Excellent Analysis on Rodgers

[PlantPage55]

Drew Brees is a huge one. He looked like crap for a long time there. Hell, that's why they drafted/traded for Rivers.

There was no "oh, I see the greatness in him. He'll be top 5 someday."

But I expect you to not buy any of the previously mentioned examples. I guess we'll just have to wait and watch Aaron Rodgers and the offense excel next season. We'll all be happy and we'll expect you to find ways to try and squash that happiness.

[retailguy]

Drew Brees is a huge one. He looked like crap for a long time there. Hell, that's why they drafted/traded for Rivers.

There was no "oh, I see the greatness in him. He'll be top 5 someday."

But I expect you to not buy any of the previously mentioned examples. I guess we'll just have to wait and watch Aaron Rodgers and the offense excel next season. We'll all be happy and we'll expect you to find ways to try and squash that happiness.

Though I agree with you and have been generally pleased with Rodgers performance. Even if he "doesn't get any better", he's still good enough for me.

That being said, I do have to wonder if all you guys ganging up on Partial will have the balls to admit it if you're wrong.

Last season, the Ted haters and the Ted lovers squared off into a particuarly heated and divisive battle. Even though the "luster" has seemingly worn off Ted's star, and some significant "chinks" in the armor "might" be present, you'd think that there would be more people that might "man up" and say "hmm, I might have this wrong"....

But they haven't. Or very few anyhow.

This year, it seems that the battle lines are drawn around Rodgers to the point that many in this thread are personally bashing Partial. Yeah, the guy is a little harsh on Rodgers, but he hasn't said he's "bad", just that he thinks others are better.

People in this thread really bashed Cutler and how he wasn't nearly as good as Rodgers, then Chicago gives up two firsts for the guy plus Orton and a 3rd... Maybe, just maybe, the arm chair QB's in here might not be so good?

We'll see. I hope those of you who have staked your claim on the Rodgers mountain man up and admit it if you're wrong. Two seasons ago, I though the Packers would SUCK and was very vocal about it. When that didn't happen, I admitted I was wrong, even going so far as to sticky my thread at the top of the forum for a week. I have mod access and would be only too delighted to sticky your mea culpa should one become necessary...

Please note Plant, that my "response" was meant "generally". Your post typified the general sentiment being expressed in this thread, and I wasn't trying to "call you out" specifically.

[PlantPage55]

That being said, I do have to wonder if all you guys ganging up on Partial will have the balls to admit it if you're wrong.

Absolutely. Although I will say that even if he merely matches or ends up "around" what he did last year for us, then we're still a top 10 offense. I can't ask for more than that...although I do think we'll get it!

The heart of the matter is what our defense did for us. Not only did they lose some of those games for us, when Rodgers and the offense led us back into the lead, but the most overlooked thing is what it did for the offensive's ability to perform, itself!

We hear all the time about how our offense isn't good enough to "sustain drives" and keep the defense off the field. Well, I submit that the same could just as easily be said about our defenses effect on the offense. \

It's demoralizing not only to the morale, but also the stamina of the offense for the O to lead us back to victory in the 4th quarter, only to have our defense give the game right back (especially in Carolina game where it took the Panthers to regain the lead in, what, a whole 30 seconds?).

It comes down to this: Give Rodgers offense, the 2007 defense (with a healthy Barnett, Jenkins, and Bigby) and you would have seen us in the NFL playoffs and possibly reaching just as far as we did that season. The offenses were VERY comparable. An assumption it is, I realize. But I think it's a fair thing to say. To overlook or ignore the fact that our defense was more than significantly worse is to miss the point of NFL football completely.

Our defense gives up TWO less scores per game (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what they did in 2007) and we're not having this conversation.

Instead, we'd probably be having a "Rodgers lost the NFC Championship for us. Is he good enough?" discussion.

[Spaulding]

That being said, I do have to wonder if all you guys ganging up on Partial will have the balls to admit it if you're wrong.

Absolutely. Although I will say that even if he merely matches or ends up "around" what he did last year for us, then we're still a top 10 offense. I can't ask for more than that...although I do think we'll get it!

