Aaron Rodgers

[RashanGary]

He'll never be Brett Favre. However, there is nothing that says he can't be pretty good after watching him play last night. He moved the ball, didn't turn the ball over, looked comfortable and scored points. He did the things you want your quarterback to do.

There are people in GB who feel Favre was abandoned and they feel so much for Brett that they feel they were personally abandoned by the Packers. Eventually their emotional fanism turns into hating a guy that they know nothing about. There are people who just don't want Rodgers to succeed and will never give him his due. After Favre, this is what we can expect.

For those who just want to see good things for this team and had an open mind, it's hard to walk away from that game and not think Rodgers has a chance. 1st round QB's are far from a sure thing and he is still far from a sure thing but he showed a little glimps that maybe he can be a winning QB. I don't think anyone should come out and crown his ass after one good TC and a good preseason game, but an objective mind would be open after the showing he had tonight. Unfortunately, there are many non-objective minds in the emotional rollercoster of Packer fanism leading up to the post Favre era.

[Rastak]

He'll never be Brett Favre. However, there is nothing that says he can't be pretty good after watching him play last night. He moved the ball, didn't turn the ball over, looked comfortable and scored points. He did the things you want your quarterback to do.

There are people in GB who feel Favre was abandoned and they feel so much for Brett that they feel they were personally abandoned by the Packers. Eventually their emotional fanism turns into hating a guy that they know nothing about. There are people who just don't want Rodgers to succeed and will never give him his due. After Favre, this is what we can expect.

For those who just want to see good things for this team and had an open mind, it's hard to walk away from that game and not think Rodgers has a chance. 1st round QB's are far from a sure thing and he is still far from a sure thing but he showed a little glimps that maybe he can be a winning QB. I don't think anyone should come out and crown his ass after one good TC and a good preseason game, but an objective mind would be open after the showing he had tonight. Unfortunately, there are many non-objective minds in the emotional rollercoster of Packer fanism leading up to the post Favre era.


I'm gonna catch the replay today, but you might want to keep things in perspective. It's preseason and he's facing 2nd and 3rd teams. Tarvaris Jackson looked solid playing against 2nd and 3rd teams as a rookie last year and Tyler Thigpen played well Friday night but again, against scrubs.

You need to see it in a real game for it to mean too much. Still, it sure is better to look good than to suck when you get your chance in preseason.

[RashanGary]

Right, Ras. I'm not going out and crowning him the next champion or anything. He showed some very good things. He looked like a starting QB. Was it against the highest competition? NOPE. Did he have the best guys on his side though? NOPE.

He was the best player on the field for two quarters. The best of the 2nd stringers, but he was the shiney star. He did as good as he could have done.

The Packers have taken some lumps the last couple years. They turned over almost their entire roster in two years. Favre was there to bridge the gap and now Rodgers is going to walk into a good situation. I always want to see a young QB get good coaching and get a good situation. McCarthy seems like a great QB coach and the situation that he's going to walk into is going to look pretty good thanks to Brett dealing with the rebuilding.

Am I going to go out and bet on the 2009 season for the Packers to win 10 games just because Rodgers is a superstar? NOPE. I'm not crowning him at all. I am looking at the surrounding situation and looking at last nights play and seeing a possibly successfull situation for Rodgers. As a Packer fan, I think you have to feel a little better after watching him disect an NFL 2nd string defense with his 2nd string offense in his first oppertunity this year.

[Joemailman]

The best thing about Rodgers last night was that he made plays even though things were breaking down. The way he kept his head was more impressive than anything he did physically. I think that's significant no matter who the other guys on the field were.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Rodgers played good there’s no denying that, but I’ll hold off on getting too excited about him until he proves he can do it on a regular basis and in a real game. However, that’s not to say that you can’t take anything away from pre-season games because you can. If you remember Matt Hasselbeck kicked ass in pre-season the year before he got traded and now he’s playing great for Seattle. The main thing I take away from pre-season play is consistency. If Rodgers shows that he can on a regular basis go out and destroy 2nd team defenses then I would say that he’s ready to take the next step and have a chance as a starter. However, if he goes out and blows next week than what can we expect when he’s forced to play week in and week out against starting NFL defenses?

