Excellent Analysis on Rodgers

[Lurker64]

Umm... Tom Brady has put up some the best statistics and winning percentages and is one of the most talented QBs ever. Of course nobody was talking about the HOF until he won his first super bowl, he was a 2nd year player. Brady is a lock even if he loses all 3 super bowls with the sort of numbers hes put up alone.

Roethlisberger has poor individual numbers? Since when? And what about the horrendous offensive line. Dude is the 4th best qb in the NFL imo.

The thing is though, that nobody had Brady or Roethlisberger in the hall of fame after their first year as a starter. Both were guys who rode all-time great defenses deep into the playoffs by not making mistakes and making a play here or there.

Seriously Brady in 2001 threw the ball 413 times for 264 completions (63.9% completion percentage) totaling 2,843 yards with a 10.7 yards/completion and 18 TDs with 14 INTs. The Patriots finished the year with the 6th ranked scoring defense, with the 2nd best scoring defense among playoff teams.

Roethlisberger in 2004 threw the ball 295 times completing 196 passes (66.4% completion rate) for 2,621 yards (13.3 yards per completion) and 17 TDs with 11 INTs. The Pittsburgh Steelers finished the year with the best overall scoring defense, and only gave up 17 points to the Jets before getting run over by New England.

NOBODY had either guy in the hall of fame after their first year as a starter.

In 2008, Rodgers threw the ball 536 times for 341 completions (63.6 completion percentage) totaling 4,038 yards (11.7 per completion) with 28 TDs and only 13 INTs. The Packers finished the year with the 22nd ranked scoring defense and did not make the playoffs.

Now am I saying that Rodgers is a hall of famer? No. What I'm saying is that we won't know whether or not he's a hall of famer or a dud after one year of starting. We didn't know Peyton Manning was a hall of famer in his first year as a starter, we didn't know Tom Brady was a hall of famer in his first year as a starter, we didn't know Brett Favre was a hall of famer in his first year as a starter, we didn't know Troy Aikman was a hall of famer in his first year as a starter, and continue ad nauseum.

Now it's entirely possible that Dom Capers will get the Packers defense up in the top 10 or top 5, and Aaron Rodgers will go on to win multiple superbowls and everybody will consider him a starter. Neither you, nor I, know whether or not this will happen because neither of us can see the future. But it's silly to even insinuate that "Rodgers won't ever win a superbowl for Green Bay because he's not a hall of fame or superstar QB". What first year starter is?

[cpk1994]

I don't see the difference. A-Rod happened to make it one complete season thus far. He was even hurt and less effective for much of this one.

How exactly am I an asshole? You're callling names, ignoring questions, etc. Essentially flaming a conversation, because you're not bringing any debate or points to the table.

Yeah his first season as a starter. Favre got injured many times in his career and played through it. Did that make Favre injury prone? Just admit you are pulling shit out of your ass becuase you hate Rodgers. Your BS is very old and very tired.

[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.

The first year starter stuff is a bunch of bunk. Maybe he'll be a Steve Young. Hopefully. I just don't see it happening, though.

[Lurker64]

But again, it is a valid question by "No Nuts", If Rodgers has the stats you need to look on a game by game basis at where all those yards are coming from, when is he scoring the touchdowns. If it is later in the game when the opponent is up by three scores and playing a soft zone keeping everything in front of them then you have problems that can be associated with the whole offense, including Rodgers.

Though, interestingly enough, Green Bay was tied or leading in 13 of 16 games at the 55 minute mark this season; the exceptions being the Dallas game (where Green Bay scored 16 points, their only TD coming late), the Tampa Bay game (where Rodgers was injured and missed the end of the game), and the Saints game (where the defense's inability to stop anybody wearing black made the game get out of hand in a hurry, though 21 of the eventual 29 points were scored in the first half).

So Rodgers certainly isn't putting up big numbers against soft zones just intended to maintain a big lead. He was in very few of those situations last year.

[Partial]

But again, it is a valid question by "No Nuts", If Rodgers has the stats you need to look on a game by game basis at where all those yards are coming from, when is he scoring the touchdowns. If it is later in the game when the opponent is up by three scores and playing a soft zone keeping everything in front of them then you have problems that can be associated with the whole offense, including Rodgers.

