and potential, there's no one I'd rather have than Rodgers.

As far as comparing him to QBs in the NFL RIGHT NOW, I'd say he's behind Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Brett Favre, and Tom Brady and that's it. I think that the only thing that these guys have on him is their experience to have seen almost anything that an NFL game will throw at you.
I am sure if you searched around enough you could find someone connected to some NFL team, who would rank Tom Brady as awful. But the article was probably written by someone with an axe to grind who had to contact a bunch of 'scouts' to find the response he wanted.

I didn't bother reading - cause this was posted by Partial.

Partial has been busted many times for posting lies and making up statistics to support his foolish views. Distorting the intent or the facts of a article is par for the course for this guy.

[MOBB DEEP]

Favre, Aaron, Bart

PERIOD!

[PlantPage55]

Favre, Aaron, Bart

PERIOD!

AMEN!

....I think.

I'll take your post as a sign that we have been VERY lucky with QBs in our fair franchise. Many like to point to the 70s and 80s, but most franchises have spent more time with worse. :lol:

[The Shadow]

Bart #1.
Still have not seen a better Packer QB.

[woodbuck27]

Aaron Rodgers offers us a special opportunity, to again, after Bart Starr and for the long wait for Bret Favre. Enjoy outstanding play at QB immediately after Favre. For that we should all celebrate as Packer fans.

GO PACK GO!

[MOBB DEEP]

Yessir...

"God Bless the Green Bay Packers" - Kabeer

[Partial]

He's playing well, thats for sure.

Which is it?

He's the next big deal, He sucks, he's good, he's average, he sucks, he's playing well.

He's playing well right now, that doesn't mean he is a star player or even a good player. You cannot look at a few game stretch and ignore the entire body of work. He's still below .500 as a starter.

Again, why the ability for a QB to win during his first two starting years DOESN'T MATTER when judging him based on how good he is going to be overall. (http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?p=475470#475470)

Hopefully that is the case. We don't have any evidence supporting that, either. Look at the % of starters who also had shitting win-loss records there first two years and continued to have shitty win-loss records. You cannot cherry pick data of HOFers and say it doesn't matter.

[Partial]

As you can see, statistically it's very close, despite Rodgers surrounding talent coming a Bush recovered fumble away from the super bowl. Cutler's was coming off a 7-9 year. Seems to me that Rodgers had better talent around him.



And Cutler had no talent around him in Denver? Marshall, Royal and down to their 7th string RB but still managed to rush for 1,800+ yards as a team ranking 12th in rushing. They had 3 offensive Pro Bowlers to our 0.

Than he goes to Chicago and all of the people who said Cutler would struggle because he doesn't have the weapons they do in Denver were told that your crazy and Cutler would elevate the whole Chicago offensive attack.

I guess we see that 1 QB doesn't make that great of a difference. Because if Cutler could he should have taken a 9-7 Chicago team last year with no "Awesome" QB to at least 11-5 because he has "it" and should be able to win the games that Sexy Rexy couldn't.

I didn't say he didn't have any talent. Why are you twisting words and being incredibly dense and argumentative.

He has absolute garbage talent around him in Chitown. Put ARod on that team and he has less picks but WAY more sacks. Probably 3x the sacks as he does in GB. If he has proven anything its that he'd rather take a sack than possibly wing up an INT.

He is a solid player right now on the verge of becoming a good player. Part of being a good player is to consistently win games he should. We should have beaten Tampa and a whole lot of games last year that we didn't. He's not there yet but is he is getting there.

To be a great player, you need to beat teams that you should not beat once in a while, and carry the team on your back. Comeback wins, big time plays, playoff games, etc. It takes a long time to reach this status.

In my book, you need to climb the latter. Some of you seem to put a player at the top rung and wait for them to drop down. Rodgers started out as unproven, has progressed to average, and is now at solid. Will he ever get to good or great? Maybe. Hopefully. Not only does one have to be able to do it consistently or a significant period of time (Rodgers hasn't started a significant period of time), but they have to have success in the big games. I have a very hard time rating Rodgers higher than a player who has been in the playoffs and won big games. Why? Because we have no idea how he will handle the pressure. He hasn't won a truly huge game yet, so we don't even know if he can. Beating the Steelers will be a pretty damn big game I would think.

