David Carr?

[digitaldean]

This is posed purely to those who are convinced A-Rod isn't the answer at QB.

The Texans have stated they are shopping Carr. The Vikings, Raiders and Dolphins are interested parties.

If those are convinced A-Rod isn't the guy, would you (if you were GM) trade for Carr. If you would, how much would you offer? Or isn't he worth it?

We're not talking if TT would trade for him, we're talking to those who want a new heir apparent for Brett.

Carr had a lousy record, but his o-line sucked. Though I think A-Rod is worth it, it wouldn't hurt to take a look at him.

[MJZiggy]

But if you think A-Rod is worth it, what does that say to him when you trade for another QB?

[Freak Out]

No thank you.

[Partial]

Wait for him to get released. No need to trade for him. If your starter goes out your season goes to hell anyway, so no sense is wasting a draft pick on that.

I'd be alright with them trading Rodgers, signing carr and drafting another guy. Carr and Martin can compete in camp for the backup spot.

[digitaldean]

But if you think A-Rod is worth it, what does that say to him when you trade for another QB?

True.

But if he had the right stuff, it should push him to compete harder for that starter's role when Brett leaves. If he falters, then there is a former starter to fall back on.

Hey, Wolf still kept bringing good QBs (at the time) like Mark Brunell, Detmer, Brooks.

If Wolf doesn't try picking someone up now or after June 1, I hope he drafts a QB around the 4th round.

[Scott Campbell]

I'd trade for him if Brett had retired and we were heading into the season with just Rodgers and Ingle. But the timing is wrong for making a move on Carr.

[red]

carr will go somewhere to be the starter right away

he'd be on the bench for at least a year if he came here

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I'd trade for him if Brett had retired and we were heading into the season with just Rodgers and Ingle. But the timing is wrong for making a move on Carr.

Thats what I was thinkig also.

[KYPack]

Carr will never be a street FA. Houston will want to get something for the guy. Somebody will trade 'em a pick. TT would want to sign him off the street for no comp, so we really don't have a sniff at the boy.

I'd trade a second day pick for Carr in a heartbeat. n He's got a live arm, good instincts and has shown decent toughness. ARod may work out, but I think Carr will eventually be better.

GB would be a good situation for him. He needs a year to clear his head and concentrate on developing his QB bag of tricks.

He's been in survivor mode for 4 years.

[woodbuck27]

David Carr certainly has the tools to be a success with the right team.

He's had incredible pressure placed on him in Houston. Much a result of a lousy OL, thus over the top too many sacks.

He needs a change of scenery and system provided to restore his confidence.

Would he be a good adddition to the Packers? Despite the fact that Aaron Rodgers may be the guy after Favre I believe he would be an asset.

I just think with this being another assessment season, that bringing him to Green Bay now may be ill timed.

[Lurker64]

I think I like Martin and Rodgers more than Carr, even if he was free.

[GrnBay007]

From Ben Maller Rumors.....


The Dolphins brain trust spent part of Thursday speaking with the Houston Texans about quarterback David Carr and investigating all aspects of a possible trade for the former first overall pick in the 2002 draft. Carr ending up in Miami is not a certainty. But it is a possibility that speaks to Miami's uncertain quarterback situation. The team's interest in Carr, and even in Kansas City quarterback Trent Green, coupled with coach Cam Cameron's cautious words when he last spoke about Daunte Culpepper, indicate that Culpepper is not assured of being the team's starter in 2007. One NFL personnel official with interest in the situation said the Oakland Raiders and Minnesota Vikings also had shown interest in Carr. But if the Dolphins really want Carr, they can have him, the personnel official said, by exchanging first-round picks with the Texans. The Texans have the No. 10 pick. The Dolphins are scheduled to pick at No. 9.

Posted March 23, by Ben Maller

[red]

dang thats not a lot to get carr

thatsonly a 50 point difference between #10 and #9. thats like a late 4th round pick

i wish we need a vet QB

well actually i don't

but if we did, i'd jump all over that

[lod01]

David Carr is a really, really awful, QB. I have the NFL ticket and have watched him for 3 years now. No field vision, no ability to read a defense, locks onto his primary and if covered, simply dumps the ball off. The # 2 receiver is wasted iff he is the QB.
If he scrambles, he never looks around for an open receiver. He hauls ass towards the sidelines and has taken sacks by running out of bounds when he could have thrown it away. Those are found in the gamebook on NFL.com. Any QB that runs out of bounds for a loss gets a sack. He's not smart enough to just toss it out of bounds as the rules state you can.

He is not good. Seriously.

[MadtownPacker]

I have Sunday Ticket also and I would be hard pressed to say Carr sucks based on his time in Hou. The OL has been garbage and it would be reasonable to think Carr is shellshocked from all the beatings he has taken. 249 sacks in four years and he got up over and over. Can you blame him for not finding the second WR? In 2005 Favre got the Carr treatment and had the worse year of his careeer by far.

That is what Carr has dealt with since his first season.

[BooHoo]

I believe Carr is an unknown commodity. Hard to judge him based upon his play in Houston. I say pick him up but only if the price is right. However, what is his cap number? That alone could restrict a trade. :o

[mngolf19]

Childress was on the radio yesterday and had nothing good to say about Carr's ability. So I would say that MN will not be picking him up.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Childress was on the radio yesterday and had nothing good to say about Carr's ability. So I would say that MN will not be picking him up.

You can't believe anything out of coaches' or GM's mouth this time of year. The best source out there, Adam Schefter of the NFL Channel, said that Minnesota could very well be the destination for Carr. He thinks Trent Green should go to Miami, Daunte Culpepper could go to Oakland, and Carr could end up in Minnesota.

[mngolf19]

Childress was on the radio yesterday and had nothing good to say about Carr's ability. So I would say that MN will not be picking him up.

You can't believe anything out of coaches' or GM's mouth this time of year. The best source out there, Adam Schefter of the NFL Channel, said that Minnesota could very well be the destination for Carr. He thinks Trent Green should go to Miami, Daunte Culpepper could go to Oakland, and Carr could end up in Minnesota.

But would he actually say something bad about him? I know Childress will throw people off for the draft but I don't see him backhanding a player he is truly interested in.

And I can't stand Schefter, he seems to make up stuff too from what I can tell.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Schefter is way more credible than anybody else out there. Now there's a guy that gets it right more times than not.

[Rastak]

Schefter is way more credible than anybody else out there. Now there's a guy that gets it right more times than not.


I both agree and disagree with Harvey here.

1) I doubt Childress would say negative things about a guy he wanted.
2) I agree that Schefter is pretty good.

[lod01]

But would he actually say something bad about him? I know Childress will throw people off for the draft but I don't see him backhanding a player he is truly interested in.

And I can't stand Schefter, he seems to make up stuff too from what I can tell.

Childress was saying exactly what he was thinking. And he is correct. If he had an interest, his statement would have been 'we are going with Jackson'. Paraphrasing, he said 'Carr, you are no good'. You don't say that with the thought of 'I will fool them into cutting him by telling everyone he is awful so I can pick him up for free. Then what 'Sorry Carr, I had to say you sucked so i could get you for free'? No he has no interest in Carr.

[The Leaper]

Carr will have little interest in Green Bay. At minimum, Carr will be looking for a team that will give him a fair chance in an open competition to be the starter week one...and that isn't happening in Green Bay.

I agree with the sentiments that Carr is an unknown at this point. The bottom line is that OL in Houston has been abysmal and provided Carr absolutely no protection at any point in his career. There isn't one QB in NFL history who could be successful on a consistent basis getting sacked 60 times a year. He's a big risk though, because the punishment he has taken over the years certainly impacts his mental approach IMO. Confidence and poise in the pocket are necessities for a QB in the NFL, and those traits have been beaten out of Carr in the last few seasons.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Not sure this has ANY validity, but it's interesting.

David Carr: Might be Headed to Minnesota

Update: One possible destination for Carr, who was released by the Texans Friday, could be Minnesota, the Houston Chronicle reports.

Recommendation: Vikes' coach Brad Childress had said the team wouldn't give up a draft choice for Carr because he never has liked the quarterback's mechanics. That said, now that Carr is a free agent, the Vikings could decide that said mechanics are worth working on. Oakland, Cleveland and Miami also have been mentioned as possible destinations for the number one overall pick in the 2002 draft.

[MadtownPacker]

One team's castoff can be another team's savior. I'm not saying Carr will be that guy but I think he can be. In MN he will have on offensive line that will protect him long enough to get rid of it. I would rather Carr not go there cuz I would hate having to root against him.

[mngolf19]

Personally, I wouldn't want to take on a guy that:

Has been beat up alot
Hasn't shown that he can win despite number of chances.
Needs mechanics fixed when he is 5-6 yrs in the league already.

All this over someone new that you can work on from the beginning. Jackson or a new draftee. I just don't see it. Not that I haven't been wrong from time to time. :wink: And besides, he has Henson already if he wants a similar project.

[Guiness]

Anyone else surprised there wasn't an announcement this morning?

I for one thought someone would float him an offer. But there isn't even any rumors of teams talking to him.

How does Oakland, Detroit, Minnesota, Miami and Cleveland not call him? :?: Baltimore and Chicago should be on that list as well, IMO. I don't see how Chi doesn't bring him in, and made the starting job an open competition!

[Merlin]

Wait for him to get released. No need to trade for him. If your starter goes out your season goes to hell anyway, so no sense is wasting a draft pick on that.

I'd be alright with them trading Rodgers, signing carr and drafting another guy. Carr and Martin can compete in camp for the backup spot.

The only problem there is that you and I both know that if Rodgers is still a Packer come training camp that Martin will not get an equal opportunity to compete for the backup role. TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.

[Merlin]

Childress was on the radio yesterday and had nothing good to say about Carr's ability. So I would say that MN will not be picking him up.

You can't believe anything out of coaches' or GM's mouth this time of year. The best source out there, Adam Schefter of the NFL Channel, said that Minnesota could very well be the destination for Carr. He thinks Trent Green should go to Miami, Daunte Culpepper could go to Oakland, and Carr could end up in Minnesota.

You didn't really use the words "Best Source" and "Adam Schefter" in the same sentence?

