PDA

View Full Version : "One of the single greatest games played at the quarterback position"



CaptainKickass
09-19-2013, 10:53 PM
I already know this. And I'm pretty sure you all know this. So I know that you know that we all know this. But it's still really fun to read.

From here: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000247185/article/aaron-rodgers-green-bay-packers-tenure-demands-appreciation


Forget the young guns. Forget all the talk about the read option. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are still at the top of their games, but even they fall short.

You know what I'm talking about, right?

We are living in the Aaron Rodgers Era of Greatness. No quarterback in the NFL has been better since Rodgers became the Green Bay Packers' starter in 2008, and it's time to recognize.

Aaron Rodgers

The guy had an all-time great performance against the Washington Redskins last Sunday, and a nation sort of shrugged its collective shoulders. I centered my Monday column on Washington's defense getting torched by Rodgers, but few others wrote about it. The highlight shows didn't lead with it. It didn't dominate the NFL chatter.

Do we simply expect this kind of greatness, week in and week out?

The reality is, it's Aaron Rodgers' world, and we're just living in it. We need to appreciate and applaud; we need to stop and smell the roses. We need to call that Sunday showing -- in which Rodgers became the first signal-caller since Y.A Tittle in Week 7 of the 1962 season to throw for 480 passing yards, four touchdowns and zero picks in the same game -- what it was: one of the single greatest games played at the quarterback position.

He's en route to becoming one of the best quarterbacks ever. Still, less than 24 hours after throwing his way into the history books, Rodgers downplayed Sunday's effort for the ages in an appearance on "Schein on Sports" on SiriusXM Radio.

"I felt good throwing the football, but I feel that guys made good catches for me," Rodgers said matter-of-factly. "We had 280 yards after the catch, and it was pretty impressive. It was a good day for our offense, but there are still some things we can clean up, for sure."

Clean up?!

"... I did a poor job a couple times, of just not communicating enough with my backs on a couple of adjustment checks, and I also missed a couple throws I wanted to hit," Rodgers continued. "I think that's the great thing about being on a Mike McCarthy-coached team, with Tom Clements as our offensive coordinator and Ben McAdoo my quarterback coach. They hold me to a pretty high standard every weekend, and we like to be flawless."

Rodgers is the ultimate perfectionist. It's what makes him the best in the business. How can you not love watching him play with his pinpoint accuracy? How can you not love listening to him strive to be even better?

By the way, don't overlook his take on the great McCarthy. This offseason, I wrote that the McCarthy-Rodgers pairing is the elite coach-quarterback combination in the NFL. McCarthy and Rodgers share a brain and -- most especially -- they have trust.

Rodgers explained that he and McCarthy, to whom he gave "a lot of credit" for Sunday's win, "have a great trust, a mutual trust, and it's just enhanced when he gives me some latitude and I'm able to get us in good situations; it just continues to grow our relationship."

Just how well has Rodgers played under McCarthy? He's been the best; the games and numbers prove it.

Chew on these nuggets of domination: Since Rodgers became a starter in 2008, he's had the best quarterback rating in the league. He ranks second in passing yards and passing touchdowns in that time frame; he also has the second-lowest interception rate. Put simply, over the past five years and two games, there's been nobody better.

He'll further burnish his "elite" status with another Super Bowl championship -- which I'm sure he'll get eventually. His legacy will also be boosted by all of the wins he's stacked up. He simply dominates, whether he's dealing with shaky offensive lines, subpar running backs or hit-or-miss defenses.

Though the Packers are 1-1 this year, they are, without question, one of the four best teams in the NFL -- thanks to the greatness of Rodgers.

In many other areas, Green Bay doesn't rate highly. Consider how the Packers stack up against their Week 3 opponents, the Cincinnati Bengals. Cincy has the better defense, the better offensive line and a bit more sizzle at running back with Giovani Bernard.

Of course, the Packers are loaded at one spot in particular: receiver. Even with the offseason departures of Greg Jennings (via free agency) and Donald Driver (via retirement), Rodgers has a diverse cast of pass catchers at his disposal -- thanks to the savvy of general manager Ted Thompson -- in Jordy Nelson, James Jones, Randall Cobb and tight end Jermichael Finley.