[Bossman641]

As you can see, statistically it's very close, despite Rodgers surrounding talent coming a Bush recovered fumble away from the super bowl. Cutler's was coming off a 7-9 year. Seems to me that Rodgers had better talent around him.



And Cutler had no talent around him in Denver? Marshall, Royal and down to their 7th string RB but still managed to rush for 1,800+ yards as a team ranking 12th in rushing. They had 3 offensive Pro Bowlers to our 0.

Than he goes to Chicago and all of the people who said Cutler would struggle because he doesn't have the weapons they do in Denver were told that your crazy and Cutler would elevate the whole Chicago offensive attack.

I guess we see that 1 QB doesn't make that great of a difference. Because if Cutler could he should have taken a 9-7 Chicago team last year with no "Awesome" QB to at least 11-5 because he has "it" and should be able to win the games that Sexy Rexy couldn't.

I didn't say he didn't have any talent. Why are you twisting words and being incredibly dense and argumentative.

He has absolute garbage talent around him in Chitown. Put ARod on that team and he has less picks but WAY more sacks. Probably 3x the sacks as he does in GB. If he has proven anything its that he'd rather take a sack than possibly wing up an INT.

Come on Partial. 3 times the sacks? So Rodgers would have 132 sacks through 11 games?

Well, the NFL record for sacks in a game is 12. Good to hear that Rodgers would be topping that number every single week.

[Smidgeon]

He's playing well, thats for sure.

Which is it?

He's the next big deal, He sucks, he's good, he's average, he sucks, he's playing well.

He's playing well right now, that doesn't mean he is a star player or even a good player. You cannot look at a few game stretch and ignore the entire body of work. He's still below .500 as a starter.

Again, why the ability for a QB to win during his first two starting years DOESN'T MATTER when judging him based on how good he is going to be overall. (http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?p=475470#475470)

Hopefully that is the case. We don't have any evidence supporting that, either. Look at the % of starters who also had shitting win-loss records there first two years and continued to have shitty win-loss records. You cannot cherry pick data of HOFers and say it doesn't matter.

I can and am saying it doesn't matter because you keep saying that because he hasn't been winning he doesn't have what it takes. The W-L record in a QB's first two years cannot tell you with any indication if the QB will be a winning QB for the long haul. You have to look at other factors, and those other factors are statistics and leadership. AR has the first and appears to have the second. I agree that I think it's easy to see if a QB will be crap when they can't do jack the first couple years. But the only think AR is missing from his resume is the Wins, and you can't keep putting him down just for not getting those yet.

[Partial]

As you can see, statistically it's very close, despite Rodgers surrounding talent coming a Bush recovered fumble away from the super bowl. Cutler's was coming off a 7-9 year. Seems to me that Rodgers had better talent around him.



And Cutler had no talent around him in Denver? Marshall, Royal and down to their 7th string RB but still managed to rush for 1,800+ yards as a team ranking 12th in rushing. They had 3 offensive Pro Bowlers to our 0.

Than he goes to Chicago and all of the people who said Cutler would struggle because he doesn't have the weapons they do in Denver were told that your crazy and Cutler would elevate the whole Chicago offensive attack.

I guess we see that 1 QB doesn't make that great of a difference. Because if Cutler could he should have taken a 9-7 Chicago team last year with no "Awesome" QB to at least 11-5 because he has "it" and should be able to win the games that Sexy Rexy couldn't.

I didn't say he didn't have any talent. Why are you twisting words and being incredibly dense and argumentative.

He has absolute garbage talent around him in Chitown. Put ARod on that team and he has less picks but WAY more sacks. Probably 3x the sacks as he does in GB. If he has proven anything its that he'd rather take a sack than possibly wing up an INT.

Come on Partial. 3 times the sacks? So Rodgers would have 132 sacks through 11 games?

Well, the NFL record for sacks in a game is 12. Good to hear that Rodgers would be topping that number every single week.