[Merlin]

Personally, I wouldn't want to take on a guy that:

Has been beat up alot
Hasn't shown that he can win despite number of chances.
Needs mechanics fixed when he is 5-6 yrs in the league already.

All this over someone new that you can work on from the beginning. Jackson or a new draftee. I just don't see it. Not that I haven't been wrong from time to time. :wink: And besides, he has Henson already if he wants a similar project.

David Carr is a Jeff Tedford QB so it goes without saying that his mechanics are wrong for the NFL. Aaron Rodgers is a Tedford QB as well. There are striking similarities between the two. I feel bad for David Carr. He was thrown to the wolves and may never reach anything in the NFL because of this. For Houston to cut him as "part of the problem" is ironic since they couldn't keep him off his back in any season. If anything you keep him to compete for the starting role. Matt Shaub has some good potential but anyone else remember what Atlanta's record was when he was the starter? Let's just say it wasn't good.

[vince]

TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.How do you know this?

[Merlin]

If I can find the quotes I will post them. But in a nutshell, McCarthy had the opportunity to take Rodgers over Smith in the draft, there is a reason he went with Smith.

[Partial]

TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.How do you know this?

He has no idea what he is talking about, Vince.

[vince]

TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.How do you know this?

He has no idea what he is talking about, Vince.
Just wanted to see how he responds, Partial. I'm not trying to chase anyone away from the board, but hopefully people can stop spewing unsupportable idiocy.

[Rastak]

TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.How do you know this?

He has no idea what he is talking about, Vince.
Just wanted to see how he responds, Partial. I'm not trying to chase anyone away from the board, but hopefully people can stop spewing unsupportable idiocy.


So how does each person in the front office view Rodgers?

[Merlin]

Why is it when you don't agree you resort to name calling? Unsupportable? LOL....look at the facts before you go off the deep end band wagon buddies. Obviously the decision to pick up Rodgers wasn't Mike Sherman's when he was with Green Bay. In fact it was TT's first draft pick for the Packers. Carr was cut from Houston who's offensive coordinator happens to be Mike Sherman. Since Carr and Rodgers are cut from the same mold and play remarkably similar I would say that Sherman doesn't believe in that system (among many many other coaches in the NFL). The 49er's passed up on Rodgers in favor of Alex Smith by who? Then offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy who has a knack for bringing up QB's. Enter McCarthy in Green Bay. Nall is let go and Ingle Martin is drafted in the 5th round (148th Pick) overall. So it's easy to see who made this call, not TT, McCarthy. He liked what he saw although he agreed he was raw.

Because Aaron Rodgers was the #1 overall pick in 2005, McCarthy the new head coach has no choice but to see what he has in him (the fact that TT won't admit he screwed up plays into it as well). Martin does not get the opportunities that he needs to prove otherwise. McCarthy numerous times talks about the potential of Martin but only states a few niceties about Rodgers.

If you can't put two and two together to see it equals four then I guess it stands to reason that the only argument you can bring is to revert to some kind of childish name calling ritual. I guess when articles are published I must be the only one that reads them and actually thinks about it instead of saying "idiots"...

[LaFours]

If you can't put two and two together to see it equals four then I guess it stands to reason that the only argument you can bring is to revert to some kind of childish name calling ritual. I guess when articles are published I must be the only one that reads them and actually thinks about it instead of saying "idiots"...

But it equaled 5 in 1984. Isn't that in direct contradiction to your aforementioned analogy?

[Zool]

Why is it when you don't agree you resort to name calling? Unsupportable? LOL....look at the facts before you go off the deep end band wagon buddies. Obviously the decision to pick up Rodgers wasn't Mike Sherman's when he was with Green Bay. In fact it was TT's first draft pick for the Packers. Carr was cut from Houston who's offensive coordinator happens to be Mike Sherman. Since Carr and Rodgers are cut from the same mold and play remarkably similar I would say that Sherman doesn't believe in that system (among many many other coaches in the NFL). The 49er's passed up on Rodgers in favor of Alex Smith by who? Then offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy who has a knack for bringing up QB's. Enter McCarthy in Green Bay. Nall is let go and Ingle Martin is drafted in the 5th round (148th Pick) overall. So it's easy to see who made this call, not TT, McCarthy. He liked what he saw although he agreed he was raw.

Because Aaron Rodgers was the #1 overall pick in 2005, McCarthy the new head coach has no choice but to see what he has in him (the fact that TT won't admit he screwed up plays into it as well). Martin does not get the opportunities that he needs to prove otherwise. McCarthy numerous times talks about the potential of Martin but only states a few niceties about Rodgers.

If you can't put two and two together to see it equals four then I guess it stands to reason that the only argument you can bring is to revert to some kind of childish name calling ritual. I guess when articles are published I must be the only one that reads them and actually thinks about it instead of saying "idiots"...

To be fair, no one called you an idiot. He said people coming in here spewing idiocy.

[vince]

Obviously the decision to pick up Rodgers wasn't Mike Sherman's when he was with Green Bay.In fact it was TT's first draft pick for the Packers. Carr was cut from Houston who's offensive coordinator happens to be Mike Sherman. Since Carr and Rodgers are cut from the same mold and play remarkably similar I would say that Sherman doesn't believe in that system (among many many other coaches in the NFL). The 49er's passed up on Rodgers in favor of Alex Smith by who? Then offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy who has a knack for bringing up QB's. Enter McCarthy in Green Bay. Nall is let go and Ingle Martin is drafted in the 5th round (148th Pick) overall. So it's easy to see who made this call, not TT, McCarthy. He liked what he saw although he agreed he was raw.

Because Aaron Rodgers was the #1 overall pick in 2005, McCarthy the new head coach has no choice but to see what he has in him (the fact that TT won't admit he screwed up plays into it as well). Martin does not get the opportunities that he needs to prove otherwise. McCarthy numerous times talks about the potential of Martin but only states a few niceties about Rodgers.

If you can't put two and two together to see it equals four then I guess it stands to reason that the only argument you can bring is to revert to some kind of childish name calling ritual. I guess when articles are published I must be the only one that reads them and actually thinks about it instead of saying "idiots"...
Merlin, I apologize for insinuating that you were spewing idiocy. However, please re-read your statement. You state these things as facts.

They're not. They're complete conjecture on your part.

Perhaps Sherman WAS high on Rodgers, but feels that Carr makes poor decisions. Neither you nor anyone but the people directly involved know this.

You don't know that McCarthy doesn't think Rodgers has the potential to lead the team. Every statement I've heard from him indicates just the opposite.

Your complete conjecture that McCarthy is higher on Martin than Rodgers based on your interpretation of how many accolades he's delivered on each of their behalf is not only pure speculation, but HIGHLY questionable speculation at that.

I'd love to see Martin beat out Rodgers for the back-up QB job, or see Rodgers traded away for Moss. That would be a clear indication of the truth of the speculation you position as fact.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about - since you believe your theories and speculation are truths. Bring the articles, if you can.

Then you can say two and two equals four. With your "facts" above, you're adding one and one and getting fifteen.

[Patler]

Why is it when you don't agree you resort to name calling? Unsupportable? LOL....look at the facts before you go off the deep end band wagon buddies. Obviously the decision to pick up Rodgers wasn't Mike Sherman's when he was with Green Bay. In fact it was TT's first draft pick for the Packers. Carr was cut from Houston who's offensive coordinator happens to be Mike Sherman. Since Carr and Rodgers are cut from the same mold and play remarkably similar I would say that Sherman doesn't believe in that system (among many many other coaches in the NFL). The 49er's passed up on Rodgers in favor of Alex Smith by who? Then offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy who has a knack for bringing up QB's. Enter McCarthy in Green Bay. Nall is let go and Ingle Martin is drafted in the 5th round (148th Pick) overall. So it's easy to see who made this call, not TT, McCarthy. He liked what he saw although he agreed he was raw.

Because Aaron Rodgers was the #1 overall pick in 2005, McCarthy the new head coach has no choice but to see what he has in him (the fact that TT won't admit he screwed up plays into it as well). Martin does not get the opportunities that he needs to prove otherwise. McCarthy numerous times talks about the potential of Martin but only states a few niceties about Rodgers.

If you can't put two and two together to see it equals four then I guess it stands to reason that the only argument you can bring is to revert to some kind of childish name calling ritual. I guess when articles are published I must be the only one that reads them and actually thinks about it instead of saying "idiots"...

Facts? FACTS???
Good gosh, you've got draft decisions being made by offensive coordinators, coordinators and headcoaches over ruling GMs, an OC making a decision to cut a QB the GM just paid $8 million to last year, whatever you need to support a personal opinion you have about Rodgers and/or Carr.

McCarthy made the call on Martin, but Sherman didn't on Rodgers??? If either one influenced TT on either draft pick (which I completely doubt), it would more likely have been Sherman about Rodgers than McCarthy about Martin. After all, Sherman had been GM and most certainly had been privy to in-season scouting reports and the like in preparation for the draft, which he would have conducted had he not been replaced in January. During the season coaches are not much involved in college prospects (unless the HC is the GM), so I doubt McCarthy came to GB with much knowledge on Martin. Prior to the draft he was interviewing and hiring a staff, setting out his plans for his first ever stint as a head coach, etc. I sincerely doubt he had much time to evaluate a prospect as inconsequential as Ingle Martin for mor than a few minutes, if that.

I won't even bother discussing the "he did influence it" / "he didn't influence it" contradictions you have for the 49ers and the Texans. I don't have enough time.

[Merlin]

No way Sherman had anything to do with the Rodgers pick. Think about it, picking Rodgers goes against everything we know to be true about Sherman (e.g. he drafts for the now, good QB's projects can be taken in later rounds, etc). Ingle Martin in the 5th? Once you get down that far, the GM is going to have a lot less to say about the pick and look more to his coaches and scouts for guidance. As far as Smith in San Fransisco, McCarthy did play a large role in that decision because of his background with QB's.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Ingle Martin in the 5th? Once you get down that far, the GM is going to have a lot less to say about the pick and look more to his coaches and scouts for guidance.