Bottom line is that it was great is see him play good yesterday and hopefully he can do that for the next three games as well.

[GBRulz]

Very well said, Packfan

[Packnut]

Right, Ras. I'm not going out and crowning him the next champion or anything. He showed some very good things. He looked like a starting QB. Was it against the highest competition? NOPE. Did he have the best guys on his side though? NOPE.

He was the best player on the field for two quarters. The best of the 2nd stringers, but he was the shiney star. He did as good as he could have done.

The Packers have taken some lumps the last couple years. They turned over almost their entire roster in two years. Favre was there to bridge the gap and now Rodgers is going to walk into a good situation. I always want to see a young QB get good coaching and get a good situation. McCarthy seems like a great QB coach and the situation that he's going to walk into is going to look pretty good thanks to Brett dealing with the rebuilding.

Am I going to go out and bet on the 2009 season for the Packers to win 10 games just because Rodgers is a superstar? NOPE. I'm not crowning him at all. I am looking at the surrounding situation and looking at last nights play and seeing a possibly successfull situation for Rodgers. As a Packer fan, I think you have to feel a little better after watching him disect an NFL 2nd string defense with his 2nd string offense in his first oppertunity this year.

Rodgers success like most QB's, will be tied to the talent around him. Unless something changes, he will be limited in the fact that he will not have a home run threat. What is ironic is the guy you support so much has limited Rodgers chances.

Think about it. Driver will be at the age where WR's slow down. Jennings and Jones are possesion type guys. We have NO TE's. We have no one at RB who is a threat to go the distance. Please don't tell me the D will carry him either. Woodson and Harris have 1 or 2 great years left, and then they will lose a step. You see what we have to replace them.

I feel sorry for Rodgers cause besides replacing a legend, he works for a GM who really does have his head stuck up his ass when it comes to offense. Oh, by the way, Eric Johnson with 2 catches for 19 yards in 3 offensive series..........

[Scott Campbell]

Jennings and Jones are possesion type guys.



I don't consider Jennings a possesion type guy. Though I might start considering him injury prone.

[Joemailman]

Right, Ras. I'm not going out and crowning him the next champion or anything. He showed some very good things. He looked like a starting QB. Was it against the highest competition? NOPE. Did he have the best guys on his side though? NOPE.

He was the best player on the field for two quarters. The best of the 2nd stringers, but he was the shiney star. He did as good as he could have done.

The Packers have taken some lumps the last couple years. They turned over almost their entire roster in two years. Favre was there to bridge the gap and now Rodgers is going to walk into a good situation. I always want to see a young QB get good coaching and get a good situation. McCarthy seems like a great QB coach and the situation that he's going to walk into is going to look pretty good thanks to Brett dealing with the rebuilding.

Am I going to go out and bet on the 2009 season for the Packers to win 10 games just because Rodgers is a superstar? NOPE. I'm not crowning him at all. I am looking at the surrounding situation and looking at last nights play and seeing a possibly successfull situation for Rodgers. As a Packer fan, I think you have to feel a little better after watching him disect an NFL 2nd string defense with his 2nd string offense in his first oppertunity this year.

Rodgers success like most QB's, will be tied to the talent around him. Unless something changes, he will be limited in the fact that he will not have a home run threat. What is ironic is the guy you support so much has limited Rodgers chances.

Think about it. Driver will be at the age where WR's slow down. Jennings and Jones are possesion type guys. We have NO TE's. We have no one at RB who is a threat to go the distance. Please don't tell me the D will carry him either. Woodson and Harris have 1 or 2 great years left, and then they will lose a step. You see what we have to replace them.