Obviously tahts an exagerration, but Cutler chucks it up when he feels pressure. Rodgers takes the sack. I'm not confident either team has a different record if you swap the QBs. Maybe the Packers do. I do think the Bears beat the Packers in week 1 and the Bears lose to the Steelers.

[sharpe1027]

Obviously tahts an exagerration, but Cutler chucks it up when he feels pressure. Rodgers takes the sack.

Rodgers also has 247 yards of rushing and 45 attempts, which is a pretty good substitute for chucking it up. Arguably, Cutler would have more sacks than Rodgers because most of those 45 attempts were avoided sacks.

[ThunderDan]

I didn't say he didn't have any talent. Why are you twisting words and being incredibly dense and argumentative.
He has absolute garbage talent around him in Chitown. Put ARod on that team and he has less picks but WAY more sacks. Probably 3x the sacks as he does in GB. If he has proven anything its that he'd rather take a sack than possibly wing up an INT.

He is a solid player right now on the verge of becoming a good player. Part of being a good player is to consistently win games he should. We should have beaten Tampa and a whole lot of games last year that we didn't. He's not there yet but is he is getting there.

To be a great player, you need to beat teams that you should not beat once in a while, and carry the team on your back. Comeback wins, big time plays, playoff games, etc. It takes a long time to reach this status.

In my book, you need to climb the latter. Some of you seem to put a player at the top rung and wait for them to drop down. Rodgers started out as unproven, has progressed to average, and is now at solid. Will he ever get to good or great? Maybe. Hopefully. Not only does one have to be able to do it consistently or a significant period of time (Rodgers hasn't started a significant period of time), but they have to have success in the big games. I have a very hard time rating Rodgers higher than a player who has been in the playoffs and won big games. Why? Because we have no idea how he will handle the pressure. He hasn't won a truly huge game yet, so we don't even know if he can. Beating the Steelers will be a pretty damn big game I would think.

Way to go "Positive Posterboy"

Chicago went 9-7 last year. They have no talent? Way to try and fit the real "facts" to your conclusion. 3X the sacks. Stop being ridiculous, wait maybe you were serious who knows with your posts!

Cutler's W-L is worse than Rodgers. Yet you hold him in high esteem. What has he done (other than lose 3 games last year down the stretch to not clinch a playoff spot) to warrent this "love?"

Real QBs win those games and bring their team to the playoffs!

[Bossman641]

Obviously tahts an exagerration, but Cutler chucks it up when he feels pressure. Rodgers takes the sack. I'm not confident either team has a different record if you swap the QBs. Maybe the Packers do. I do think the Bears beat the Packers in week 1 and the Bears lose to the Steelers.

I'd guess with Rodgers the Bears win in week 1, beat SF in week 10, and Philly in week 11. I'll even give you Pitt, so a 2 game difference.

With Cutler I'm guessing Packers are a game worse than currently.

BTW, how did your turkey challenge end up

[channtheman]

I didn't say he didn't have any talent. Why are you twisting words and being incredibly dense and argumentative.
He has absolute garbage talent around him in Chitown. Put ARod on that team and he has less picks but WAY more sacks. Probably 3x the sacks as he does in GB. If he has proven anything its that he'd rather take a sack than possibly wing up an INT.

He is a solid player right now on the verge of becoming a good player. Part of being a good player is to consistently win games he should. We should have beaten Tampa and a whole lot of games last year that we didn't. He's not there yet but is he is getting there.

To be a great player, you need to beat teams that you should not beat once in a while, and carry the team on your back. Comeback wins, big time plays, playoff games, etc. It takes a long time to reach this status.

In my book, you need to climb the latter. Some of you seem to put a player at the top rung and wait for them to drop down. Rodgers started out as unproven, has progressed to average, and is now at solid. Will he ever get to good or great? Maybe. Hopefully. Not only does one have to be able to do it consistently or a significant period of time (Rodgers hasn't started a significant period of time), but they have to have success in the big games. I have a very hard time rating Rodgers higher than a player who has been in the playoffs and won big games. Why? Because we have no idea how he will handle the pressure. He hasn't won a truly huge game yet, so we don't even know if he can. Beating the Steelers will be a pretty damn big game I would think.

