Dr. Z tees off on the Pack again

[NewsBruin]

Green Bay Packers (1-0)
So tell me this. How come Aaron Rodgers sits on the bench for three years and then comes out and plays like a dream, while guys like Kyle Boller and Rex Grossman never seem to get the hang of it? Could it have something to do with coaching, hmmm?

The nerve of the New York media, huh?

[mission]

Seems more like he's all into A-Rod (and MM, with that coaching comment) and willing to "give the Pack a chance" given Favre is now in NY. He's always hated Favre from what I can remember ...

Didn't he slide them up to #4? Or were you being sarcastic? Sorry it's late, I've had 3 mountain dews in the last three hours to finish this project ... Im seeing things. lol

[Lurker64]

I don't get what part of "Rodgers sat for three years and is now playing very well, while other QBs with the same or more experience never seem to get it. The difference? Probably coaching." is negative towards the Packers.

He seems to be implying:
1) Rodgers played well, while others did not.
2) This is because he has been coached well, while others have not.

[Brohm]

Here I thought NB was being sarcastic

[Brainerd]

Re: Dr. Z tees off on the Pack again

[quote="NewsBruin"]

Green Bay Packers (1-0)
So tell me this. How come Aaron Rodgers sits on the bench for three years and then comes out and plays like a dream, while guys like Kyle Boller and Rex Grossman never seem to get the hang of it? Could it have something to do with coaching, hmmm?

Boller and Grossman didn't watch Favre day in and day out for three years either. Oh, and neither did Alex Smith.

[mission]

Re: Dr. Z tees off on the Pack again

[quote="Brainerd"]

Green Bay Packers (1-0)
So tell me this. How come Aaron Rodgers sits on the bench for three years and then comes out and plays like a dream, while guys like Kyle Boller and Rex Grossman never seem to get the hang of it? Could it have something to do with coaching, hmmm?

Boller and Grossman didn't watch Favre day in and day out for three years either. Oh, and neither did Alex Smith.

That's probably #6 on the reasons why A-Rod is appearing to be much better than those clowns.

[pbmax]

He's never "hated" Favre. His complaints have been about wounded duck interceptions and bad throws late in games. And the free pass he felt he got from media and game announcers. Favre was his All-Z Team pick multiple times. This criticism coincides with the Packers struggles in the playoffs.

And that comment might have been a bankshot rip at Favre, but it seems more like a straightforward shot at other teams coaching.

And if I missed the sarcasm, then all apologies.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Yeah, but Dr. Z went way overboard in his criticism. It showed unprofessionalism, and looked like he had a vendetta against Favre. It's one thing to say he isn't a top 5 QB of all-time, but I don't believe Dr. Z even had him in his top 15 (and pound the point home every chance you get). Everybody has their opinion, but that's just silly to me. He seldom wrote an blurb about Favre without some criticism or backhanded compliment.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I really don't see this as a rip on GB at all.

Dr Z pretty much wants QBs to sit and watch instead of get thrown into the fire right out of college. It's no secret that Rodgers had mechanical throwing issues coming out of college and MM got those out of him and made him into a better QB. MM was known for being a good QB coach and has proved that again with GB.

I think this was a compliment to GB that they handled Rodgers the right way. They gave him a chance at succeeding by having him wait and learn the pro game instead of mishandling him the way many QB busts in the past were handled with putting them in games much sooner than they could handle it.

I have no love for Dr Z, but I think you're looking for an insult where none is intended.

[Noodle]

Um, NB was without question being sarcastic. Though he's got to learn, as I did, that you must always follow a sarcastic comment with an emoticon, like this or this or this , otherwise, well more than half of the readers won't get it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I really don't see this as a rip on GB at all.

This comment wasn't a rip at all. In fact, it was a compliment. I believe the original poster was being sarcastic though.

[texaspackerbacker]

This sounds more like grudging respect for the Packers, and at least acknowledgment that Rodgers is off to a good start.

The fact is, there have been cases of QBs sitting a long time and still failing, and there have been cases of QBs getting thrown right in and doing OK. There has also been everything in between. There have also been super starts and quick burnouts, as well as slow starts and great careers.

While it is looking good at this point, the jury is still out on Rodgers, and it will be for most of this season if not longer.