I feel sorry for Rodgers cause besides replacing a legend, he works for a GM who really does have his head stuck up his ass when it comes to offense. Oh, by the way, Eric Johnson with 2 catches for 19 yards in 3 offensive series..........


:wow: He made it through 3 series without an injury?t :knll: :wave: :glug: :wink:

[Scott Campbell]

Rodgers played good there’s no denying that, but I’ll hold off on getting too excited about him until he proves he can do it on a regular basis and in a real game.


What I'm taking away so far is not so much about Rodgers. There's no telling on him until regular season games. However, he does look improved. And that reflects well on M3 and his ability to develop QB's.

IMO, our post Favre fate is tied more closely to M3's ability to develop an NFL QB than it is to any single player.

[RashanGary]

I think the line is coming together. WE have a couple good young WR's coming up. We have a good young RB coming up. Korey Hall mgiht be the FB of the future. We need a TE and we need to keep our feelers open for playmakers, but I see a solid base being built. Guys are leaving but hopefully we have guys coming in that can pick it up. I guess your negative view comes from you expecting our GM to fail us and my positive veiw comes from my expectation that our GM will succeed for us. It could go either way. How much confidence do you have in TT is the question.

I have a lot.
You have very little

Our outlooks on the future are opposite.

Agree to disagree, that is where we stand. Hopefully it's a fun season and a fun next couple years.

[RashanGary]

What I'm taking away so far is not so much about Rodgers. There's no telling on him until regular season games. However, he does look improved. And that reflects well on M3 and his ability to develop QB's.

IMO, our post Favre fate is tied more closely to M3's ability to develop an NFL QB than it is to any single player.

VERY true statement. There are good guys out there. QB's, more than any other position, need a knack for making plays. Some strange, intangible quality where they just come out on top more often than not. Brett had that. Rodgers might, who knows. Paul Thompson might, Ingle Martin might, some AFL guy like Kurt Warner might. The Packers have to keep scowering the QB talent pools and giving guys real chances. One guy has to rise to the top. Rodgers took a right step here, but he's not the only possible asnwer. He's just the most likely answer right now.

[Packnut]

Right, Ras. I'm not going out and crowning him the next champion or anything. He showed some very good things. He looked like a starting QB. Was it against the highest competition? NOPE. Did he have the best guys on his side though? NOPE.

He was the best player on the field for two quarters. The best of the 2nd stringers, but he was the shiney star. He did as good as he could have done.

The Packers have taken some lumps the last couple years. They turned over almost their entire roster in two years. Favre was there to bridge the gap and now Rodgers is going to walk into a good situation. I always want to see a young QB get good coaching and get a good situation. McCarthy seems like a great QB coach and the situation that he's going to walk into is going to look pretty good thanks to Brett dealing with the rebuilding.

Am I going to go out and bet on the 2009 season for the Packers to win 10 games just because Rodgers is a superstar? NOPE. I'm not crowning him at all. I am looking at the surrounding situation and looking at last nights play and seeing a possibly successfull situation for Rodgers. As a Packer fan, I think you have to feel a little better after watching him disect an NFL 2nd string defense with his 2nd string offense in his first oppertunity this year.

Rodgers success like most QB's, will be tied to the talent around him. Unless something changes, he will be limited in the fact that he will not have a home run threat. What is ironic is the guy you support so much has limited Rodgers chances.

Think about it. Driver will be at the age where WR's slow down. Jennings and Jones are possesion type guys. We have NO TE's. We have no one at RB who is a threat to go the distance. Please don't tell me the D will carry him either. Woodson and Harris have 1 or 2 great years left, and then they will lose a step. You see what we have to replace them.

I feel sorry for Rodgers cause besides replacing a legend, he works for a GM who really does have his head stuck up his ass when it comes to offense. Oh, by the way, Eric Johnson with 2 catches for 19 yards in 3 offensive series..........