The heart of the matter is what our defense did for us. Not only did they lose some of those games for us, when Rodgers and the offense led us back into the lead, but the most overlooked thing is what it did for the offensive's ability to perform, itself!

We hear all the time about how our offense isn't good enough to "sustain drives" and keep the defense off the field. Well, I submit that the same could just as easily be said about our defenses effect on the offense. \

It's demoralizing not only to the morale, but also the stamina of the offense for the O to lead us back to victory in the 4th quarter, only to have our defense give the game right back (especially in Carolina game where it took the Panthers to regain the lead in, what, a whole 30 seconds?).

It comes down to this: Give Rodgers offense, the 2007 defense (with a healthy Barnett, Jenkins, and Bigby) and you would have seen us in the NFL playoffs and possibly reaching just as far as we did that season. The offenses were VERY comparable. An assumption it is, I realize. But I think it's a fair thing to say. To overlook or ignore the fact that our defense was more than significantly worse is to miss the point of NFL football completely.

Our defense gives up TWO less scores per game (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what they did in 2007) and we're not having this conversation.

Instead, we'd probably be having a "Rodgers lost the NFC Championship for us. Is he good enough?" discussion.

Nice summation - dead on IMO

[sharpe1027]

This year, it seems that the battle lines are drawn around Rodgers to the point that many in this thread are personally bashing Partial. Yeah, the guy is a little harsh on Rodgers, but he hasn't said he's "bad", just that he thinks others are better.

I think that it is wrong to lump all arguments into one side or the other.

For many, myself included, it seems to be not so much Partial's conclusion, but more about the explanations for the conclusion. Certainly some posters bashed Culter and others think Rodgers is outstanding, but many more mainly respond to Partial's explanations.

IMHO, Partial has shown a willingness to put forth any and all reasons for his conclusion about Rodgers and to defend the reasons at all costs. The pattern suggests that it is not about looking at all the information and forming opinion, it is about looking through all the information to find anything to support a conclusion already reached.

On a related note, many people, myself included, respond to repeated bashing of TT by pointing out flaws in generalizations and misguided conclusions about him that seem to be the norm.

Pointing out mistakes in one extreme view does not mean you must have an opposite and equally extreme view. I would also disagree with anyone that was sure that Rodgers was going to be HoFer to win superbowls and anyone who said TT will guarantee a Superbowl win in short order.

[cheesner]

Drew Brees is a huge one. He looked like crap for a long time there. Hell, that's why they drafted/traded for Rivers.

There was no "oh, I see the greatness in him. He'll be top 5 someday."

But I expect you to not buy any of the previously mentioned examples. I guess we'll just have to wait and watch Aaron Rodgers and the offense excel next season. We'll all be happy and we'll expect you to find ways to try and squash that happiness.

How about Favre? An example right in our own backyard. How many people remember that he became a free agent after his rookie contract. He shopped his services around and it appeared that New Orleans may make him an offer. But only GB offered him a contract (IIRC). A better question is which QBs did not show improvement after their 4th year. Boller, Harrington, Akili Smith, Tim Couch, etc. - these are the ones who were not around for their 6th season.

I think what is difficult for some people to realize is just what a bad QB looks like. We have been spoiled during the Favre era of having good to great QB play. AR, bless his heart, is not as good as Brett in his prime, and the bar in GB is set pretty high in QB expectations. But know this, Minny, Det, and Chi, have not seen as good a QB playing for their teams in the last 30+ years who is as good as AR. And AR is much better at this stage of his career than Brett was in his 4th year. They are different types of QBs and hopefully, AR gets to that level, although it is unlikely.

The fun for me of following the NFL 12 months per year is player development. Following these kids in the draft and watching them improve week to week and develop over the years provides a certain satisfaction. If it does to you, and you are dumping on AR right now - you are going to miss out.

[sharpe1027]

The fun for me of following the NFL 12 months per year is player development. Following these kids in the draft and watching them improve week to week and develop over the years provides a certain satisfaction. If it does to you, and you are dumping on AR right now - you are going to miss out.