The thing is, though, he is set up for success--talent around him, coaching, etc., where others are not. I see the same for Cassel with New England.

[NewsBruin]

Yeah, but Dr. Z went way overboard in his criticism. It showed unprofessionalism, and looked like he had a vendetta against Favre. It's one thing to say he isn't a top 5 QB of all-time, but I don't believe Dr. Z even had him in his top 15 (and pound the point home every chance you get). Everybody has their opinion, but that's just silly to me. He seldom wrote an blurb about Favre without some criticism or backhanded compliment.

Okay, I was being sarcastic. I like Dr. Z, as he's one of the few opinion guys who doesn't get caught up in "storylines" and manufactured cliches and idol worship. He also notes what he gets wrong and owns up to it. He's played the game (college, semi-pro and Army) and has covered the beat. He has a perspective that started before the 80's. He's pretty dang funny.

I put the quote in, because to some of the forum members, Z never has anything to say about Green Bay; he has an irrational hatred for the Packers; he just didn't like Favre. However, when Z says something good about Green Bay or Packers players (or even Wisconsin state troopers), it doesn't make a ripple on this forum.

Someone asked him the question about a year ago, and this was his response. Some folks, myself included, would rather have Favre than Aikman, but a legit All-Time Top Ten is pretty dang good.

I want to be fair about this. I've been repeatedly accused of being anti-Favre, and I think the reason for my grumpiness is the announcers and fans have fallen so much in love with him during his career that they've been blind to his failings, such as the careless interceptions. How many times have I heard, "Well, at least he's having fun out there," as the offense trudges off the field, following still another pick?

But placing him in the pantheon of the all-timers, well, I'm going to have to think it through; and why not right now? To me, his most remarkable record is never having missed a contest since he became a starter in the fourth game of the 1992 season. That's 16 years worth! Strictly on a skill level, I can't think of any other Hall of Fame quarterback who had a stronger arm, with the possible exception of Terry Bradshaw, who was a national schoolboy record holder in the javelin. Emotionally, Favre is a wild stallion who, at best, in the Super Bowl seasons, inspired all those around him ... at worst, drove his coaches crazy.

He's the kind of player who needed a periodic restraining order ... hey, why am I past-tensing him? Who needs -- present -- a periodic restraining order, and let's face it, coaches have been afraid of him. Mike Holmgren wasn't. Maybe Mike McCarthy, the current edition, isn't, since I keep reading how he's telling him to choke it off and play it safe. Now, how does he compare with the all-timers?

John Unitas and Joe Montana, my twin No. 1s? Both better than him. Otto Graham, my No. 3? Ditto. How about the moderns, Steve Young, John Elway, Troy Aikman, Marino? Hmmm, more careful from an interception standpoint, Aikman and Young, higher-percentage passers, all except Aikman higher in yards per completion -- which is a very telling stat in my book. Victories? Super Bowls? Uh uh, I don't count those in. They're team stats, not QB stats.

How about the old timers, Luckman and Sammy Baugh, for instance? No, I can't do it ... Sid Luckman, who played a full game on defense vs. Brett Favre? No, forget it. I forgot Norm Van Brocklin and Bradshaw and Y.A. Tittle, and the ultra moderns, such as Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, and ... OK, I'm cutting it off right here. That record of 16 years without missing a game does it for me ... Favre goes into my top 10, all time, probably around eight or nine, when I get it all worked out. OK?

[/i]

[HarveyWallbangers]

No, go back post his last 20 articles referencing Brett Favre. You'd be hard-pressed to find many without a dig or backhanded compliment of Favre.

[NewsBruin]

He can say whatever he wants, it's his job as a columnist. Z rips on most everybody, including Favre. He singles out that he doesn't like Favre's wounded ducks, the way it negates all that the offense tries to accomplish when he does so, and how during the eras between Holmgren and McCarthy, no coach tried to moderate it.

I don't think Z has been irrationally harsh on Brett (compared to how he handles anyone else), nor do his good comments get posted on this board. There's some kind of fear that someone might say something nice about Green Bay and we can't fall back on the old "nobody likes us, East-Coast, New York, big-city, biased media" crutch that we use so freaking often.