Way to go "Positive Posterboy"

Chicago went 9-7 last year. They have no talent? Way to try and fit the real "facts" to your conclusion. 3X the sacks. Stop being ridiculous, wait maybe you were serious who knows with your posts!

Cutler's W-L is worse than Rodgers. Yet you hold him in high esteem. What has he done (other than lose 3 games last year down the stretch to not clinch a playoff spot) to warrent this "love?"

Real QBs win those games and bring their team to the playoffs!

Well he said Cutler wins games he shouldn't (for example Pitt this year). He never said that Cutler won games he should! :lol:

[sharpe1027]

Well he said Cutler wins games he shouldn't (for example Pitt this year). He never said that Cutler won games he should! :lol:

Rex Grossman II.

[Packers4Ever]

A game where he made enough plays in the right times and won. Very nice to see. A little sloppy at times, but it was nice to see him do the things we needed on 3rd downs and in the red zone late in the game. I'll take this Arod over the girly one that usually shows up in big games any day.


"The girly one" ?? Explain, please. I'll take this guy
any day of the week, he's getting the job done and
he looks good doing it !! What more do we need?

[bobblehead]

As you can see, statistically it's very close, despite Rodgers surrounding talent coming a Bush recovered fumble away from the super bowl. Cutler's was coming off a 7-9 year. Seems to me that Rodgers had better talent around him.



And Cutler had no talent around him in Denver? Marshall, Royal and down to their 7th string RB but still managed to rush for 1,800+ yards as a team ranking 12th in rushing. They had 3 offensive Pro Bowlers to our 0.

Than he goes to Chicago and all of the people who said Cutler would struggle because he doesn't have the weapons they do in Denver were told that your crazy and Cutler would elevate the whole Chicago offensive attack.

I guess we see that 1 QB doesn't make that great of a difference. Because if Cutler could he should have taken a 9-7 Chicago team last year with no "Awesome" QB to at least 11-5 because he has "it" and should be able to win the games that Sexy Rexy couldn't.

I didn't say he didn't have any talent. Why are you twisting words and being incredibly dense and argumentative.

He has absolute garbage talent around him in Chitown. Put ARod on that team and he has less picks but WAY more sacks. Probably 3x the sacks as he does in GB. If he has proven anything its that he'd rather take a sack than possibly wing up an INT.

He is a solid player right now on the verge of becoming a good player. Part of being a good player is to consistently win games he should. We should have beaten Tampa and a whole lot of games last year that we didn't. He's not there yet but is he is getting there.

To be a great player, you need to beat teams that you should not beat once in a while, and carry the team on your back. Comeback wins, big time plays, playoff games, etc. It takes a long time to reach this status.

In my book, you need to climb the latter. Some of you seem to put a player at the top rung and wait for them to drop down. Rodgers started out as unproven, has progressed to average, and is now at solid. Will he ever get to good or great? Maybe. Hopefully. Not only does one have to be able to do it consistently or a significant period of time (Rodgers hasn't started a significant period of time), but they have to have success in the big games. I have a very hard time rating Rodgers higher than a player who has been in the playoffs and won big games. Why? Because we have no idea how he will handle the pressure. He hasn't won a truly huge game yet, so we don't even know if he can. Beating the Steelers will be a pretty damn big game I would think.

Not that I disagree with most of what you write, but most of us who are favre "haters" point to his propensity to throw mountains of interceptions in the biggest games. Because he was surrounded with epic talent they won a superbowl and made it to another, but if you are downranking Aaron for not winning big games you really gotta discount brett for laying many many big game eggs.

[mraynrand]

I've always been bothered by this idea that a player has to win a title in order to be considered truly great.

Was Ernie Banks not great because the Cubs organization wasn't good enough to get the talent it needed?

Was Barry Sanders not great because the Lions couldn't get enough talent to get over the top?

Archie Manning was a fine quarterback, as was Bert Jones. Dan Marino didn't "win" after his first year - did he get bad at his position?

Fritz, you and I can be friends
http://pkj11.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/jim-kelly-745732.jpg