Scouts? Of course. With every pick. Coaches? Highly doubtful. The coach doesn't have time to research and interview every player--like the scouts do (that's their job). I'd think it's more likely the coach would have an opinion on the top picks. Guys they he may have personally interviewed. The later picks are guys that are more likely to recommened by souts--like Alonzo Highsmith.

[vince]

TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.How do you know this?

He has no idea what he is talking about, Vince.
Just wanted to see how he responds, Partial. I'm not trying to chase anyone away from the board, but hopefully people can stop spewing unsupportable idiocy.


So how does each person in the front office view Rodgers?
I don't know. The speculation that Merlin put forth is as good as any I've seen, but McCarthy's statements about Rodgers don't really support those claims, but you can't believe everyhting you read either.

[pbmax]

How is it that failure by the GM to cut someone we don't like is almost immediately converted into the pernicious character flaw "can't admit he was wrong"?

Aaron Rodgers has been a professional QB for two years and has not started. The fact that he is still on the roster is proof Thompson can't admit a mistake?

Where are Taco Wallace and Matt O'Dwyer? :)

[Merlin]

Obviously the decision to pick up Rodgers wasn't Mike Sherman's when he was with Green Bay.In fact it was TT's first draft pick for the Packers. Carr was cut from Houston who's offensive coordinator happens to be Mike Sherman. Since Carr and Rodgers are cut from the same mold and play remarkably similar I would say that Sherman doesn't believe in that system (among many many other coaches in the NFL). The 49er's passed up on Rodgers in favor of Alex Smith by who? Then offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy who has a knack for bringing up QB's. Enter McCarthy in Green Bay. Nall is let go and Ingle Martin is drafted in the 5th round (148th Pick) overall. So it's easy to see who made this call, not TT, McCarthy. He liked what he saw although he agreed he was raw.

Because Aaron Rodgers was the #1 overall pick in 2005, McCarthy the new head coach has no choice but to see what he has in him (the fact that TT won't admit he screwed up plays into it as well). Martin does not get the opportunities that he needs to prove otherwise. McCarthy numerous times talks about the potential of Martin but only states a few niceties about Rodgers.

If you can't put two and two together to see it equals four then I guess it stands to reason that the only argument you can bring is to revert to some kind of childish name calling ritual. I guess when articles are published I must be the only one that reads them and actually thinks about it instead of saying "idiots"...
Merlin, I apologize for insinuating that you were spewing idiocy. However, please re-read your statement. You state these things as facts.

They're not. They're complete conjecture on your part.

Perhaps Sherman WAS high on Rodgers, but feels that Carr makes poor decisions. Neither you nor anyone but the people directly involved know this.

You don't know that McCarthy doesn't think Rodgers has the potential to lead the team. Every statement I've heard from him indicates just the opposite.

Your complete conjecture that McCarthy is higher on Martin than Rodgers based on your interpretation of how many accolades he's delivered on each of their behalf is not only pure speculation, but HIGHLY questionable speculation at that.

I'd love to see Martin beat out Rodgers for the back-up QB job, or see Rodgers traded away for Moss. That would be a clear indication of the truth of the speculation you position as fact.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about - since you believe your theories and speculation are truths. Bring the articles, if you can.

Then you can say two and two equals four. With your "facts" above, you're adding one and one and getting fifteen.

I know it's hard for people to analyze things to the extent that I do. That isn't a cut on you or anyone else, that's just how it is, I over analyze everything (ask my wife it drives her nuts). And you are right that it may be part speculation on my part but it doesn't take much to look at the parties involved, know how they work and come up with a viable analysis that contains mostly fact. Sherman would be scared shitless to draft a QB that high because he doesn't coach them well and he always drafts for need even if his analysis is way off on the pick at times. TT is not going to trust the number one overall pick to anyone but himself. By the 5th round, he is asking for ideas. McCarthy watched Martin in a combine and liked what he saw. Martin probably wouldn't have been taken at all in the draft had McCarthy not liked him. He is from Furman, who the hell ever even heard of the guy until McCarthy brought his name up back then? Contrary to popular belief, McCarthy did go to combo's and watch players. Nall didn't fit for whatever reason, I wish I knew that one because he was a viable backup if nothing else. You can call it speculative all you want and that's fine. In order to make heads or tales of anything the front office does you need to look deep, analyze everything and come to a conclusion. I call it fact because that's what I see, it isn't what someone else said.

[pbmax]

Do we know anything about the 49ers front office, how can you say what level of input McCarthy had?

And why does the fact that McCarthy had Smith rated over Rodgers mean Rodgers is incapable? There can't be two starting QBs in a draft?

Last one, are you aware that there is an Urban Meyer - QB system curse in effect now? Does that mean McCarthy would be back in San Fran urging the team to dump Smith and sign Brad Johnson (Florida State QB curse)?

C'mon.


No way Sherman had anything to do with the Rodgers pick. Think about it, picking Rodgers goes against everything we know to be true about Sherman (e.g. he drafts for the now, good QB's projects can be taken in later rounds, etc). Ingle Martin in the 5th? Once you get down that far, the GM is going to have a lot less to say about the pick and look more to his coaches and scouts for guidance. As far as Smith in San Fransisco, McCarthy did play a large role in that decision because of his background with QB's.

[Merlin]

How is it that failure by the GM to cut someone we don't like is almost immediately converted into the pernicious character flaw "can't admit he was wrong"?

Aaron Rodgers has been a professional QB for two years and has not started. The fact that he is still on the roster is proof Thompson can't admit a mistake?

Where are Taco Wallace and Matt O'Dwyer? :)

They weren't number one overall picks and you of course must know that teams all to often stick to that number one pick come hell or high water. Unfortunately the Packers have as well, many times over the years. TT will never admit he made a mistake with Rodgers. Just because he is on the roster is not a sign that he is any good, just a sign he was a high draft pick. We got the run down on Taco Wallace and Matt O'Dwyer the second they stunk up the place. Yet, we don't hear much about Rodgers, good or bad. You hear the same old "he's got a lot of potential" garbage but they say that about most players. The fact that they aren't singing kudo's about him every second of every day like they did with Greg Jennings should be telling you that they don't really think that highly of him. You don't really expect them to come out and say "whoops" do you?

[vince]

Obviously the decision to pick up Rodgers wasn't Mike Sherman's when he was with Green Bay.In fact it was TT's first draft pick for the Packers. Carr was cut from Houston who's offensive coordinator happens to be Mike Sherman. Since Carr and Rodgers are cut from the same mold and play remarkably similar I would say that Sherman doesn't believe in that system (among many many other coaches in the NFL). The 49er's passed up on Rodgers in favor of Alex Smith by who? Then offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy who has a knack for bringing up QB's. Enter McCarthy in Green Bay. Nall is let go and Ingle Martin is drafted in the 5th round (148th Pick) overall. So it's easy to see who made this call, not TT, McCarthy. He liked what he saw although he agreed he was raw.

Because Aaron Rodgers was the #1 overall pick in 2005, McCarthy the new head coach has no choice but to see what he has in him (the fact that TT won't admit he screwed up plays into it as well). Martin does not get the opportunities that he needs to prove otherwise. McCarthy numerous times talks about the potential of Martin but only states a few niceties about Rodgers.

If you can't put two and two together to see it equals four then I guess it stands to reason that the only argument you can bring is to revert to some kind of childish name calling ritual. I guess when articles are published I must be the only one that reads them and actually thinks about it instead of saying "idiots"...
Merlin, I apologize for insinuating that you were spewing idiocy. However, please re-read your statement. You state these things as facts.

They're not. They're complete conjecture on your part.

Perhaps Sherman WAS high on Rodgers, but feels that Carr makes poor decisions. Neither you nor anyone but the people directly involved know this.

You don't know that McCarthy doesn't think Rodgers has the potential to lead the team. Every statement I've heard from him indicates just the opposite.

Your complete conjecture that McCarthy is higher on Martin than Rodgers based on your interpretation of how many accolades he's delivered on each of their behalf is not only pure speculation, but HIGHLY questionable speculation at that.

I'd love to see Martin beat out Rodgers for the back-up QB job, or see Rodgers traded away for Moss. That would be a clear indication of the truth of the speculation you position as fact.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about - since you believe your theories and speculation are truths. Bring the articles, if you can.

Then you can say two and two equals four. With your "facts" above, you're adding one and one and getting fifteen.

I know it's hard for people to analyze things to the extent that I do. That isn't a cut on you or anyone else, that's just how it is, I over analyze everything (ask my wife it drives her nuts). And you are right that it may be part speculation on my part but it doesn't take much to look at the parties involved, know how they work and come up with a viable analysis that contains mostly fact. Sherman would be scared shitless to draft a QB that high because he doesn't coach them well and he always drafts for need even if his analysis is way off on the pick at times. TT is not going to trust the number one overall pick to anyone but himself. By the 5th round, he is asking for ideas. McCarthy watched Martin in a combine and liked what he saw. Martin probably wouldn't have been taken at all in the draft had McCarthy not liked him. He is from Furman, who the hell ever even heard of the guy until McCarthy brought his name up back then? Contrary to popular belief, McCarthy did go to combo's and watch players. Nall didn't fit for whatever reason, I wish I knew that one because he was a viable backup if nothing else. You can call it speculative all you want and that's fine. In order to make heads or tales of anything the front office does you need to look deep, analyze everything and come to a conclusion. I call it fact because that's what I see, it isn't what someone else said.
Merlin, FWIW don't be too proud of yourself. This isn't part speculation on your part. It's ALL speculation, and it's highly questionable. To believe it's fact, and to state it as such is both arrogant and ignorant.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Ingle Martin played at Florida before transferring to Furman--because of Chris Leak. He was highly recruited out of high school. He was invited to the combine--where his measurables were well above average. I'm sure every NFL scout knew who he was.

[Packnut]

Do we know anything about the 49ers front office, how can you say what level of input McCarthy had?

And why does the fact that McCarthy had Smith rated over Rodgers mean Rodgers is incapable? There can't be two starting QBs in a draft?

Last one, are you aware that there is an Urban Meyer - QB system curse in effect now? Does that mean McCarthy would be back in San Fran urging the team to dump Smith and sign Brad Johnson (Florida State QB curse)?

C'mon.