Great post.

[Patler]

How about Favre? An example right in our own backyard. How many people remember that he became a free agent after his rookie contract. He shopped his services around and it appeared that New Orleans may make him an offer. But only GB offered him a contract (IIRC).

It has been so long ago that many fans have forgotten, and many are too young to remember, that Favre was no sure thing his first few seasons in GB. Even after the talent was obvious, there were lots of questions about whether or not he would put it all together. Early on, Favre too had "happy feet". If Sharp wasn't open, Favre would take off running. He didn't average 3-4 carries per game in those early years because he was a great runner (although he was MUCH better then than in recent years). He didn't have that great "pocket presence" for quite a few years. He would look and throw, or look and run (and sometimes still throw!). It was years before he learned the relaxed "drift" away from the pressure that enabled him to continue scanning the field as the play dragged on.

MM said it many times, there is value in not playing a QB early in his career, but a QB improves only so much sitting on the sidelines. Thereafter, he has to play to continue improving. Athletes in all sports at all levels have to become accustomed to a new speed of play and intensity as they move up in the sport. You don't get that sitting on the sidelines, or even in practice. At critical positions like QB, you don't get it in a single year as a starter. Too many things going on, too many decisions to make in a very short period of time. You get better as those decisions become routine, and not consciously thought out acts.

[Partial]

LOL, many of those players were MVP candidates long before their 5th year started.

Some of those are decent examples, but the more modern ones were very good players long before their 5th year.

Brees? Brees had a Rodgers like start to his career. Almost identical as a matter of fact. Didn't really have a lot of playing time until his 4th year and was very good from that point forth. They resigned him to a franchise contract after his 4th year, and then they let him go and started Rivers in his third year and has consistently put up decent numbers and lead a team into the playoffs. Rivers had a huge year this year, but I think that is more so because they didn't have the ground game they had in years past, and had Jackson step up, and added Chambers.

Brett Favre put up MVP numbers his 4th year with all the TD passes, and finally started his streak of winning the award his 5th year.

[Gunakor]

That being said, I do have to wonder if all you guys ganging up on Partial will have the balls to admit it if you're wrong.

Last season, the Ted haters and the Ted lovers squared off into a particuarly heated and divisive battle. Even though the "luster" has seemingly worn off Ted's star, and some significant "chinks" in the armor "might" be present, you'd think that there would be more people that might "man up" and say "hmm, I might have this wrong"....

But they haven't. Or very few anyhow.

This year, it seems that the battle lines are drawn around Rodgers to the point that many in this thread are personally bashing Partial. Yeah, the guy is a little harsh on Rodgers, but he hasn't said he's "bad", just that he thinks others are better.

People in this thread really bashed Cutler and how he wasn't nearly as good as Rodgers, then Chicago gives up two firsts for the guy plus Orton and a 3rd... Maybe, just maybe, the arm chair QB's in here might not be so good?

We'll see. I hope those of you who have staked your claim on the Rodgers mountain man up and admit it if you're wrong. Two seasons ago, I though the Packers would SUCK and was very vocal about it. When that didn't happen, I admitted I was wrong, even going so far as to sticky my thread at the top of the forum for a week. I have mod access and would be only too delighted to sticky your mea culpa should one become necessary...

Please note Plant, that my "response" was meant "generally". Your post typified the general sentiment being expressed in this thread, and I wasn't trying to "call you out" specifically.

If I'm wrong I'll admit it, but especially regarding Ted Thompson, I can't imagine I would be. Rodgers, well, maybe. I've only seen him play spectacular football for one full season plus a half at Dallas the year before. Just the same, there's nothing about Rodgers that would suggest he can't or won't be one of the elites in the NFL.

My issue with Partial regarding Rodgers isn't that he suggests he is a bad QB. It's that he specifically says Rodgers is merely average, and steadfastly defends his explaination for it even when that explaination is proven to be completely false using legitimate reasoning and statistical comparison. Because that reasoning and comparison doesn't agree with what his untrained eyes saw, we are wrong. End of story. That kind of attitude that IMO goes way beyond mere pessimism is what gets to me.