Rodgers is especially pleased with the development of Finley, who is off to a great start in a contract season after long teasing us with his potential.

"I think he's just understanding coverages," Rodgers said, "understanding the timing of our offense even better, knowing when he has to be open, knowing when he can take a little bit of extra time on a route. ... He's making plays -- like his touchdown catch (Sunday) -- that he hasn't been able to make in the past. ... We're all happy for him, proud of him, and just trying to find ways to get him the football."

Speaking of getting people the football, how does Rodgers decide which of his many receivers to target?

"I think a lot of stuff goes into that whole process. It's preparation, and it is understanding what kind of scheme you're playing. And then a lot of it is reaction and the game. ... It just depends on the matchups; once you get into the game and the flow, I like to throw to the open guy; I don't feel like there is a 'go-to guy' on this team. I think that's what makes us dynamic, but also allows the guys to run every route to win."
Power Rankings: Steelers sinking
Things are bad for Big Ben and the Steelers -- as in, "hurtling toward the bottom" bad. Elliot Harrison ranks all 32 teams. More ...

The nature of such a varied attack means that a receiver might be extremely quiet one week -- Jones, for example, went catch-less in the season opener -- and extremely busy the next -- on Sunday, Jones hauled in 11 passes for 178 yards.

"That's going to happen sometimes ..." Rodgers said. "I think everyone was impressed by James' attitude after Week 1. Like I told him in the huddle as we were taking a knee, just make sure you're the same guy that you were this week as you were last week."

This past offseason was a bizarre one for Rodgers. For seemingly no good reason, Jennings and Driver foolishly took shots at him with critical comments. Then, Rodgers had to deal with the fallout that accompanied the revelation that his friend, embattled Milwaukee Brewers slugger Ryan Braun -- whom Rodgers had publically supported -- was a steroid cheat.

Still, Rodgers has this uncanny knack for letting it all fall off his shoulders, for compartmentalizing and focusing on football. Ever since the Brett Favre nonsense that accompanied his ascension to the top job, Rodgers has handled "noise" with aplomb.

He's also a great teammate, always looking to spread credit and accept blame. Whenever we visit him at training camp, Rodgers insists on bringing out the backup quarterback or some other unsung hero, to share the publicity. It goes a long way.

Rodgers' one "yeah, but" has been his history against the San Francisco 49ers, having lost to them to open the 2012 season, then again in the postseason, and once more to open this season. Even so, he refused to use the "h-word" when asked about the hatred and bad blood between the Niners and Packers.

San Francisco is a more complete team than Green Bay and has a better chance of winning the Super Bowl this year. But don't let that distract you from Rodgers' greatness.

The Packers will have a chance for retribution -- because of Aaron Rodgers.

Though the matchups suggest the Bengals might win in Cincinnati this Sunday, I'm picking Green Bay -- because of Aaron Rodgers.

There's nobody better in the league right now. There's been nobody better since he became the Packers' starter.

You'll tell your grandkids you saw Manning and Brady, and you'll also tell them you saw Aaron Rodgers.

And here's the beautiful part: He's only just begun.

mraynrand
09-19-2013, 10:59 PM
I don't know. Rodgers struggled to just match the production of Matt Flynn, in Flynn's only start. I'm guessing it's the system, not the Quarterback.

RashanGary
09-20-2013, 12:11 AM
i agree. Rodgers has taken his game to another level with the no huddle pace. Hes the best player ive ever watched.

Guiness
09-20-2013, 02:44 AM
Watch the video that article linked to?
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2013091504/2013/REG2/redskins@packers#menu=highlights&tab=recap

Just after the 1:50 mark they show both of Merriweather's hits. Perfect views, Merriweather lead with his helmet, arms down. Starks was lucky, he got hit right near the ear hole, he could've easily been the one getting carted off.

I don't know how those hit didn't deserve a suspension.

Kiwon
09-20-2013, 06:03 AM
After A-Rod's career is done and he writes his book, I will be curious to hear his evaluation of his first three years riding the bench and how that time factored into his development as a QB.