:wow: He made it through 3 series without an injury?t :knll: :wave: :glug: :wink:


Using the injury card on Johnson with what we have for a first rd pick in Harrell is a bit foolish. Then again, may-be you like our TE's....... :roll:

[Joemailman]

GBRulz seems to like Zac Alcorn...

[Him8123]

Im not quick to say rodgers is the next coming cause most likely hes not but as a packer fan i would love for him to become great hopefully then the post favre era wont look as bleak as it seems right now

[Iron Mike]

I may be wrong on this, but I think the Packer future looks like the Tampa Bay/Baltimore model.......great D with a QB serviceable enough to not lose games.

Now we just need to draft that stud RB.

[GBRulz]

GBRulz seems to like Zac Alcorn...

:tup:

and at least he caught a ball last night. Unlike Mr. Butterworths....

[vince]

Here's a question for you all.

By what statistic are the following quarterbacks ranked?

1. Aaron Rodgers
2. Vince Young
3. Matt Leinart
4. Tavaris Jackson
5. Jay Cutler
6. Jason Campbell
7. Matt Schaub

[Rastak]

Here's a question for you all.

By what statistic are the following quarterbacks ranked?

1. Aaron Rodgers
2. Vince Young
3. Matt Leinart
4. Tavaris Jackson
5. Jay Cutler
6. Jason Campbell
7. Matt Schaub

QB rating in games where winds are greater than 20 mph?

[Joemailman]

Youngest Quarterback

[Scott Campbell]

Here's a question for you all.

By what statistic are the following quarterbacks ranked?

1. Aaron Rodgers
2. Vince Young
3. Matt Leinart
4. Tavaris Jackson
5. Jay Cutler
6. Jason Campbell
7. Matt Schaub

QB rating in games where winds are greater than 20 mph?


Career INT's, ranked least to most?

[vince]

Youngest Quarterback
We have a winner! I guess that was too easy, eh Joe? Those young QB's are ranked by age from youngest to oldest.

Rodgers is also younger than both Ingle Martin and Paul Thompson.

[Scott Campbell]

Youngest Quarterback
We have a winner! I guess that was too easy, eh Joe? Those young QB's are ranked by age from youngest to oldest.

Rodgers is also younger than both Ingle Martin and Paul Thompson.

I didn't think Rodgers was younger than Vince. Wow.

Wait a minute Vince. You conveniently excluded Alex Smith. He has already started for 2 years, and is younger than all those guys. He's almost 6 months younger than Rodgers.

[Patler]

Youngest Quarterback
We have a winner! I guess that was too easy, eh Joe? Those young QB's are ranked by age from youngest to oldest.

Rodgers is also younger than both Ingle Martin and Paul Thompson.

That was my first thought, but I believe your list has an error. According to NFL.com Jackson is actually older than Cutler, not younger, by 8 days.

Jackson 4/21/1983
Cutler 4/29/1983

Switch those two and your list is correct, per nfl.com

[vince]

Youngest Quarterback
We have a winner! I guess that was too easy, eh Joe? Those young QB's are ranked by age from youngest to oldest.

Rodgers is also younger than both Ingle Martin and Paul Thompson.

That was my first thought, but I believe your list has an error. According to NFL.com Jackson is actually older than Cutler, not younger, by 8 days.

Jackson 4/21/1983
Cutler 4/29/1983

Switch those two and your list is correct, per nfl.comOops, I just did them manually. My bad, and thanks for that correction Patler.

[Joemailman]

Youngest Quarterback
We have a winner! I guess that was too easy, eh Joe? Those young QB's are ranked by age from youngest to oldest.

Rodgers is also younger than both Ingle Martin and Paul Thompson.

I just vaguely remembered reading last year that ARod was younger than most of the guys drafted by the Pack in the 2006 draft.

[vince]

Youngest Quarterback
We have a winner! I guess that was too easy, eh Joe? Those young QB's are ranked by age from youngest to oldest.

Rodgers is also younger than both Ingle Martin and Paul Thompson.

