Excellent Analysis on Rodgers

[mraynrand]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

Answer: It depends


1983: 4458 yards, 32TD, 29INT, 87.3rating; Packer record 8-8

[Partial]

I don't see the talent that was obvious from day 1 in a guy like Manning, or the moxy and killer instinct that was apparent early on with TBrades.

I'm going to call bullshit. You're seriously going to tell me that you say "instant HoF potential" in Peyton Manning in the year he went 3-13? Or that you thought right away that Drew Bledsoe getting hurt and having to sub in this 6th round guy from Michigan was going to ensure the Patriots superbowl? It's awful easy to say "I knew he was going to be great right away" after you already know somebody is great.

Can you back up any of this with statements that anybody could verify you made in 1998 or 2001? Otherwise "I saw greatness in Brady and Manning right away, and I don't see it in Rodgers, so Rodgers won't be great" is not an argument.

Peyton Manning looked pretty damn good as a rookie. He looked better than Ryan and Flacco. His team around him was not very good, but he looked like the real deal for sure.

Brady: You knew Brady was going to be a HOF by his 3rd season starting. He led the league in TDs his second year starting, but it wasn't until the second super bowl year that you knew he was a stud. Dude was 2nd in MVP voting iirm and led his team to 12 straight wins.

I'm not saying "Oh, I knew it since College!". Everyone knew Manning was going to be good coming out. He was a once-in-a-decade-prospect.

I don't think anybody knew it about Brady until he started playing and doing it quite well.

If Rodgers had the sort of skills these guys had, the Packers would have gotten rid of Favre a year earlier than they did imho, maybe two years earlier.

[mraynrand]

I don't see the talent that was obvious from day 1 in a guy like Manning, or the moxy and killer instinct that was apparent early on with TBrades..

The greatest thing about Brady in his first year was his work on the defensive side of the ball - holding the greatest show on turf to 17 points and intercepting that pass off Warner for a TD in the Superbowl. His TD pass to Patten was pretty good too. Did he hold the ball for Vinatieri's kicks too? That takes talent as well.

[Partial]

The O couldn't get anything going against Tenn, Jax or Minne.

No O against the Falcons either. I was at that game and it was painful watching the O struggle. Rodgers played a mature game, but man, that was brutal.

Was any of this any more painful than watching the Favre-led offense in 2007 struggle against Philadelphia (no offensive TDs), Washington (1 offensive TD), Denver (the only 2 offensive TDs on drives that each lasted a play, otherwise just 2 FGs), the first half against Kansas City (6 total points), or at Chicago (shut out except a long Grant run)?

Face it, as talented as the offense is at certain positions last year or the one before, we haven't seen a Green Bay offense who can move the ball at will against pretty much anybody in about a decade. The offense struggled at times with Rodgers, the offense struggled at times with Favre. There are teams with a finely tuned machine for an offense, and we are not one of them.

It's not all about points, its about sustaining drives enough to keep your guys fresh and points. Both are important.

That was a pretty good post Lurker, and I think the points are fairly valid. I don't know how much they sustained their drives, but I can tell you that the defense was fresh enough at the end to make the plays and put us over the top against KC and Washington, so I'm led to believe they were fresher as a result of moving the ball more.

[PackerTimer]

I don't see the talent that was obvious from day 1 in a guy like Manning, or the moxy and killer instinct that was apparent early on with TBrades.

I'm going to call bullshit. You're seriously going to tell me that you say "instant HoF potential" in Peyton Manning in the year he went 3-13? Or that you thought right away that Drew Bledsoe getting hurt and having to sub in this 6th round guy from Michigan was going to ensure the Patriots superbowl? It's awful easy to say "I knew he was going to be great right away" after you already know somebody is great.

Can you back up any of this with statements that anybody could verify you made in 1998 or 2001? Otherwise "I saw greatness in Brady and Manning right away, and I don't see it in Rodgers, so Rodgers won't be great" is not an argument.

Peyton Manning looked pretty damn good as a rookie. He looked better than Ryan and Flacco. His team around him was not very good, but he looked like the real deal for sure.

Brady: You knew Brady was going to be a HOF by his 3rd season starting. He led the league in TDs his second year starting, but it wasn't until the second super bowl year that you knew he was a stud. Dude was 2nd in MVP voting iirm and led his team to 12 straight wins.

I'm not saying "Oh, I knew it since College!". Everyone knew Manning was going to be good coming out. He was a once-in-a-decade-prospect.

I don't think anybody knew it about Brady until he started playing and doing it quite well.

If Rodgers had the sort of skills these guys had, the Packers would have gotten rid of Favre a year earlier than they did imho, maybe two years earlier.

Well, by my count we have two more seasons to go.

[mraynrand]

Face it, as talented as the offense is at certain positions last year or the one before, we haven't seen a Green Bay offense who can move the ball at will against pretty much anybody in about a decade. .

You weren't watching the same team I was. Look at Favre's numbers from 2004 - they match pretty closely his last MVP season in 1997. The Packers moved the ball very well in 2004, 2003, and the first half of 2002, when they started 8-1 - before all the injuries. 2001 was OK too. 2003 was a run dominant team that really did move the ball at will, even against the best run defenses. Although they weren't exactly the same team(s) that won the superbowl, the Packers moved the ball at will on the defending Superbowl champs in 2001, 2002, and 2003.