Also, after he got injured in years 2 and 3, the knock on him was that he was soft and injury-prone. He gets killed the last few years and still has MVP-type seasons. I hope he will address that as well.

Maxie the Taxi
09-20-2013, 07:06 AM
I've always said that Bart Starr is the greatest QB I've ever seen. Now I have to concede that Aaron Rodgers is right up there with him. I'm not talking about Super Bowl rings or championships. I'm talking about mastery of the position.

What made Starr so great is his ability as a field general. He was smart and humble and the unquestioned leader of the team. He'd take a sack to avoid a risky throw into coverage. He was fearless, standing in there in the face of an oncoming rusher to get the throw away at the expense of his own body.

Rodgers is all these things plus he can extend the play and win the game with his legs.

There is really no way to compare players from different eras, but as I see him play Sunday after Sunday, Rodgers is Starr without the Hall of Famers surrounding him at RB and in the OL.

The author of the article is correct. Rodgers is the equalizer, the guy that makes the Pack a good bet to win even against more talented opponents. The singular mission of the rest of the team and the Packer management should be to keep him healthy and keep him playing as long as possible as a Packer.

mraynrand
09-20-2013, 07:56 AM
Starr had it easier. The playbook in those days only had seven plays, you could win the championship with one home playoff win, and the refs were typically hired from the local Elks Club.

Maxie the Taxi
09-20-2013, 08:00 AM
Starr had it easier. The playbook in those days only had seven plays, you could win the championship with one home playoff win, and the refs were typically hired from the local Elks Club.

You sure you're not talking about the days of Curly Lambeau?

denverYooper
09-20-2013, 08:03 AM
I thought his game against the 49ers was more impressive in a way. After struggling a lot against them last year (and other teams with good front 7s) I felt like he'd cracked the shell a bit. In the short exposure we saw in preseason, I thought he showed a faster trigger and a willingness to make some throws he wasn't trying before. If that is indeed true, and the C2 looks stop being as effective, we'll see another impressive year from GB's offense.

mraynrand
09-20-2013, 08:30 AM
You sure you're not talking about the days of Curly Lambeau?


:)

Pugger
09-20-2013, 08:43 AM
Starr is so underrated and unappreciated by some today, besides Packer fans of course, it is ridiculous. When he won his SBs he didn't have the running game he had in the early 60s. Rodgers will end up being the GOAT if he continues to plays like this and wins another SB. Hopefully his accomplishments will not be ignored by future fans like Bart has.

George Cumby
09-20-2013, 08:51 AM
Starr is so underrated and unappreciated by some today, besides Packer fans of course, it is ridiculous. When he won his SBs he didn't have the running game he had in the early 60s. Rodgers will end up being the GOAT if he continues to plays like this and wins another SB. Hopefully his accomplishments will not be ignored by future fans like Bart has.

An oldie but a goodie:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/the-definitive-list-top-10-nfl-quarterbacks/6376/

mraynrand
09-20-2013, 09:29 AM
Starr is so underrated and unappreciated by some today, besides Packer fans of course, it is ridiculous. When he won his SBs he didn't have the running game he had in the early 60s. Rodgers will end up being the GOAT if he continues to plays like this and wins another SB. Hopefully his accomplishments will not be ignored by future fans like Bart has.

Sorry, Puggs, it just happens. Otto Graham was the greatest winner ever at the QB position in professional football, and I bet you'd be hard pressed to get name recognition from more than 50% of the under 30 years old NFL fan base. Part of it is the reasonable argument that the game has changed so dramatically as to make a Championship far more difficult. Rodgers won a single championship, but had to win four post-season games to do it (all four road games). In Starr's pre-superbowl run ('61, '62 and '65) four post season wins resulted in three championships (two home games and two on the road at Yankee Stadium and New City Stadium)

Patler
09-20-2013, 09:40 AM
Sorry, Puggs, it just happens. Otto Graham was the greatest winner ever at the QB position in professional football, and I bet you'd be hard pressed to get name recognition from more than 50% of the under 30 years old NFL fan base. Part of it is the reasonable argument that the game has changed so dramatically as to make a Championship far more difficult. Rodgers won a single championship, but had to win four post-season games to do it (all four road games). In Starr's pre-superbowl run ('61, '62 and '65) four post season wins resulted in three championships (two home games and two on the road at Yankee Stadium and New City Stadium)