That, and also the fact that if we are RIGHT, I can't see Partial manning up and telling all of us he was wrong either. I think it much more likely that he'll come up with some new explaination of what his eyes saw that is so much different than what actually happened. And we'll just have to be wrong again. End of story.

On the issue of TT, I'd put more blame on TT for last season if I really thought last season was TT's fault. But I don't. Look at what the problems were last season. I don't blame TT for the serious decline in production from our 2 bookend tackles. I don't blame TT for the litany of injuries suffered by key players on our defense. Rather, I give credit to TT for his wise yet controversial selection of Aaron Rodgers in 2005 as that has seemingly turned out to be a great pick. I give credit to TT for drafting the interior linemen that everybody said were garbage, yet ended up being the bright spot on our line as a whole last season. I give credit to TT for signing Charles Woodson when nobody else would, and for taking a chance on a relative no name in Greg Jennings from Western Michigan University who would soon become a star in the league.

For all the good he's done for this team, the only legitimate knock against him has been what has happened to our defensive line. Every other facet of our football team is better than it was in 2005. Every single one, from the WR's to the RB's to the DB's to the LB's to the KR/PR to the depth at each of those positions. That on top of the coaching staff. All better than what Sherman had left him. And he did all of this while bringing this franchise back into exceptional cap health at the same time. It's a travesty that we got stuck with this guy as our GM. What the hell was Harlan thinking....

[HarveyWallbangers]

Brett Favre put up MVP numbers his 4th year with all the TD passes, and finally started his streak of winning the award his 5th year.

Brett Favre in year 4: 90.7 passer rating, 62.4 comp%, 3882 passing yards, 6.7 y/a, 33 TDs, 14 ints, 202 rushing yds, 2 rushing TDs, 31 sacks

Aaron Rodgers in year 4: 93.7 passer rating, 63.6 comp%, 4038 passing yards, 7.5 y/a, 28 TDs, 13 ints, 207 rushing yds, 4 rushing TDs, 34 sacks

Pretty damn similar. Favre went 9-7. Rodgers was two missed Crosby FGs from going 8-8--not to mention the 5 blown leads in the final 5 minutes.

You don't remember this, but after 3 years, Packer nation was divided on Brett Favre. Early in his 4th year, probably a majority of Packer fans wanted him benched for Mark Brunell. Midway through his fourth year, the light went off. He put together a season that was similar to what Rodgers did in 2008. Until then, nobody had any reason to think Favre would be a Hall of Fame QB. Hell, most didn't even want him starting for the Packers.

[cpk1994]

If I'm wrong I'll admit it, but especially regarding Ted Thompson, I can't imagine I would be. Rodgers, well, maybe. I've only seen him play spectacular football for one full season plus a half at Dallas the year before. Just the same, there's nothing about Rodgers that would suggest he can't or won't be one of the elites in the NFL.

My issue with Partial regarding Rodgers isn't that he suggests he is a bad QB. It's that he specifically says Rodgers is merely average, and steadfastly defends his explaination for it even when that explaination is proven to be completely false using legitimate reasoning and statistical comparison. Because that reasoning and comparison doesn't agree with what his untrained eyes saw, we are wrong. End of story. That kind of attitude that IMO goes way beyond mere pessimism is what gets to me.

That, and also the fact that if we are RIGHT, I can't see Partial manning up and telling all of us he was wrong either. I think it much more likely that he'll come up with some new explaination of what his eyes saw that is so much different than what actually happened. And we'll just have to be wrong again. End of story.

On the issue of TT, I'd put more blame on TT for last season if I really thought last season was TT's fault. But I don't. Look at what the problems were last season. I don't blame TT for the serious decline in production from our 2 bookend tackles. I don't blame TT for the litany of injuries suffered by key players on our defense. Rather, I give credit to TT for his wise yet controversial selection of Aaron Rodgers in 2005 as that has seemingly turned out to be a great pick. I give credit to TT for drafting the interior linemen that everybody said were garbage, yet ended up being the bright spot on our line as a whole last season. I give credit to TT for signing Charles Woodson when nobody else would, and for taking a chance on a relative no name in Greg Jennings from Western Michigan University who would soon become a star in the league.