No way Sherman had anything to do with the Rodgers pick. Think about it, picking Rodgers goes against everything we know to be true about Sherman (e.g. he drafts for the now, good QB's projects can be taken in later rounds, etc). Ingle Martin in the 5th? Once you get down that far, the GM is going to have a lot less to say about the pick and look more to his coaches and scouts for guidance. As far as Smith in San Fransisco, McCarthy did play a large role in that decision because of his background with QB's.

Is'nt it a tad pre-mature to claim there is an "Urban Meyer QB system curse"? I don't think anyone expected Harris to be an outstanding QB. As for Smith, it's foolish to say he won't make it at this point. I'd be willing to wager anyone that his stats and play improve this season. There also is a big difference with Smith and Leak. Go back and examine the talent level Smith had at Utah. It was not in the least bit impressive. Smith made that offense better. Leak has talent around him so the same cannot be said.

Rodgers on the other hand did have some talent around him. He had a big play WR who I believe ended up injured towards the end of his career. Cal also had a very good O line and run game. Being a degenerate college football gambler, :oops: I saw plenty of games involving both Smith and Rodgers and there really was no comparison.

[Partial]

i've never once heard TT compare two players and give one more praise than the other. That's foolish to say that they hype up Greg Jennings. That is the media, not the organization. It is in their best interest to downplay everyones talents.

[vince]

An old, but good, article on the subject of Tedford system QB's:

Rodgers joins the Tedford Five

Jeff Tedford's star QB pupils have hardly taken the NFL by storm By Trent Modglin (tmodglin@pfwmedia.com)

Between Janet’s supposed “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl two years ago and, more currently, Michael’s controversial court case, the Jackson Five has had nowhere to hide from its critics in the media.

Neither has the “Tedford Five,” but for far different reasons.

The head of the family for the Tedford Five is Jeff Tedford, head coach at the University of California and longtime offensive guru on the West Coast’s collegiate scene. Wherever he goes, gaudy offensive numbers seem to follow. It’s what he does best.

The Tedford Five is made up of Trent Dilfer, Akili Smith, David Carr, Joey Harrington and Kyle Boller, the five current quarterbacks in the NFL who were under the tutelage of Tedford while serving as big men on campus. Needless to say, the Tedford Five has not had any hit records. No Grammys, no blockbuster tours, not much of anything to stir the pages of Rolling Stone or get MTV abuzz.

For the most part, they’ve lacked the stage presence necessary to hit it big. You could say they’ve struggled thus far, and with Cal’s Aaron Rodgers, another Tedford protege, primed to be an early pick on Saturday, everyone wants to know why, reasonable concerns that they are.

Typically, the passers selected in the first round of the draft are destined to find themselves under a heap of pressure to try to resurrect flawed teams with surrounding casts that are, shall we say, less than desirable. Things can start off rocky, and often do. But if the talent and mind for the game are prevalent, things usually even out and careers begin an upswing.

Not so with the Tedford Five. Collectively, they have a 98-127 record as starting quarterbacks in the NFL. They’ve completed a paltry 54.6 percent of their passes and thrown 28 more interceptions than touchdowns. Numbers not worth writing home about to be sure.

Sure, Dilfer tasted Super Bowl success with Baltimore following the 2000 season, but with the Ravens’ dominating defense and workhorse RB Jamal Lewis, Dilfer hardly was asked to put an undaring offense on his shoulders. He served more as gatekeeper than anything else. He was cast aside after the victory parade, and since then has mainly served as a backup in Seattle before being traded to Cleveland this offseason.

Smith, a bust of epic proportions after being drafted third overall by the Bengals in 1999, has thrown five touchdowns in 17 career starts. By comparison, Peyton Manning threw for five scores on three different occasions last year. Once, he decided to toss a half-dozen. Smith, his career on its last legs, has been allocated to NFL Europe by the Buccaneers to try to scoop up the pieces of his shattered confidence.

It’s far too early to pull the plug on the other three, but patience is a virtue not always afforded to players in our modern version of the NFL. And Carr, the No. 1 overall pick in 2002, Harrington, the third that same year and Boller, the 19th pick in 2003, can’t exactly be accused of abusing defensive backs to this point despite plenty of starting experience. Lofty expectations have yet to be met, or for that matter, even approached.

All of these pupils of Tedford’s system have in the past been quick to circle the wagons in his defense. Rodgers, who threw for 43 TD passes and 13 interceptions in his two years at the helm in Berkeley and completed 23 consecutive passes against top-ranked USC in 2004, has said the criticisms of his former coach’s teachings are unfounded, mostly “manufactured.”

Tedford provides a solid foundation and trains quarterbacks to make quick reads in a complex West Coast offense, they say. Even involves them in game planning. Tedford himself says he has never been informed by NFL decision-makers that there is any particular element holding his guys back once they reach the next level. No lack of fundamentals, no shortage of seasoning, no problems picking up the intricacies of the position. Nothing glaring. No red flags to speak of.

That much seems somewhat evident, based on where his prodigies continue to get drafted. So why the disparity? Why doesn’t the eye-popping collegiate success in Tedford’s system translate over into smooth 80-yard drives and highlight-reel touchdowns in the NFL?

Are these guys too mechanical? Do they have trouble adjusting out of the comfort level of Tedford’s high-percentage lesson plans and into a new offense that requires taking more chances? Are they overrated as “system quarterbacks” only to be overwhelmed at the next level?

Listen to the opinion recently offered to PFW by a veteran league scout.

“I've evaulated four Tedford quarterbacks, and none of them have pissed a drop in the league,” he said. “That scares me. Kyle Boller was not even a 50 percent career passer when Tedford got ahold of him, and look what he is now in the pros.”

In case you’re keeping score at home, that’s not a compliment. Boller’s accuracy hasn’t earned rave reviews. But it gets better. Or worse, depending on how you look at it.

“They don't throw the ball downfield a lot in Tedford's offense. Look at Joey Harrington now. He doesn’t keep his eyes downfield. He looks to dump everything off. He gets impatient in the pocket. Akili Smith only had one good year of football, and it was with Tedford (then at Oregon State). Tedford simplifies the game and gets so much out of his quarterbacks. No one in the NFL has been able to get the same out of them as he has."

And that is scary. In the four games this scout watched Rodgers play as a collegian, he was sacked 16 times. He believes Rodgers will have a tough time escaping an NFL pass rush and isn’t overly athletic. While his arm strength is considered good, Rodgers threw the ball downfield twice in the four games the scout watched. We’ve heard from a few reliable NFL people that Rodgers is more of a late-first or possibly even early second-round talent who is being pushed way up the board because franchise-type quarterbacks in this draft are scarce.

But what about these NFL coaches who have had the “Tedford Five” under their supervision? They shouldn’t exactly be allowed to slip out the door when fingers start getting pointed in blame. Does the learning process suddenly come to a grinding halt? If they’re talented enough to be coached to rack up big numbers by Tedford, why can’t they be once they start getting the big bucks to play the same game?

“I know our staff wants guys who do not need a lot of seasoning,” one AFC coach said, suggesting that maybe Tedford’s guys do in fact need an extra dose. “We want guys who can step in and compete right away and don't need to be taught mechanics. Coaching schemes and assignments is a far cry from teaching technique. The good coaching staffs in this league — and the teams you see going to the Super Bowl — are the teams that do both. I think that's a big problem around here and on many staffs. Not enough attention is paid to coaching players. You can ask players. I think a lot of them will tell you they got more individual coaching in college. In my opinion, that's why there's a dropoff with ‘Tedford quarterbacks.’ "

So maybe it’s not just Tedford quarterbacks. Maybe he gets a bad rap because, after all, he’s trying to win college games. Maybe it’s Spurrier quarterbacks too. Plenty of others have had problems. Ever see David Klingler or Ryan Leaf? Maybe it’s these “Tedford passers” not getting the same individual attention from their pro coaches. Maybe successful quarterbacking is more about being in the right place at the right time, sticking it out until everything eventually comes together and kids suddenly go scrambling for your jerseys and posters and a table is suddenly reserved for you at the hottest restaurant in town.

Then again, maybe the Tedford Five will have to make room for another chair at the table. Let’s give Rodgers ample time before making a final decision on his worth, though. The NFL on its own doesn’t consent to much as it is, so we probably should.

[pbmax]

Packnut, I was exaggerating a complaint I saw a scout state about both Smith and Leak. I don't buy it, or the Tedford curse, I was just trying to tweak the argument that you would make a personnel decision, after acquiring the player, based on a "curse".



Do we know anything about the 49ers front office, how can you say what level of input McCarthy had?

And why does the fact that McCarthy had Smith rated over Rodgers mean Rodgers is incapable? There can't be two starting QBs in a draft?

Last one, are you aware that there is an Urban Meyer - QB system curse in effect now? Does that mean McCarthy would be back in San Fran urging the team to dump Smith and sign Brad Johnson (Florida State QB curse)?

C'mon.


No way Sherman had anything to do with the Rodgers pick. Think about it, picking Rodgers goes against everything we know to be true about Sherman (e.g. he drafts for the now, good QB's projects can be taken in later rounds, etc). Ingle Martin in the 5th? Once you get down that far, the GM is going to have a lot less to say about the pick and look more to his coaches and scouts for guidance. As far as Smith in San Fransisco, McCarthy did play a large role in that decision because of his background with QB's.

Is'nt it a tad pre-mature to claim there is an "Urban Meyer QB system curse"? I don't think anyone expected Harris to be an outstanding QB. As for Smith, it's foolish to say he won't make it at this point. I'd be willing to wager anyone that his stats and play improve this season. There also is a big difference with Smith and Leak. Go back and examine the talent level Smith had at Utah. It was not in the least bit impressive. Smith made that offense better. Leak has talent around him so the same cannot be said.

Rodgers on the other hand did have some talent around him. He had a big play WR who I believe ended up injured towards the end of his career. Cal also had a very good O line and run game. Being a degenerate college football gambler, :oops: I saw plenty of games involving both Smith and Rodgers and there really was no comparison.