I didn't think Rodgers was younger than Vince. Wow.

Wait a minute Vince. You conveniently excluded Alex Smith. He has already started for 2 years, and is younger than all those guys. He's almost 6 months younger than Rodgers.
Yes, that was convenient, and a good catch Scott. It doesn't change the point though, which is that Aaron Rodgers appears to have improved a lot in his time in the league, and is still very young - two positives for him.

Rodgers may never be as good as those QB's listed already starting elsewhere, but his time learning and growing in this system and under Brett Favre appears to be serving him well thus far, so only time will tell that.

A lot of quarterbacks have had to wait awhile before seeing the field for any significant time and becoming starters. While that is also the case with Rodgers, even if he doesn't see the field for two more years, he'll still be plenty young enough to contribute many many years in the league - assuming he continues to develop and display the skills and effectiveness he demonstrated last night.

[VegasPackFan]

Lets not forget that there have been a few decent starting QB's in this league that only had a chance to show what they could do in preseason games backing up Favre.

[Partial]

Why is he so young? Did he skip a grade or two?

[4and12to12and4]

It's been mentioned here that Rodgers, if and when he gets his chance, won't have that deep threat to go to. I am starting to think that Holiday might end up being that guy. With his size, strength, and determination to go after the ball over a DB's back shows me that he might be a playmaker for this team. I really like this guy, and I think he might really end up being a special player.

[vince]

Why is he so young? Did he skip a grade or two?
He declared for the draft after three years in college, but he also was a grade ahead of others his age in school - starting at Butte Junior College at the age of 17, then 2 years at Cal before entering the draft. I can't pinpoint why or how that happened though. Perhaps someone else has other info. He is, by all accounts, a very intelligent person, so perhaps he skipped a grade as a youngster.


College career
As a junior college transfer with three years of eligibility, Rodgers was named the starting quarterback for California in the fifth game of the 2003 season, ironically, against the only team that offered him a division I opportunity out of high school, Illinois. He helped lead the Golden Bears to an 8-6 record, including an upset win over then-No. 3 ranked University of Southern California and an Insight Bowl victory against the Virginia Tech Hokies. As a junior, Rodgers led California to the No. 4 ranking in the country, earning a spot in the Holiday Bowl. After the season, Rodgers entered the 2005 NFL Draft.

[LL2]

Wasn't he only 21 when he turned pro? So, does that make him 23 now? So, if Favre retires after this year he'll only be 24 when he becomes a starter. If he turns out to be a better than avg QB he could have 10-12 years as a starter after riding the pine for 3 yrs.

[Joemailman]

Rodgers doesn't turn 24 until this December. By comparison, Ingle Martin turns 25 this week. Paul Thompson is actually 2 weeks older than ARod, making ARod the youngest QB on the Packers roster.

[Merlin]

First of all, I don't for one second "hate" Rodgers because I have a woody for Favre. I don't like Rodgers because we wasted a #1 pick on a guy that to this point has still shown he isn't anywhere near ready. Sure, he did some things right in the game, like not make a big mistake. The things he did wrong though are what separates a serviceable QB from a bench warmer. He telegraphs every pass. When the receiver isn't open, he stares at him until he is and then runs out of bounds when he isn't. He does not read the defense, he does not go through his progressions. He reminds me of a typical high school QB. For this being his third year, he should have picked up on that now. Without that one single fundamental attribute, he will never be anything but a backup. I do question his arm strength as well. It's easy to dismiss it when he is always telegraphing his passes. Why? Because he is going to make one throw, not think about making another. I want to see him do something, anything that makes him look like he can lead the team. He isn't doing that right now.

More interesting is the lack of snaps that Martin and Thompson got. It's clear that Rodgers is the guy and no one will be given the opportunity to supplant him. That's really sad. Even when we had Doug Pederson, at least the third stringer got a lot of snaps. Rodgers isn't anywhere near as good as Pederson was in regards to a backup. Craig Nall was instantly relegated to #3 the day we signed Rodgers. Martin and Thompson are nothing more then camp arms at this point. I guess we will have to wait for Favre to retire to see what we have on our roster because it's clearly evident that 3T has all his eggs in Rodgers basket...