On the other hand, just getting to the playoffs was much harder in Starr's time. Finishing sixth in the conference, as GB did in 2010 would leave you home. Starr needed to drive the team to victories all season long. The Packers finished 11-2-1 in 1963 and did not even have an opportunity to win the championship. Their record was not good enough to qualify for the playoffs. Every game was critically important for a shot in the playoffs.

mraynrand
09-20-2013, 09:48 AM
On the other hand, just getting to the playoffs was much harder in Starr's time. Finishing sixth in the conference, as GB did in 2010 would leave you home. Starr needed to drive the team to victories all season long. The Packers finished 11-2-1 in 1963 and did not even have an opportunity to win the championship. Their record was not good enough to qualify for the playoffs.

Good point, yet there wasn't the same level of competition either, at least at first blush. You have to wonder how factors such as the expansion of number of teams, increased college participation, increased population, popularity, season-long training, nutrition, growth factors, (not to mention deliberate attempts by the league to increase competetiveness with caps, draft, free agency) etc. etc. affect the resultant levels of competition; specifically, is there a net increase in talent and net increase in competitiveness, or a dilution of talent and the ability for a franchise to dominate? I come down on the side of the former.

Upnorth
09-20-2013, 10:01 AM
I thought his game against the 49ers was more impressive in a way. After struggling a lot against them last year (and other teams with good front 7s) I felt like he'd cracked the shell a bit. In the short exposure we saw in preseason, I thought he showed a faster trigger and a willingness to make some throws he wasn't trying before. If that is indeed true, and the C2 looks stop being as effective, we'll see another impressive year from GB's offense.

Facing the perfect defense to stop us, amazing past rush with solid cbs and safeties, and he played a great game. Because he lost its over looked but man he played well that day.
Only chink in his armor is coming from behind in the fourth quarter.

Guiness
09-20-2013, 10:24 AM
Good point, yet there wasn't the same level of competition either, at least at first blush. You have to wonder how factors such as the expansion of number of teams, increased college participation, increased population, popularity, season-long training, nutrition, growth factors, (not to mention deliberate attempts by the league to increase competetiveness with caps, draft, free agency) etc. etc. affect the resultant levels of competition; specifically, is there a net increase in talent and net increase in competitiveness, or a dilution of talent and the ability for a franchise to dominate? I come down on the side of the former.

don't forget PEDs

HarveyWallbangers
09-20-2013, 11:03 AM
On the other hand, just getting to the playoffs was much harder in Starr's time. Finishing sixth in the conference, as GB did in 2010 would leave you home. Starr needed to drive the team to victories all season long. The Packers finished 11-2-1 in 1963 and did not even have an opportunity to win the championship. Their record was not good enough to qualify for the playoffs. Every game was critically important for a shot in the playoffs.

Keeping a team together was easier though. It was easier to keep a dynasty rolling because teams rarely lost their best players. If you had the right GM, you could be great for a long time. Curly's Packers won 6 championships and didn't have a losing season from 1933-1947. Otto's Browns went to 10 straight championship games and won 7 of them. Lombardi's Packers won 5 championships in 7 years. The Steelers and 49ers dominated for a long time. Even the Vikings dominated the NFC North for a long time--winning 10 division titles in 11 years.

Patler
09-20-2013, 11:53 AM
Keeping a team together was easier though. It was easier to keep a dynasty rolling because teams rarely lost their best players. If you had the right GM, you could be great for a long time. Curly's Packers won 6 championships and didn't have a losing season from 1933-1947. Otto's Browns went to 10 straight championship games and won 7 of them. Lombardi's Packers won 5 championships in 7 years. The Steelers and 49ers dominated for a long time. Even the Vikings dominated the NFC North for a long time--winning 10 division titles in 11 years.

Sure, but your opponents could do the same.