[Merlin]

Obviously the decision to pick up Rodgers wasn't Mike Sherman's when he was with Green Bay.In fact it was TT's first draft pick for the Packers. Carr was cut from Houston who's offensive coordinator happens to be Mike Sherman. Since Carr and Rodgers are cut from the same mold and play remarkably similar I would say that Sherman doesn't believe in that system (among many many other coaches in the NFL). The 49er's passed up on Rodgers in favor of Alex Smith by who? Then offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy who has a knack for bringing up QB's. Enter McCarthy in Green Bay. Nall is let go and Ingle Martin is drafted in the 5th round (148th Pick) overall. So it's easy to see who made this call, not TT, McCarthy. He liked what he saw although he agreed he was raw.

Because Aaron Rodgers was the #1 overall pick in 2005, McCarthy the new head coach has no choice but to see what he has in him (the fact that TT won't admit he screwed up plays into it as well). Martin does not get the opportunities that he needs to prove otherwise. McCarthy numerous times talks about the potential of Martin but only states a few niceties about Rodgers.

If you can't put two and two together to see it equals four then I guess it stands to reason that the only argument you can bring is to revert to some kind of childish name calling ritual. I guess when articles are published I must be the only one that reads them and actually thinks about it instead of saying "idiots"...
Merlin, I apologize for insinuating that you were spewing idiocy. However, please re-read your statement. You state these things as facts.

They're not. They're complete conjecture on your part.

Perhaps Sherman WAS high on Rodgers, but feels that Carr makes poor decisions. Neither you nor anyone but the people directly involved know this.

You don't know that McCarthy doesn't think Rodgers has the potential to lead the team. Every statement I've heard from him indicates just the opposite.

Your complete conjecture that McCarthy is higher on Martin than Rodgers based on your interpretation of how many accolades he's delivered on each of their behalf is not only pure speculation, but HIGHLY questionable speculation at that.

I'd love to see Martin beat out Rodgers for the back-up QB job, or see Rodgers traded away for Moss. That would be a clear indication of the truth of the speculation you position as fact.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about - since you believe your theories and speculation are truths. Bring the articles, if you can.

Then you can say two and two equals four. With your "facts" above, you're adding one and one and getting fifteen.

I know it's hard for people to analyze things to the extent that I do. That isn't a cut on you or anyone else, that's just how it is, I over analyze everything (ask my wife it drives her nuts). And you are right that it may be part speculation on my part but it doesn't take much to look at the parties involved, know how they work and come up with a viable analysis that contains mostly fact. Sherman would be scared shitless to draft a QB that high because he doesn't coach them well and he always drafts for need even if his analysis is way off on the pick at times. TT is not going to trust the number one overall pick to anyone but himself. By the 5th round, he is asking for ideas. McCarthy watched Martin in a combine and liked what he saw. Martin probably wouldn't have been taken at all in the draft had McCarthy not liked him. He is from Furman, who the hell ever even heard of the guy until McCarthy brought his name up back then? Contrary to popular belief, McCarthy did go to combo's and watch players. Nall didn't fit for whatever reason, I wish I knew that one because he was a viable backup if nothing else. You can call it speculative all you want and that's fine. In order to make heads or tales of anything the front office does you need to look deep, analyze everything and come to a conclusion. I call it fact because that's what I see, it isn't what someone else said.
Merlin, FWIW don't be too proud of yourself. This isn't part speculation on your part. It's ALL speculation, and it's highly questionable. To believe it's fact, and to state it as such is both arrogant and ignorant.

Proud of myself? Ignorant and Arrogant? THAT has to be the most stereotypical and inaccurate thing I have ever read in reference to myself. Just because you don't like something (or reality for that matter) doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean it isn't factual. When you learn how to argue in an appropriate way (that would be like an adult) without name calling (which evidently is your M.O. when you have nothing to offer) and stereotypical responses, let me know. Until then, you just aren't worth it.

[MadtownPacker]

All of you are ignorant for quoting mutiple post instead of just the one you are responding to. :D

All the damn scrolling is giving me carpal.

[Merlin]

Although I don't believe in a "curse", the statistics for Tedford QB's don't lie. He runs a very quarterback friendly offense, one that is designed to be easy on the quarterback both in complexity and terminology. He also teaches each of them the same mechanics. Remember that he is teaching college quarterbacks to play the college game to win. He isn't interested in winning NFL games because he doesn't coach at that level. It is a well known FACT that his quarterbacks don't translate into good NFL quarterbacks. I am sure that plays into the decision somewhat when teams are drafting them. Mad has an article that I wrote that has a quote from an article that says something like this: "There is always a GM who thinks he can do better with a Tedford QB than anyone prior". I also quoted the article that Vince used. Of course Vince only highlighted the portions of the article that support Tedford QB's and ignored the basis for the article which is that they aren't very good and haven't amounted to anything in the NFL. I think the title of the article alone would tell one what it's about but then again, reality never seems to sink in t some people.

What is open for speculation is whether or not NFL coaches can coach a Tedford QB. I would argue that with how many Tedford QB's that have gone into the NFL and how many different coaching staffs that have worked with those QB's that at least one of them would have had some luck.

[Merlin]

All of you are ignorant for quoting mutiple post instead of just the one you are responding to. :D

All the damn scrolling is giving me carpal.

I don't think the mouse is the source of your carpal tunnel Mad~! :)

[vince]

Merlin I am pulling a quote here from another thread.

Your "reality" is far from real. That's my whole point. You say McCarthy doesn't like Rodgers. He says the opposite. Who should we believe?



QUOTE FROM MIKE MCCARTHY ABOUT AARON RODGERS: He knows how we feel about him. We're not blind to the fact that you're always trying to improve through player acquisition. But Aaron Rodgers, I think he has a bright future here. He's going to take over one of the toughest situations ever (succeeding Favre). It's my job and Tom Clements' job and Joe Philbin's job to get him ready.
Not much fluff there. I'd say that's pretty direct and to the point. That's the most direct statement by Mike McCarthy he could possibly make.

People who believe Rodgers sucks dismiss these reports as fluff. Those who believe he has potential put credence in them. But regardless of which side of the fence you're personally on, you can't legitimately deny that McCarthy hasn't made his opinion clear.

It's an incredible stretch to say that McCarthy believes anything other than what comes out of his mouth - especially when it's as clear-cut as this.

I don't think anyone can mistake what is said there. Mike McCarthy believes Aaron Rodgers has a bright future, and that he is the heir-apparent to Brett Favre. What else could he possibly say that would be any more clear?

To speculate that he's lying to the media because TT is forcing his hand is a stretch to say the least, and if that were the case, I don't think he'd be as direct as he was with this reporter.

[Merlin]

Merlin I am pulling a quote here from another thread.

Your "reality" is far from real. That's my whole point. You say McCarthy doesn't like Rodgers. He says the opposite. Who should we believe?



QUOTE FROM MIKE MCCARTHY ABOUT AARON RODGERS: He knows how we feel about him. We're not blind to the fact that you're always trying to improve through player acquisition. But Aaron Rodgers, I think he has a bright future here. He's going to take over one of the toughest situations ever (succeeding Favre). It's my job and Tom Clements' job and Joe Philbin's job to get him ready.
Not much fluff there. I'd say that's pretty direct and to the point. That's the most direct statement by Mike McCarthy he could possibly make.

People who believe Rodgers sucks dismiss these reports as fluff. Those who believe he has potential put credence in them. But regardless of which side of the fence you're personally on, you can't legitimately deny that McCarthy hasn't made his opinion clear.

It's an incredible stretch to say that McCarthy believes anything other than what comes out of his mouth - especially when it's as clear-cut as this.

I don't think anyone can mistake what is said there. Mike McCarthy believes Aaron Rodgers has a bright future, and that he is the heir-apparent to Brett Favre. What else could he possibly say that would be any more clear?

To speculate that he's lying to the media because TT is forcing his hand is a stretch to say the least, and if that were the case, I don't think he'd be as direct as he was with this reporter.

No generic comment from McCarthy there, nope none at all. What do you expect him to say? He sucks and I want someone else? In fact, when was the last time you heard any coach from any organization tell the media, "yeah he sucks" about any player on the roster? Even Ryan Leaf got the benefit of the doubt.

[pbmax]

Most college QBs struggle in the pros. If you were to argue that Tedford's success in passing in college causes his QBs to be overrated, I could understand that argument.

But nothing you mention (coaching to WIN college games, less complicated, more QB friendly offense, different mechanics) is unique to Tedford. You could lay these accusations accurately at any college coordinator who emphasizes the pass.

Most college QBs fail. Many first round QBs fail. Blaming Tedford is mistaking correlation for cause.

I mentioned the Meyer QB complaint earlier. Spurrier QBs have also had similar trouble. Including where the ball was held.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a QB from one of these systems. If you evaluate the physical aspects correctly, its no different than selecting any other QB.


="Merlin"]Although I don't believe in a "curse", the statistics for Tedford QB's don't lie. He runs a very quarterback friendly offense, one that is designed to be easy on the quarterback both in complexity and terminology. He also teaches each of them the same mechanics. Remember that he is teaching college quarterbacks to play the college game to win. He isn't interested in winning NFL games because he doesn't coach at that level. It is a well known FACT that his quarterbacks don't translate into good NFL quarterbacks.

[Packnut]

[quote="pbmax"]Packnut, I was exaggerating a complaint I saw a scout state about both Smith and Leak. I don't buy it, or the Tedford curse, I was just trying to tweak the argument that you would make a personnel decision, after acquiring the player, based on a "curse".

I agree that "curse" is the wrong word to use. I'm also not so sure about the "QB friendly system" either. I think most college coaches simplify and run a system according to the QB strengths. Getting a read on college QB's and how they will do in the pro's is a crapshoot at best. I believe the problem has a lot to do with big name programs having a ton of talent surrounding the QB which makes it harder to gauge him.

I think that's why there are so many late rd QB's who have great Pro careers and those early rd guys who fail. It's easy to be good behind a great O line and a good run game. I think that's why a guy like Cutler is a sure thing to do good. He did'nt have talent around him, yet he produced.

I guess this years draft is a good example of my "theory". Both Russell and Quinn had talent around them. Both had very good WR's and adequate O lines and run games. I'm not as high on them as others. Now take a guy like Stanton from MS. He put up big time numbers with little talent on the offensive side.