[cheesner]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

No, I doubt most folks here think Rodgers is the 'second coming'. Most of us are pleased with the way Rodgers played most of the time. If Rodgers keeps putting up great numbers but no winning record then you DO then have to look around and see what else is going on. If your QB is putting up 4000+ yds and 25+ TDs, what more can your QB do?

Maybe some blocking, provide some pass rush, hand the ball of to himself and rush for 1500 yards, call plays. If he can't multitask he has no business suiting up.

That was funny.

Wonder how many years Favre had crap all around him and still found a way to have a winning season? And please note...that is not to start shit...just mentioning it to people that have nothing but negative to say about Favre lately.

Let's not pretend that guys like Robert Brooks and Antonio Freeman and Ahman Green and Keith Jackson weren't good players for him. He had weapons.

And don't forget that his biggest weapon when he was winning was a good defense, i.e. the number one ranked defense when he won the Super Bowl.

Roll your eyes all you want - but let's be real. Favre often had good if not very good players around him.

As well as Sterling Sharpe, Dorsey Levens, and an excellent offensive line.

[cheesner]

Just wondering.....and an innocent question BTW...

For the people that think that Rodgers is the "second coming" after one season.... What will your thoughts be IF, after 2 more seasons we have great QB stats and no winning record? Just wondering.

I would think we could probably trade him to Chicago for 2 firsts and a third and Cutler.

[Bossman641]

I don't see the talent that was obvious from day 1 in a guy like Manning, or the moxy and killer instinct that was apparent early on with TBrades.

I'm going to call bullshit. You're seriously going to tell me that you say "instant HoF potential" in Peyton Manning in the year he went 3-13? Or that you thought right away that Drew Bledsoe getting hurt and having to sub in this 6th round guy from Michigan was going to ensure the Patriots superbowl? It's awful easy to say "I knew he was going to be great right away" after you already know somebody is great.

Can you back up any of this with statements that anybody could verify you made in 1998 or 2001? Otherwise "I saw greatness in Brady and Manning right away, and I don't see it in Rodgers, so Rodgers won't be great" is not an argument.

Peyton Manning looked pretty damn good as a rookie. He looked better than Ryan and Flacco. His team around him was not very good, but he looked like the real deal for sure.

Brady: You knew Brady was going to be a HOF by his 3rd season starting. He led the league in TDs his second year starting, but it wasn't until the second super bowl year that you knew he was a stud. Dude was 2nd in MVP voting iirm and led his team to 12 straight wins.

I'm not saying "Oh, I knew it since College!". Everyone knew Manning was going to be good coming out. He was a once-in-a-decade-prospect.

I don't think anybody knew it about Brady until he started playing and doing it quite well.

If Rodgers had the sort of skills these guys had, the Packers would have gotten rid of Favre a year earlier than they did imho, maybe two years earlier.

Well, by my count we have two more seasons to go.

I'd also like to add

If Rodgers had the sort of skills these guys had, the Packers would have gotten rid of Favre a year earlier than they did imho, maybe two years earlier

Brady's time came as a result of Bledsoe getting injured. Got to love when Partial makes your points for you.

[CaptainKickass]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!!!!!!!


I love lamp.



.

[Lurker64]

Brady: You knew Brady was going to be a HOF by his 3rd season starting. He led the league in TDs his second year starting, but it wasn't until the second super bowl year that you knew he was a stud. Dude was 2nd in MVP voting iirm and led his team to 12 straight wins.

Brady looked very, very good in his second year starting, but he only looked adequate, brainy, and gutsy in his first year starting. In his third year as a starter, the point at which I think we can agree that people started to think "if he keeps this up: Hall of fame", Tom Brady was 27 years old. Aaron Rodgers is currently 25 years old, and will not turn 27 until until the end of the year after next.

I think my main problem with your estimation of Rodgers is that you've given up on him way, way, way, way too early. Some guys are better than others on their first years as a starter, but one year of starting is too early to give up on anybody who has shown any promise. Not only that, but Rodger's first year starting was under some of the worst external circumstances imaginable. Not only was he following up after a legend, but he held onto that job after the legend tried to force his way back into the door, and had to weather the resulting media shitstorm.

If Rodgers had the sort of skills these guys had, the Packers would have gotten rid of Favre a year earlier than they did imho, maybe two years earlier.

Considering the public outcry and general ruckus after Green Bay refused to hand back the job to Favre after he had already retired and skipped all of the offseason workouts, I don't think Green Bay could have gotten rid of Favre any earlier than they did. People would have burned down Lambeau if they benched Favre 2 years ago.

[GrnBay007]

[
Roll your eyes all you want - but let's be real. Favre often had good if not very good players around him.

Often time....not ALL the time. He did well with little very often and is not getting credit where credit is due here. That's all I'm saying.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Same old thread.

[PackerTimer]

Same old thread.

From this point forward no thread will ever be complete without flow charts.

Funniest damn thing I've seen all day.

[Bossman641]

[
Roll your eyes all you want - but let's be real. Favre often had good if not very good players around him.

Often time....not ALL the time. He did well with little very often and is not getting credit where credit is due here. That's all I'm saying.

Honestly, what does it matter? Favre's not on the team. Favre has made it pretty clear he wants nothing to do with the organization for the time being.

I like him, I respect what he did for the organization. I was turned off on how he acted. I don't hate him. I don't dislike him. I'm just tired of hearing about him. I don't understand this constant need to make sure Favre gets the credit he deserves, just like I don't understand the need of some to put him down all the time.

He was loved by 99.9% of Packer fans while he was with the team, isn't that enough?