[The Leaper]

The things he did wrong though are what separates a serviceable QB from a bench warmer. He telegraphs every pass. When the receiver isn't open, he stares at him until he is and then runs out of bounds when he isn't. He does not read the defense, he does not go through his progressions. He reminds me of a typical high school QB. For this being his third year, he should have picked up on that now. Without that one single fundamental attribute, he will never be anything but a backup.

For the most part, this comment could have been said of Brett Favre during 1994 without much debate. He turned out to be OK.

It takes time and reps to reach the level of understanding and experience you demand. We sit here and are completely ignorant of just how great Favre is...and that his greatness causes us to demand too much of a QB. You want a kid who hasn't started one NFL game to go out there and read defenses and go through progressions like Favre...who has operated in this offense for years and probably has taken 30,000 snaps in practice and games for the Packers in his career.

For his age and level of experience, I don't think Rodgers is really that far behind other QBs. If you think Ingle Martin or Paul Thompson has any chance to supplant Rodgers, you must not be watching the same football games I am. Neither of those guys looks anything close to Rodgers in terms of pocket awareness or poise at this point...and their accuracy is even worse than Rodgers.

[The Leaper]

Craig Nall was instantly relegated to #3 the day we signed Rodgers.

And what has Nall shown to this point to suggest that was an error? God forbid! The coaches might have actually been right!

It would have been STUPID to not put a FIRST ROUND DRAFT pick ahead of some guy taken late on day two. It was clear from day one that Rodgers had more talent than Nall.

[Joemailman]

First of all, I don't for one second "hate" Rodgers because I have a woody for Favre. .

Who's gonna break the bad news to Brett?

[PackerBlues]

Craig Nall was instantly relegated to #3 the day we signed Rodgers.

And what has Nall shown to this point to suggest that was an error? God forbid! The coaches might have actually been right!

It would have been STUPID to not put a FIRST ROUND DRAFT pick ahead of some guy taken late on day two. It was clear from day one that Rodgers had more talent than Nall.

I looked at Nall the same way that I looked at Kampman and Jenkins. They always seemed to show that they had what it takes to be a starter, and yet they never seemed to get a chance. Kampman and Jenkins have their starting positions now, and Nall is playing elsewhere. I understand what Merlin is saying about how Rogers instantly became the #2 QB. I also think it was BS. Nall already had some knowledge of the system before Rogers got here, and what would be stupid here, is to say that Rogers had more talent than Nall from day one. Considering as how even the most devoted of the Aaron Rogers fans have said that he is just now finally starting to show much needed improvement. Nall had 3 pre-seasons under his belt before Rogers showed up, and I thought he looked pretty good the last few times I saw him play in GB. He easily had more knowledge of our Offense than Rogers.
We have different opinions on Nall and Rogers, no biggie, but "God forbid that the coaches may have actually been wrong." :talk:

[Merlin]

The things he did wrong though are what separates a serviceable QB from a bench warmer. He telegraphs every pass. When the receiver isn't open, he stares at him until he is and then runs out of bounds when he isn't. He does not read the defense, he does not go through his progressions. He reminds me of a typical high school QB. For this being his third year, he should have picked up on that now. Without that one single fundamental attribute, he will never be anything but a backup.

For the most part, this comment could have been said of Brett Favre during 1994 without much debate. He turned out to be OK.

It takes time and reps to reach the level of understanding and experience you demand. We sit here and are completely ignorant of just how great Favre is...and that his greatness causes us to demand too much of a QB. You want a kid who hasn't started one NFL game to go out there and read defenses and go through progressions like Favre...who has operated in this offense for years and probably has taken 30,000 snaps in practice and games for the Packers in his career.