[Merlin]

Most college QBs struggle in the pros. If you were to argue that Tedford's success in passing in college causes his QBs to be overrated, I could understand that argument.

But nothing you mention (coaching to WIN college games, less complicated, more QB friendly offense, different mechanics) is unique to Tedford. You could lay these accusations accurately at any college coordinator who emphasizes the pass.

Most college QBs fail. Many first round QBs fail. Blaming Tedford is mistaking correlation for cause.

I mentioned the Meyer QB complaint earlier. Spurrier QBs have also had similar trouble. Including where the ball was held.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a QB from one of these systems. If you evaluate the physical aspects correctly, its no different than selecting any other QB.


="Merlin"]Although I don't believe in a "curse", the statistics for Tedford QB's don't lie. He runs a very quarterback friendly offense, one that is designed to be easy on the quarterback both in complexity and terminology. He also teaches each of them the same mechanics. Remember that he is teaching college quarterbacks to play the college game to win. He isn't interested in winning NFL games because he doesn't coach at that level. It is a well known FACT that his quarterbacks don't translate into good NFL quarterbacks.

I agree that most first round QB's are a bust. But its still a fact that Tedford QB's don't do well in the NFL. We aren't talking about Florida State or the Old Ball Coach here because Rodgers isn't one of those. I believe it has everything to do with the College Offense and the player then anything else but you can't ignore history either. I wouldn't ignore history in the case of Florida State and the Old Ball Coach. Those teams have a lot of talent surrounding the QB and in a lot of cases make him look pretty good.

Rodgers hasn't shown anything in two years. You would think he would have shown something in that time frame if he's "got it". Trent Dilfer is a good example of a Tedford QB that I thought "had it". When he first appeared in a game for Tampa Bay, I thought he was the real deal. He took control of the offense and played hard. He ended up being average and more of a game manager. When I see our heir-apparent skipping balls to wide open receivers when he's not under pressure, that scares the crap out of me.

[Merlin]

Packnut, I disagree with your assessment of Quinn. I think he had a great running back and good receivers, but the offensive line for Notre Dame sucked this past season. Quinn was running for his life more times then not I think he will be a good NFL QB because of the style of offense that they run and his on field presence. He has a great arm and he reads defense well (although college defenses). I see him as a Tom Brady type game manager. Someone who will put up average numbers with few mistakes.

Andre Woodson from Kentucky is a guy that I think will be a great NFL QB. If I had to pick one College QB to play for the Packers today, it would be him.

[Packnut]

Packnut, I disagree with your assessment of Quinn. I think he had a great running back and good receivers, but the offensive line for Notre Dame sucked this past season. Quinn was running for his life more times then not I think he will be a good NFL QB because of the style of offense that they run and his on field presence. He has a great arm and he reads defense well (although college defenses). I see him as a Tom Brady type game manager. Someone who will put up average numbers with few mistakes.

Andre Woodson from Kentucky is a guy that I think will be a great NFL QB. If I had to pick one College QB to play for the Packers today, it would be him.

I'll give you the O line, but Brady had solid WR's and a very good TE, not to mention one of the better offensive minds in the game today coaching him. I'll say I'd take him over Russell. I'm not saying he won't make a good pro, just saying it's easier to evaluate a guy who produces with little help around him.

[Merlin]

That's why I like Andre Woodson from Kentucky. I think in Quinn's case, the coaching he has had will accelerate his learning curve in the NFL and I would argue that starting NFL players are better then the starting players for Notre Dame (WR, TE, RB). SO, he will have the talent around him. The only problem I see for him is if he goes to say, Oakland where there is no coaching or some team that has a poor coaching staff.

[vince]

No generic comment from McCarthy there, nope none at all. What do you expect him to say? He sucks and I want someone else? In fact, when was the last time you heard any coach from any organization tell the media, "yeah he sucks" about any player on the roster? Even Ryan Leaf got the benefit of the doubt.
We can agree or disagree about whether McCarthy could easily have (or would likely have) stopped short of saying what he said if he didn't think Rodgers can be a successful QB in this league. That is a debatable issue, but you can't legitimately (unless you're Mike McCarthy) state your opinion as "fact" as you attempt to do. That's what I'm taking exception with.

You originally said,
TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.

Then you said,
Just because you don't like something (or reality for that matter) doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean it isn't factual.
And you came out with this gem,
I know it's hard for people to analyze things to the extent that I do. That isn't a cut on you or anyone else, that's just how it is.
When you say that those who don't see things the same way you do either just don't see "reality," don't "get it", and/or aren't as analytical or intelligent as you, that is not only wrong, it's offensive to all the great posters on this board. I believe those facts justify my stated opinion of those responses.

I also believe you're wrong about your position that 1. TT is the only one in the Packer organization who believes Rodgers can play in this league, and 2. TT is dictating the depth chart to the coaching staff. I also disagree with you about th various individuals' respective roles in the draft process, which Patler and Harvey have posted about already, so I won't repeat what they have already stated, other than to say that I agree with their posts.

[Packnut]

That's why I like Andre Woodson from Kentucky. I think in Quinn's case, the coaching he has had will accelerate his learning curve in the NFL and I would argue that starting NFL players are better then the starting players for Notre Dame (WR, TE, RB). SO, he will have the talent around him. The only problem I see for him is if he goes to say, Oakland where there is no coaching or some team that has a poor coaching staff.

I agree about Woodson. I only saw him a couple of times when I had bets down in Kentucky games, but I liked what I saw.

[Merlin]

No generic comment from McCarthy there, nope none at all. What do you expect him to say? He sucks and I want someone else? In fact, when was the last time you heard any coach from any organization tell the media, "yeah he sucks" about any player on the roster? Even Ryan Leaf got the benefit of the doubt.
We can agree or disagree about whether McCarthy could easily have (or would likely have) stopped short of saying what he said if he didn't think Rodgers can be a successful QB in this league. That is a debatable issue, but you can't legitimately (unless you're Mike McCarthy) state your opinion as "fact" as you attempt to do. That's what I'm taking exception with.

You originally said,
TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.

Then you said,
Just because you don't like something (or reality for that matter) doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean it isn't factual.
And you came out with this gem,
I know it's hard for people to analyze things to the extent that I do. That isn't a cut on you or anyone else, that's just how it is.
When you say that those who don't see things the same way you do either just don't see "reality," don't "get it", and/or aren't as analytical or intelligent as you, that is not only wrong, it's offensive to all the great posters on this board. I believe those facts justify my stated opinion of those responses.

I also believe you're wrong about your position that 1. TT is the only one in the Packer organization who believes Rodgers can play in this league, and 2. TT is dictating the depth chart to the coaching staff. I also disagree with you about th various individuals' respective roles in the draft process, which Patler and Harvey have posted about already, so I won't repeat what they have already stated, other than to say that I agree with their posts.


Wtfever you say man. Take whatever bits and pieces out of the context of the conversation to justify your childish remarks. You argue a point with an article that slams your point into submission by only taking what you like out of it. Why am I not surprised you are trying to justify your behavior the same way? I don't really care man, you lost all creditability with me because you fail to read and comprehend what is said. Again, don't let reality interfere with your logic....

NEXT!

[Zool]

No generic comment from McCarthy there, nope none at all. What do you expect him to say? He sucks and I want someone else? In fact, when was the last time you heard any coach from any organization tell the media, "yeah he sucks" about any player on the roster? Even Ryan Leaf got the benefit of the doubt.
We can agree or disagree about whether McCarthy could easily have (or would likely have) stopped short of saying what he said if he didn't think Rodgers can be a successful QB in this league. That is a debatable issue, but you can't legitimately (unless you're Mike McCarthy) state your opinion as "fact" as you attempt to do. That's what I'm taking exception with.

You originally said,
TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.

Then you said,
Just because you don't like something (or reality for that matter) doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean it isn't factual.
And you came out with this gem,
I know it's hard for people to analyze things to the extent that I do. That isn't a cut on you or anyone else, that's just how it is.
When you say that those who don't see things the same way you do either just don't see "reality," don't "get it", and/or aren't as analytical or intelligent as you, that is not only wrong, it's offensive to all the great posters on this board. I believe those facts justify my stated opinion of those responses.

I also believe you're wrong about your position that 1. TT is the only one in the Packer organization who believes Rodgers can play in this league, and 2. TT is dictating the depth chart to the coaching staff. I also disagree with you about th various individuals' respective roles in the draft process, which Patler and Harvey have posted about already, so I won't repeat what they have already stated, other than to say that I agree with their posts.


Wtfever you say man. Take whatever bits and pieces out of the context of the conversation to justify your childish remarks. You argue a point with an article that slams your point into submission by only taking what you like out of it. Why am I not surprised you are trying to justify your behavior the same way? I don't really care man, you lost all creditability with me because you fail to read and comprehend what is said. Again, don't let reality interfere with your logic....

NEXT!My, what a healthy self image you have.

[Packnut]

Merlin- take my advice. It's not worth the time and aggravation my friend. I've learned to just skip what 2 or 3 here have to say and it makes for a much more enjoyable day. Hell, I'm sure some feel the same way about me!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Guiness]

Back to Tedford QB's. I'm curious about the converse - has any QB that was under his tutelage ever done at least reasonably well? I'd qualify 'reasonably well' as meaning he started for a team for at least a few years. Their lack of success is always talked about. What about their successes (if any).

edit: just checked, and Dilfer was TB's starter for four years - including that one very good season he (21TD, 11INT).

[MJZiggy]

Merlin- take my advice. It's not worth the time and aggravation my friend. I've learned to just skip what 2 or 3 here have to say and it makes for a much more enjoyable day. Hell, I'm sure some feel the same way about me!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What? I didn't read what you said... :wink:

[Merlin]

Back to Tedford QB's. I'm curious about the converse - has any QB that was under his tutelage ever done at least reasonably well? I'd qualify 'reasonably well' as meaning he started for a team for at least a few years. Their lack of success is always talked about. What about their successes (if any).

edit: just checked, and Dilfer was TB's starter for four years - including that one very good season he (21TD, 11INT).