For all the good he's done for this team, the only legitimate knock against him has been what has happened to our defensive line. Every other facet of our football team is better than it was in 2005. Every single one, from the WR's to the RB's to the DB's to the LB's to the KR/PR to the depth at each of those positions. That on top of the coaching staff. All better than what Sherman had left him. And he did all of this while bringing this franchise back into exceptional cap health at the same time. It's a travesty that we got stuck with this guy as our GM. What the hell was Harlan thinking....

[mraynrand]

Athletes in all sports at all levels have to become accustomed to a new speed of play and intensity as they move up in the sport. You don't get that sitting on the sidelines, or even in practice. At critical positions like QB, you don't get it in a single year as a starter. Too many things going on, too many decisions to make in a very short period of time. You get better as those decisions become routine, and not consciously thought out acts.

That's why I think with all the examples I included, the QB's level of play steps up at around three or four years behind center. It's remarkable to look at all the QB stats out there and over and over you see almost the same pattern for the great QBs - even if they are good to very good to start (like Rodgers), they reach a new level after several years of real playing experience.

[sharpe1027]

LOL, many of those players were MVP candidates long before their 5th year started.

Some of those are decent examples, but the more modern ones were very good players long before their 5th year.

Brees? Brees had a Rodgers like start to his career. Almost identical as a matter of fact. Didn't really have a lot of playing time until his 4th year and was very good from that point forth. They resigned him to a franchise contract after his 4th year, and then they let him go and started Rivers in his third year and has consistently put up decent numbers and lead a team into the playoffs. Rivers had a huge year this year, but I think that is more so because they didn't have the ground game they had in years past, and had Jackson step up, and added Chambers.

Brett Favre put up MVP numbers his 4th year with all the TD passes, and finally started his streak of winning the award his 5th year.

You seem to imply that that Rodgers is not on successful path. You argue that because Rodgers might be one year behind what a few examples of successful QBs have done that there is little hope that he will make significant improvements.

Simply put, it seems pretty clear that there is no well-followed path with a single year defining whether or not QB will be successful. Your QB path argument is full of exceptions, so much so that your QB path is almost the exception itself. You could continue to try ever so hard to minimize the problems in your argument, or you could welcome the problems and adjust your conclusion accordingly.

The question is, are you trying to prove a point and that others are wrong, or are you looking for a impartial assessment of Rodgers and his future?

[Partial]

Brett Favre put up MVP numbers his 4th year with all the TD passes, and finally started his streak of winning the award his 5th year.

Brett Favre in year 4: 90.7 passer rating, 62.4 comp%, 3882 passing yards, 6.7 y/a, 33 TDs, 14 ints, 202 rushing yds, 2 rushing TDs, 31 sacks

Aaron Rodgers in year 4: 93.7 passer rating, 63.6 comp%, 4038 passing yards, 7.5 y/a, 28 TDs, 13 ints, 207 rushing yds, 4 rushing TDs, 34 sacks

Pretty damn similar. Favre went 9-7. Rodgers was two missed Crosby FGs from going 8-8--not to mention the 5 blown leads in the final 5 minutes.

You don't remember this, but after 3 years, Packer nation was divided on Brett Favre. Early in his 4th year, probably a majority of Packer fans wanted him benched for Mark Brunell. Midway through his fourth year, the light went off. He put together a season that was similar to what Rodgers did in 2008. Until then, nobody had any reason to think Favre would be a Hall of Fame QB. Hell, most didn't even want him starting for the Packers.

I don't remember that. Too young.

Like I said, Favre and Rodgers both had good statistical years and were slightly above average quarterbacks then.

Here's hoping Rodgers improves. He's a smart guy, and now a big physical athlete of one. Favre was a dumb guy, but a good athlete.

We'll see. I sincerely believe that Rodgers won't improve as much as many people think.