For his age and level of experience, I don't think Rodgers is really that far behind other QBs. If you think Ingle Martin or Paul Thompson has any chance to supplant Rodgers, you must not be watching the same football games I am. Neither of those guys looks anything close to Rodgers in terms of pocket awareness or poise at this point...and their accuracy is even worse than Rodgers.

Rodgers has always started in every game with the #1 offense. By the time anyone else get's in there to play QB for their one series, you are down to the bottom of the barrell. I guess you don't really watch that many games. Martin and Thompson haven't played near the snaps, Martin in two seasons now. Rodgers has been spoon fed from day one and still sucks.

[Merlin]

Oh yeah, remember not to have an alternate opinion from the masses in here. For whatever reason, logic is never welcome...

[The Leaper]

Nall had 3 pre-seasons under his belt before Rogers showed up, and I thought he looked pretty good the last few times I saw him play in GB. He easily had more knowledge of our Offense than Rogers.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the hell Nall has accomplished so far that is making all of you giddy about his "potential". The guy had every chance in Buffalo to step in and become a starter...because neither Losman or Kelly Holcomb showed much last year.

Instead, Nall didn't get a whiff of even passing Holcomb...who has "career backup" written all over him...on the depth chart.

Yep...he had "starter" written all over him!

[Merlin]

Nall had 3 pre-seasons under his belt before Rogers showed up, and I thought he looked pretty good the last few times I saw him play in GB. He easily had more knowledge of our Offense than Rogers.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the hell Nall has accomplished so far that is making all of you giddy about his "potential". The guy had every chance in Buffalo to step in and become a starter...because neither Losman or Kelly Holcomb showed much last year.

Instead, Nall didn't get a whiff of even passing Holcomb...who has "career backup" written all over him...on the depth chart.

Yep...he had "starter" written all over him!

You are comparing apples to oranges. They aren't on the same team anymore. But if Favre went down, I would have rather had Nall in there then Rodgers at the time. When Nall came in what were his stats in the regular season? What were Rodgers again?

Case closed.....next

[Zool]

So either you like JP Losman more than you like Rodgers, or you think that NFL coaches and GM's are stupid and have no idea how to evaluate talent.

[The Leaper]

Case closed.....next

Not really...you are also comparing apples to oranges.

Nall had one of the best offenses in the league to run when he stepped in for Favre briefly. Rodgers has mostly had nothing to work with the few times he's seen action. Let's compare Favre's numbers in 2004 and 2006...yeah, there's a reason for that.

I think most QBs in the NFL could look good on the Packer offense in 2003/2004...which is why Nall didn't look horrible. Truth be told, he wasn't all that great...which is precisely why he still hasn't become a starter in the league 3 years after the fact.

Rodgers is a better QB...he needed reps to become better, which is why the coaches wanted to move him to #2 over Nall. If Favre had gone down to injury that season long term, it is probable that Nall would've moved to the starting slot ahead of Rodgers due to experience.

Basically, the coaches realized Nall more or less had reached the zenith of his potential...so he was going to remain at #3 unless Favre was injured and the team needed a 2-4 game replacement to fill in.

Why that is confusing to you, I'm not sure.

[woodbuck27]

He'll never be Brett Favre. However, there is nothing that says he can't be pretty good after watching him play last night. He moved the ball, didn't turn the ball over, looked comfortable and scored points. He did the things you want your quarterback to do.

There are people in GB who feel Favre was abandoned and they feel so much for Brett that they feel they were personally abandoned by the Packers. Eventually their emotional fanism turns into hating a guy that they know nothing about. There are people who just don't want Rodgers to succeed and will never give him his due. After Favre, this is what we can expect.

For those who just want to see good things for this team and had an open mind, it's hard to walk away from that game and not think Rodgers has a chance. 1st round QB's are far from a sure thing and he is still far from a sure thing but he showed a little glimps that maybe he can be a winning QB. I don't think anyone should come out and crown his ass after one good TC and a good preseason game, but an objective mind would be open after the showing he had tonight. Unfortunately, there are many non-objective minds in the emotional rollercoster of Packer fanism leading up to the post Favre era.