Dilfer is about the most successful Tedford QB, which isn't saying much since most consider his career average at best. David Carr (the person the thread is about) has been the Texans only starting QB and is a Tedford QB.

[Partial]

No generic comment from McCarthy there, nope none at all. What do you expect him to say? He sucks and I want someone else? In fact, when was the last time you heard any coach from any organization tell the media, "yeah he sucks" about any player on the roster? Even Ryan Leaf got the benefit of the doubt.
We can agree or disagree about whether McCarthy could easily have (or would likely have) stopped short of saying what he said if he didn't think Rodgers can be a successful QB in this league. That is a debatable issue, but you can't legitimately (unless you're Mike McCarthy) state your opinion as "fact" as you attempt to do. That's what I'm taking exception with.

You originally said,
TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.

Then you said,
Just because you don't like something (or reality for that matter) doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean it isn't factual.
And you came out with this gem,
I know it's hard for people to analyze things to the extent that I do. That isn't a cut on you or anyone else, that's just how it is.
When you say that those who don't see things the same way you do either just don't see "reality," don't "get it", and/or aren't as analytical or intelligent as you, that is not only wrong, it's offensive to all the great posters on this board. I believe those facts justify my stated opinion of those responses.

I also believe you're wrong about your position that 1. TT is the only one in the Packer organization who believes Rodgers can play in this league, and 2. TT is dictating the depth chart to the coaching staff. I also disagree with you about th various individuals' respective roles in the draft process, which Patler and Harvey have posted about already, so I won't repeat what they have already stated, other than to say that I agree with their posts.


Wtfever you say man. Take whatever bits and pieces out of the context of the conversation to justify your childish remarks. You argue a point with an article that slams your point into submission by only taking what you like out of it. Why am I not surprised you are trying to justify your behavior the same way? I don't really care man, you lost all creditability with me because you fail to read and comprehend what is said. Again, don't let reality interfere with your logic....

NEXT!

I nominate Merlin as Ass Hat Rat. MTP can you hook that up?

[motife]

Peter King on David Carr's release :

"I think maybe we should have seen the Carr firing coming. Those close to Gary Kubiak say Carr did not progress much from the mechanical, non-instinctive player the coach inherited 14 months ago when he got the Texans' job.

Last summer, on a visit to Texans' training camp, I saw Kubiak micromanaging Carr. I thought it was wise at the time to throw so much into trying to save the quarterback's career in Houston. Looking back, you can see how much work Kubiak had to do, and why, in the end, it was too much to overcome. I wrote:

The other day, Carr threw a pass into a coverage scheme that he, and Kubiak, knew right away was the wrong pass at the wrong time. Terrible decision. And instead of soft-pedaling his criticism, which is the way Carr has been treated for four years as the Disappointing Golden Boy of Houston football, Kubiak offered this gem: "You've been in the league four years and you make that throw? There is no way you can make a throw into coverage like that!''

You've got to love a coach who does not come in and kiss the franchise quarterback's rear end. Because smooching is not what this quarterback needed. "David can't assume, 'I'm OK, we've just got to fix the stuff around me,' '' Kubiak told me after a Texans practice, sounding Parcellsian. "He's not OK. He's a long way from being OK. We all are.''

With Kubiak and offensive coordinator Troy Calhoun micromanaging his every move, there's no doubt in my mind Carr's going to be a better player this year. Will he be a franchise quarterback? I don't know. No one does. I have my doubts. He's got to do it under pressure. But he's going to have a chance, even though I think the Texans should have taken Reggie Bush instead of Mario Williams with the first pick in the draft because Carr needs another offensive weapon desperately.

Last Thursday, the day I watched Carr running Houston's talent-shy first-team offense, Kubiak was standing deep downfield, eyeing Carr's mechanics closely. Every so often, he'd see something, amble up and say something to Carr, then go back and resume watching him from afar. It's so fascinating why Kubiak was doing this.

Last winter, when Kubiak sat down to study every game Carr played last year, he noticed something fatal to quarterbacking success. He noticed when Carr faded back to throw, he consistently looked to the side of the field that was his first option. Imagine how crucial this is. If you're a safety, and you've scouted Carr from the end-zone coaches tape that every team sees, and you've seen that you can figure out the side of the field he's trying to throw to the second he begins his pass-drop, wouldn't that be a huge advantage?

When Kubiak first sat down with Carr to watch tape, he said, in so many words: Are you kidding me? You're an NFL quarterback, and you telegraph your throws so blatantly? So on this day, in this practice, Kubiak watched Carr take his drop and watched his eyes as much as his arm. He watched to make sure Carr was surveying the entire field on his drop, not just half of it."

[Rastak]

No generic comment from McCarthy there, nope none at all. What do you expect him to say? He sucks and I want someone else? In fact, when was the last time you heard any coach from any organization tell the media, "yeah he sucks" about any player on the roster? Even Ryan Leaf got the benefit of the doubt.
We can agree or disagree about whether McCarthy could easily have (or would likely have) stopped short of saying what he said if he didn't think Rodgers can be a successful QB in this league. That is a debatable issue, but you can't legitimately (unless you're Mike McCarthy) state your opinion as "fact" as you attempt to do. That's what I'm taking exception with.

You originally said,
TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.

Then you said,
Just because you don't like something (or reality for that matter) doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean it isn't factual.
And you came out with this gem,
I know it's hard for people to analyze things to the extent that I do. That isn't a cut on you or anyone else, that's just how it is.
When you say that those who don't see things the same way you do either just don't see "reality," don't "get it", and/or aren't as analytical or intelligent as you, that is not only wrong, it's offensive to all the great posters on this board. I believe those facts justify my stated opinion of those responses.

I also believe you're wrong about your position that 1. TT is the only one in the Packer organization who believes Rodgers can play in this league, and 2. TT is dictating the depth chart to the coaching staff. I also disagree with you about th various individuals' respective roles in the draft process, which Patler and Harvey have posted about already, so I won't repeat what they have already stated, other than to say that I agree with their posts.


Wtfever you say man. Take whatever bits and pieces out of the context of the conversation to justify your childish remarks. You argue a point with an article that slams your point into submission by only taking what you like out of it. Why am I not surprised you are trying to justify your behavior the same way? I don't really care man, you lost all creditability with me because you fail to read and comprehend what is said. Again, don't let reality interfere with your logic....

NEXT!

I nominate Merlin as Ass Hat Rat. MTP can you hook that up?


Comon guys, the forum is to exchange opinions. Not only certain ones.....

[vince]

I couldn't agree more, Ras.

The problem with the exchange of opinions comes when certain posters say, in effect...

"My opinion is a FACT, and anyone who doesn't see that is an idiot, doesn't see reality, and has no business posting on this or any other board."

It's impossible to argue facts. They are inarguable.

There are a few people who use that kind of strong-arm tactic here, and it hinders the free exchange of opinions. Those people need to be called out for that, IMO, in order to have the kind of board everyone wants.

[Bretsky]

Back to Tedford QB's. I'm curious about the converse - has any QB that was under his tutelage ever done at least reasonably well? I'd qualify 'reasonably well' as meaning he started for a team for at least a few years. Their lack of success is always talked about. What about their successes (if any).

edit: just checked, and Dilfer was TB's starter for four years - including that one very good season he (21TD, 11INT).

Legit points to ponder; I've always felt that Tedford is the most QB friendly coach in college football and his system and wonderful coaching ability make them often appear better than they are coming out of college.

Most in here know I did not like the Rodgers pick....but....

Am I right ? Will Rodgers buck the trend and develop into a Hasslebeck type player ?

My gut says no, but at this point IMO we should give him a chance to prove himself since there is not enough evidence either way to make a good argument.

When I first read the MM article, though, I figured the writer wanted to create an interesting article and IMO MM said exactly what any coach would say of his player. He's certainly not going to be a negative quote machine and hurt his confidence.


Cheers,
B

[retailguy]

I couldn't agree more, Ras.

The problem with the exchange of opinions comes when certain posters say, in effect...

"My opinion is a FACT, and anyone who doesn't see that is an idiot, doesn't see reality, and has no business posting on this or any other board."

It's impossible to argue facts. They are inarguable.

There are a few people who use that kind of strong-arm tactic here, and it hinders the free exchange of opinions. Those people need to be called out for that, IMO, in order to have the kind of board everyone wants.

This is priceless.

While I agree conceptually with what you said, quite honestly, 95% of what is spewed here is opinion. Who appointed you "hall monitor"? When the "majority" opinion is presented as a FACT, it becomes a FACT, even if, in reality it is still an opinion.

Case in point - "It is a FACT that Sherman was a bad GM. The evidence is overwhelming." The majority believes this, therefore, it has become a FACT.

LMAO Vince. You have become what you despise... judgmental.

[vince]

I couldn't agree more, Ras.

The problem with the exchange of opinions comes when certain posters say, in effect...

"My opinion is a FACT, and anyone who doesn't see that is an idiot, doesn't see reality, and has no business posting on this or any other board."

It's impossible to argue facts. They are inarguable.

There are a few people who use that kind of strong-arm tactic here, and it hinders the free exchange of opinions. Those people need to be called out for that, IMO, in order to have the kind of board everyone wants.

This is priceless.

While I agree conceptually with what you said, quite honestly, 95% of what is spewed here is opinion. Who appointed you "hall monitor"? When the "majority" opinion is presented as a FACT, it becomes a FACT, even if, in reality it is still an opinion.

Case in point - "It is a FACT that Sherman was a bad GM. The evidence is overwhelming." The majority believes this, therefore, it has become a FACT.

LMAO Vince. You have become what you despise... judgmental.

Thanks for joining this fray, retailguy. I don't despise judgements at all, so long as they aren't misrepresented as FACT in order to stifle opposing opinions.

I believe the problem is that you - judging by your words - and others, don't know the difference between a FACT and an opinion. The problem with that is it demonstrates your closed-mindedness and stifles the exchange of ideas.

It's not a FACT that Sherman was a bad GM. It's an opinion. No matter WHO or HOW MANY people believe that opinion doesn't change that. You may have FACTS to support that opinion, but someone else (not me) may have FACTS to support another opinion.