Though, interestingly enough, Green Bay was tied or leading in 13 of 16 games at the 55 minute mark this season; the exceptions being the Dallas game (where Green Bay scored 16 points, their only TD coming late), the Tampa Bay game (where Rodgers was injured and missed the end of the game), and the Saints game (where the defense's inability to stop anybody wearing black made the game get out of hand in a hurry, though 21 of the eventual 29 points were scored in the first half).

So Rodgers certainly isn't putting up big numbers against soft zones just intended to maintain a big lead. He was in very few of those situations last year.

More often these leads were despite the offense, though. Our offense went sour right quick in a hurry against Detroit before the D got 'em back in the game.

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.

[cpk1994]

And please note...that is not to start shit...just mentioning it to people that have nothing but negative to say about Favre lately.

When you start a statement denying something, it just makes you even more guilty.

[Lurker64]

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.

[cpk1994]

I agree that that was a pretty dumb statement. I don't think one could argue, though, that the offense from '08 was anything more than a small subset of the '07 attack.

As Nutz and I have posted so many times, they really kept things pretty simple for A-Rod, and didn't use the entire field to make his life easier.

It never ceases to amaze me how some of you jump on an erroneous interpretation of a statement or statements, and harp on it until it reaches a life of its own.

You do know Adrian Barbre punched a coach last spring at practice, don't you Patler???

What I cant figure out is how Partial keeps baiting people into debating him. I know its hard to resist sometimes but damn this is getting old. You'll never change his mind on a single topic.

Well, maybe if TT would sign some FA, we have something to talk about making it easier to ignore Partial.

[GrnBay007]

I don't see the difference. A-Rod happened to make it one complete season thus far. He was even hurt and less effective for much of this one.

How exactly am I an asshole? You're callling names, ignoring questions, etc. Essentially flaming a conversation, because you're not bringing any debate or points to the table.

Yeah his first season as a starter. Favre got injured many times in his career and played through it. Did that make Favre injury prone?

And Favre had how many winning seasons? We won't know the answer about Rodgers/injury prone/winning seasons for many years to come. So why argue now?

[GrnBay007]

And please note...that is not to start shit...just mentioning it to people that have nothing but negative to say about Favre lately.

When you start a statement denying something, it just makes you even more guilty.

GAWD.......not even YOU can deny what's been going on, please!!

[PackerTimer]

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.

[Gunakor]

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.

To be fair, the only year Favre had absolute crap around him, he finished the season 4-12. For most of Favre's career he had stellar talent surrounding him.

I wish the negativity would stop too, but I completely understand why it continues. Favre, even after leaving Green Bay, had nothing but negativity to say about the Packers too. It's completely understandable that some Packer fans would take issue with that. Now, enough time has passed that it should have died down - and it has to a large degree. You don't log in to find 20 Favre threads on the front page anymore. But it won't completely go away unless those on both sides of that fence let it go. Those who criticize Favre as well as those who steadfastly defend him.

So my suggestion is to just ignore those who continue to criticize him, and perhaps when those people don't get the satisfaction of a response they'll drop it themselves. I just hope that, if you really want this to end, you aren't responding to these posts simply to gain some measure of satisfaction of your own - the satisfaction that comes with setting someone straight or putting them in their place, so to speak. Just know that every response to these criticisms just fuels the debate even more.

[RashanGary]

[Lurker64]

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.

[cpk1994]

I don't see the difference. A-Rod happened to make it one complete season thus far. He was even hurt and less effective for much of this one.

How exactly am I an asshole? You're callling names, ignoring questions, etc. Essentially flaming a conversation, because you're not bringing any debate or points to the table.

Yeah his first season as a starter. Favre got injured many times in his career and played through it. Did that make Favre injury prone?

And Favre had how many winning seasons? We won't know the answer about Rodgers/injury prone/winning seasons for many years to come. So why argue now?

I agree, but it's Partial being an ass and holding it against Rodgers as reasons that Rodgers will never amount to anything. What I am saying is that many QB's have played through injuries and Partial is not holding against them. WHy the double standard against Rodgers?