I'll take the opposite view here.

I'm a Packer fan first but for me to be that and ignore the neglect our current GM has demonstrated overwhelmingly against support for our 'O' under the greatest QB we may ever witness sickens me.

I'm not anti Aaron Rodgers. I'm not anti Ted Thompson. I am a Ted Thompson critic. There is much I can't pass on criticizing that I feel is important for our future, in terms of realized growth from TT in terms of him demonstrating he has it to be successful as our GM. He has a lot to learn. The proof of and his position on that learning curve will be the state of our 'O' in 2007.

RE: Aaron Rodgers:

Aaron's got to improve his consistency and be ready to lead us after Favre. Favre and the Packer coaching staff will do all they can to develop the confidence of new WR's that TT brings to the Packers. Brett Favre is paid very well to assume this role for our future.

Too bad it couldn't be more for Favre.

Favre isn't encouraged by Ted Thompson to continue as our QB for the foreseeable future beyond 2007. Favre wants to win. Ted Thompson has done all he can to stunt that reality despite his stance otherwise that he (TT) wants to win this season.

Ted Thompson has held Favre's needs in check and growing frustration for only one reason. To see him out of Green Bay and retired from the NFL as a Packer.

It's over the top too obvious. It's certainly embarassing to me as a Packer fan. You'd have to be in total denial not to see that has been one of TT's prime objectives since his arrival. Some of you are just there or for whatever reason - in denial, for your own personal needs. It's OK. :)

I'm not tagging you with that JH. I see some signs of reality in you particularly of late. DAM your only a young man. Your strides ahead of some in certain regards

Secondly those of you who like to use the word to decribe some here as hating (or who. . . hate) must be very familiar with that emotion to accuse another of it. Uhhhh ??

To hate is to carry too much emotion too far.

To damage oneself or be destructive. Hatred is a definite sign of a lack of maturity in the human growth process or spirit. A symptom of an inferiority complex or an unhealthy ego.

My suggestion to you Mr. JH is to not devide us by inferring that some here are so debased as to be seen as hateful in your observation.

Favre supporters are not necessarily about hatred more about reality and frustration.

How well do you understand this terrible and inferior emotion JH, that you can ascribe such to another. Another or others that you havn't even come to know in a proper sense or face to face?

[PackerBlues]

Case closed.....next

Not really...you are also comparing apples to oranges.

Nall had one of the best offenses in the league to run when he stepped in for Favre briefly. Rodgers has mostly had nothing to work with the few times he's seen action. Let's compare Favre's numbers in 2004 and 2006...yeah, there's a reason for that.

I think most QBs in the NFL could look good on the Packer offense in 2003/2004...which is why Nall didn't look horrible. Truth be told, he wasn't all that great...which is precisely why he still hasn't become a starter in the league 3 years after the fact.

Rodgers is a better QB...he needed reps to become better, which is why the coaches wanted to move him to #2 over Nall. If Favre had gone down to injury that season long term, it is probable that Nall would've moved to the starting slot ahead of Rodgers due to experience.

Basically, the coaches realized Nall more or less had reached the zenith of his potential...so he was going to remain at #3 unless Favre was injured and the team needed a 2-4 game replacement to fill in.

Why that is confusing to you, I'm not sure.

a lot of opinion, not much fact. It may also be the case that Nall was on his 4'th year with the Packers when Ted shocked the shit out of everyone and took Rogers in the first round. Then Ted did the same thing that he did with Harrell, he bumped him up on the depth chart because the fans expect the first round pick to be starter material. That in my opinion was more a PR move than anything. As far as Nall being in Buffalo, Teddy has a record of being a cheapo, it only made sense for him to get rid of Nall before his contract came up. Nall's age may have also have been a factor.