Stupid example, but in 1400, pretty much everyone in Europe believed the world was flat. By your logic, they all believed it, so it was FACT, right? Was it a FACT? Someone came along with some new FACTS didn't they?

When I read the words that people write, I judge them. We all do. I don't despise that at all. That's why we're here. When people try to stifle other opinions with illegitimate strong arm tactics, the only way to effectively counter them is through strong arm tactics. Those people often get defensive and lash out, which is expected. In doing so, they help make the point.

[vince]

Back to Tedford QB's. I'm curious about the converse - has any QB that was under his tutelage ever done at least reasonably well? I'd qualify 'reasonably well' as meaning he started for a team for at least a few years. Their lack of success is always talked about. What about their successes (if any).

edit: just checked, and Dilfer was TB's starter for four years - including that one very good season he (21TD, 11INT).

Legit points to ponder; I've always felt that Tedford is the most QB friendly coach in college football and his system and wonderful coaching ability make them often appear better than they are coming out of college.

Most in here know I did not like the Rodgers pick....but....

Am I right ? Will Rodgers buck the trend and develop into a Hasslebeck type player ?

My gut says no, but at this point IMO we should give him a chance to prove himself since there is not enough evidence either way to make a good argument.

When I first read the MM article, though, I figured the writer wanted to create an interesting article and IMO MM said exactly what any coach would say of his player. He's certainly not going to be a negative quote machine and hurt his confidence.


Cheers,
B
I think "Hasselback-like" is the absolute ceiling for Rodgers in terms of his personal QB skills, and that's probably too high, but with the way that this team is being put together - over the next couple years when he takes over, he has a chance to be serviceable.

McCarthy has a philosophical preference for running the ball well, and trying to build a team that will run the ball well and play sound defense. Then they can utilize a completion-oriented passing attack, which they already do.

That's the environment in which he can thrive.

[retailguy]

Thanks for joining this fray, retailguy. I don't despise judgements at all, so long as they aren't misrepresented as FACT in order to stifle opposing opinions.

I believe the problem is that you - judging by your words - and others, don't know the difference between a FACT and an opinion. The problem with that is it demonstrates your closed-mindedness and stifles the exchange of ideas.

It's not a FACT that Sherman was a bad GM. It's an opinion. No matter WHO or HOW MANY people believe that opinion doesn't change that. You may have FACTS to support that opinion, but someone else (not me) may have FACTS to support another opinion.

Stupid example, but in 1400, pretty much everyone in Europe believed the world was flat. By your logic, they all believed it, so it was FACT, right? Was it a FACT? Someone came along with some new FACTS didn't they?

When I read the words that people write, I judge them. We all do. I don't despise that at all. That's why we're here. When people try to stifle other opinions with illegitimate strong arm tactics, the only way to effectively counter them is through strong arm tactics. Those people often get defensive and lash out, which is expected. In doing so, they help make the point.


Nice try Vince, but you're not even close to what I think.

I was 'mocking' the whole "fact" thing. You stated my point. The "majority opinion" in these rooms is almost always presented as an "inarguable fact".

On Aaron Rodgers, it is an OPINION on both sides of the fence, however, the opinion of the GM and the COACH of the Green Bay Packers will BECOME a fact, if has not already become a fact.

You argue that no decision has been made on Aaron Rodgers, therefore, Merlin has an OPINION. Perhaps, but, perhaps NOT.

It is possible that Thompson and McCarthy have made a determination about the ability of Aaron Rodgers, and if they chose Merlin's point of view, then, it becomes a fact. Since Thompson in not in the process of speaking about his decisions, we won't know until an ACTION is taken. An action is different than a decision. That may already have been made.

My view - ANY drafted player is "capable" of playing NFL football. They earn that designation by their draft status. Some draft picks are busts, but that doesn't mean they aren't capable of playing, it just means that they didn't succeed. Failure happens, it doesn't change ability.

Some players need a certain type of offense/defense, others need the right coaching, and finally, some need a bit of luck. (Disclaimer - The above is my OPINION) :roll:

Facts are RARE in the NFL, and are mostly based upon conjecture, consistent with my claims of majority opinion.

[vince]

Thanks for joining this fray, retailguy. I don't despise judgements at all, so long as they aren't misrepresented as FACT in order to stifle opposing opinions.

I believe the problem is that you - judging by your words - and others, don't know the difference between a FACT and an opinion. The problem with that is it demonstrates your closed-mindedness and stifles the exchange of ideas.

It's not a FACT that Sherman was a bad GM. It's an opinion. No matter WHO or HOW MANY people believe that opinion doesn't change that. You may have FACTS to support that opinion, but someone else (not me) may have FACTS to support another opinion.

Stupid example, but in 1400, pretty much everyone in Europe believed the world was flat. By your logic, they all believed it, so it was FACT, right? Was it a FACT? Someone came along with some new FACTS didn't they?

When I read the words that people write, I judge them. We all do. I don't despise that at all. That's why we're here. When people try to stifle other opinions with illegitimate strong arm tactics, the only way to effectively counter them is through strong arm tactics. Those people often get defensive and lash out, which is expected. In doing so, they help make the point.


Nice try Vince, but you're not even close to what I think.

I was 'mocking' the whole "fact" thing. You stated my point. The "majority opinion" in these rooms is almost always presented as an "inarguable fact".

On Aaron Rodgers, it is an OPINION on both sides of the fence, however, the opinion of the GM and the COACH of the Green Bay Packers will BECOME a fact, if has not already become a fact.

You argue that no decision has been made on Aaron Rodgers, therefore, Merlin has an OPINION. Perhaps, but, perhaps NOT.

It is possible that Thompson and McCarthy have made a determination about the ability of Aaron Rodgers, and if they chose Merlin's point of view, then, it becomes a fact. Since Thompson in not in the process of speaking about his decisions, we won't know until an ACTION is taken. An action is different than a decision. That may already have been made.

My view - ANY drafted player is "capable" of playing NFL football. They earn that designation by their draft status. Some draft picks are busts, but that doesn't mean they aren't capable of playing, it just means that they didn't succeed. Failure happens, it doesn't change ability.

Some players need a certain type of offense/defense, others need the right coaching, and finally, some need a bit of luck. (Disclaimer - The above is my OPINION) :roll:

Facts are RARE in the NFL, and are mostly based upon conjecture, consistent with my claims of majority opinion.
One more try, then I'm going to give up on this Retail.

I have no problem whatsoever with people stating their opinions. That's what I'm most interested in. Actually, even in they state them as FACTS, which they aren't.

What I don't appreciate, and therefore challenge, is when someone says, in effect, "My opinion is a FACT, and you're an idiot if you disagree."

That is - as I said previously, an ignorant and arrogant tactic designed to stifle legitimate debate (which is what we all want to read), and the only way to deal with it is to take it on. Enough said on that.

Back to Tedford QB's?

[Merlin]

I think you need to take a hard look at who called who an idiot here. I never said you were an idiot. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. I base what I believe to be fact off of the whole picture, not from a sound byte. As far as arrogance goes, as stated previously, you don't have a clue who I am.

I am all for open debate on topic but for some reason someone who I won't name took this off topic. That person went on the offensive and personally attacked me and then sat there all arrogant and innocent.

You of course would have no clue who took this off topic would you?

[vince]

I think you need to take a hard look at who called who an idiot here. I never said you were an idiot. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. I base what I believe to be fact off of the whole picture, not from a sound byte. As far as arrogance goes, as stated previously, you don't have a clue who I am.

I am all for open debate on topic but for some reason someone who I won't name took this off topic. That person went on the offensive and personally attacked me and then sat there all arrogant and innocent.

You of course would have no clue who took this off topic would you?
I didn't call you an idiot. I accused you of spewing unsubstantiated idiocy. You STILL have not substantiated the opinions you stated as facts, other than with more unsubstantiated opinions.

Here are your "facts":

1. TT is the only one in the Packer organization who believes Aaron Rodgers can amount to anything in this league.
2. TT is dictating the depth chart to the coaching staff, and Mike McCarthy can't "go with his gut" and place Martin ahead of Rodgers as he wants to do.

To support these "facts," you bring more "facts":


Obviously the decision to pick up Rodgers wasn't Mike Sherman's when he was with Green Bay.You justify this statement based on the fact that the Texans cut David Carr! But it got better.


The 49er's passed up on Rodgers in favor of Alex Smith by who? Then offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy It's my opinion that the Niners General Manager was responsible for their draft. I didn't know that Mike McCarthy was both the Offensive Coordinator AND General Manager in San Francisco! Care to verify that claim?

But you take your theory farther yet to surmise that BECAUSE the Niners drafted Alex Smith that THAT means Mike McCarthy THEREFORE, thinks Aaron Rodgers sucks! Huh?

And you back that up with this.

Enter McCarthy in Green Bay. Nall is let go and Ingle Martin is drafted in the 5th round (148th Pick) overall. So it's easy to see who made this call, not TT, McCarthy. Are you sure?

And to support all that, you said,


I guess when articles are published I must be the only one that reads them and actually thinks about it
Where are these articles to support your "facts?" And I must apologize on behalf of the rest of the board for not thinking about the articles that have been published.

And again, you come back with this.


I base what I believe to be fact off of the whole picture, not from a sound byte. Like you - oh, I guess not like you, since it's "hard" for anyone else to analyze situations the way you do. Yeah, I know, "that's just the way it is." But the rest of us, try as we might, also look at the REAL facts of the WHOLE situation, and then support our opinions with actual FACTS - yes, from articles - the only actual FACTS necessary to prove a point.

On March 27, Mike McCarthy was quoted as saying the folowing about Aaron Rodgers,

He knows how we feel about him. We're not blind to the fact that you're always trying to improve through player acquisition. But Aaron Rodgers, I think he has a bright future here. He's going to take over one of the toughest situations ever (succeeding Favre). It's my job and Tom Clements' job and Joe Philbin's job to get him ready.
There are more actual facts that I could bring (you know, the bigger picture that you're the only one capable of seeing?) about this situation if it were necessary, but my hope would be that you bring something substantive to support your arguments besides wild speculation and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

But as you stated, I don't know you. You're right. I have no idea who you are. To me, you are what you write on this board, but I know what I've read, and that's the only thing I'm responding to.