My point was simply that the argument that Rodgers has it tougher because he has to win so many playoff games each year doesn't carry much weight with me, because the need to win each and every game during the season is less with so many playoff spots available. Depending on the strength of your division, you can be somewhat mediocre through out the season and still have a shot to catch lightening in a bottle and win three or four games necessary for a championship. You couldn't do that before the expanded playoffs. An individual game during the season carried more weight then than now.

Pugger
09-20-2013, 01:39 PM
Good point, yet there wasn't the same level of competition either, at least at first blush. You have to wonder how factors such as the expansion of number of teams, increased college participation, increased population, popularity, season-long training, nutrition, growth factors, (not to mention deliberate attempts by the league to increase competetiveness with caps, draft, free agency) etc. etc. affect the resultant levels of competition; specifically, is there a net increase in talent and net increase in competitiveness, or a dilution of talent and the ability for a franchise to dominate? I come down on the side of the former.

In the later part of the 60s when we passed more than we ran the rules were not so passer friendly back then as they are today. Back then you could mug recievers past 5 yards and could clock the QB well after he threw the ball without fear of a penalty.

mraynrand
09-20-2013, 01:52 PM
In the later part of the 60s when we passed more than we ran the rules were not so passer friendly back then as they are today. Back then you could mug recievers past 5 yards and could clock the QB well after he threw the ball without fear of a penalty.

well, I was pretty much ending my eval at 1965, before the superbowl era. Pack had 2100 yards passing and 1500 yards rushing, with 7 games where they rushed more than passed. Two games - Cowboys and Lions (tough matchups to be sure) Pack had negative yards passing (-10, and -2, respectively, winning 13-3 and losing 12-7 respectively). Imagine that - Starr throws for a net -10 yards and the Pack still wins. Almost the exact reverse of today's Packers, where they live and die with Rodger's effectiveness.

Harlan Huckleby
09-20-2013, 01:59 PM
I wonder if Aaron Rodgers farts potpourri

Patler
09-20-2013, 03:03 PM
In the later part of the 60s when we passed more than we ran the rules were not so passer friendly back then as they are today. Back then you could mug recievers past 5 yards and could clock the QB well after he threw the ball without fear of a penalty.

Another big difference was in O-line play. The could not extend their arms in pass protection, so would strike that classic pose for linemen, with fists clenched and held against their chests.

mraynrand
09-20-2013, 04:26 PM
I wonder if Aaron Rodgers farts potpourri

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you wonder about this

bobblehead
09-20-2013, 06:43 PM
An oldie but a goodie:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/the-definitive-list-top-10-nfl-quarterbacks/6376/

In every discussion of the greatest coaches ever I make this same point.

•Bill Belichick was 42-58 as a head coach before Brady. He's 100-26 since.

Bill Parcells is the G.O.A.T. of coaches.

Joemailman
09-20-2013, 07:00 PM
In every discussion of the greatest coaches ever I make this same point.

•Bill Belichick was 42-58 as a head coach before Brady. He's 100-26 since.

Bill Parcells is the G.O.A.T. of coaches.

Parcells over Lombardi? Really? Lombardi won 5 titles in 9 years for an organization that hadn't won a title in 15 years when he took over, and wouldn't win another title for 29 years after he left. And if you're going to say he had Starr, I might point out Starr was 3-15-1 as a starter before Lombardi, 14-19-1 after he left, and 77-23-4 with Lombardi. None of this diminishes Starr, who was the greatest playoff QB ever, but Lombardi was in a class of his own.

mraynrand
09-20-2013, 09:48 PM
In every discussion of the greatest coaches ever I make this same point.

•Bill Belichick was 42-58 as a head coach before Brady. He's 100-26 since.

Bill Parcells is the G.O.A.T. of coaches.

This cracks me up, especially since Parcells couldn't win a championship without Belicheat. Ask Jim Kelly which one is the better coach.

Willard
09-21-2013, 10:27 AM
An oldie but a goodie:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/the-definitive-list-top-10-nfl-quarterbacks/6376/
This should be required reading for all football fans - age 8 and up.

Guiness
09-21-2013, 03:14 PM
This should be required reading for all football fans - age 8 and up.

I don't know...a lot of 'it was better when...' in that article. I understand giving the pioneers their due but a lot of that article seemed to wax poetic about how fabulous the old guys were.