Gil Brandt's comments on Ted Thompson

[retailguy]

I get both of your points related to Ryan and Flacco. However, if you're going to rank on "potential" you've got to include "wins". You can say Flacco rode a good defense, but fairly that's only part of the picture. He played well in stretches, and led his team to two playoff victories.

Forecasting "potential", Zool, is an inexact science at best, and your opinion is no different than Partials. As I said earlier, more data points are needed.

CPK, I disagree about Hasselbeck. Multiple reports pronounce him healed, and provided they are accurate, I don't think you'll see the "decline" that you've forecasted. Also, they've had a bit of the injury bug up there, and if you give credit to Rodgers for the team performance then you have to give credit to Hasselbeck for the same things too.

Hasselbeck has a defined history of great performance and stability. Much longer, and more reliable than the limited data on Rodgers. To "bump" him based on injuries would be fair, if there were no opinions that he was fine, but there are, and you have little basis for the declines. Unless you're using "homerism". That in itself is FINE, but castigating Partial for lack of "homerism" is stupid.

In summary, your viewpoint really isn't that different than Partial's. You are making just as many assumptions to get to your position as he is, and in the end, both of you might be wrong.

Also, you've completely ignored Warner. While I expect Warner to decline this year, he's got better receivers than just about anybody in the league. Warner has a questionable past "body of work", however, is proven with good receivers and a good offensive game plan. His results could be substantially better than Rodgers this year, though for long-term Rodgers clearly has upside that Warner doesn't have.

[Zool]

Forecasting "potential", Zool, is an inexact science at best, and your opinion is no different than Partials. As I said earlier, more data points are needed.

Agreed, but you asked an opinion. Maybe not directly of me but I gave it anyways.

[retailguy]

Look, you could use many different "measurements", but lets be realistic. Barring injury you'd have 32 starting qb's. My comment was based on what Partial has said previously, and I think he's even named off the other QB's he believed were better.

top 12 out of 32 is 62%. If you want a "math battle" this is probably the wrong place for that.

Not true. Crappy QBs get benched. If you exclude all of them, and their replacements you are skewing the numbers.Not that it matters.

I fail to understand what the point is. Frankly, you can't realistically rank them because for the most part you are comparing apples to oranges. What the point of partial's ranking system? Frankly, I don't care whether Rodgers is 32 on his ranking scale. Ranking for the sake of ranking...??

Once again, in three sentences or less, Partial, what is the point of this discussion?

Sharpe - you've entered the domain of "That depends on what "is" really means".

In the offseason, NO ONE is injured, yet. We can talk about the "projected" 32 starters and it would be reasonable to rank them. You want to change the "denominator" during the season, fine, but last I checked it was May. No one slipped on a McDonalds bag yet, so the 32 forecasted starters are still the 32 forcasted starters.

[retailguy]

Forecasting "potential", Zool, is an inexact science at best, and your opinion is no different than Partials. As I said earlier, more data points are needed.

Agreed, but you asked an opinion. Maybe not directly of me but I gave it anyways.

FWIW, I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion. Just pointing out that there are other "valid opinions", and having them doesn't make you a fool. I'm sure Baltimore fans are more excited about his upside than we may be. As they should be. He looks much much better than a lot of guys starting this year.

And I do appreciate your response. :P

[cpk1994]

I get both of your points related to Ryan and Flacco. However, if you're going to rank on "potential" you've got to include "wins". You can say Flacco rode a good defense, but fairly that's only part of the picture. He played well in stretches, and led his team to two playoff victories.

Forecasting "potential", Zool, is an inexact science at best, and your opinion is no different than Partials. As I said earlier, more data points are needed.

CPK, I disagree about Hasselbeck. Multiple reports pronounce him healed, and provided they are accurate, I don't think you'll see the "decline" that you've forecasted. Also, they've had a bit of the injury bug up there, and if you give credit to Rodgers for the team performance then you have to give credit to Hasselbeck for the same things too.

Hasselbeck has a defined history of great performance and stability. Much longer, and more reliable than the limited data on Rodgers. To "bump" him based on injuries would be fair, if there were no opinions that he was fine, but there are, and you have little basis for the declines. Unless you're using "homerism". That in itself is FINE, but castigating Partial for lack of "homerism" is stupid.

In summary, your viewpoint really isn't that different than Partial's. You are making just as many assumptions to get to your position as he is, and in the end, both of you might be wrong.

Also, you've completely ignored Warner. While I expect Warner to decline this year, he's got better receivers than just about anybody in the league. Warner has a questionable past "body of work", however, is proven with good receivers and a good offensive game plan. His results could be substantially better than Rodgers this year, though for long-term Rodgers clearly has upside that Warner doesn't have.

I haven't ignored Warner. Warner is there with Rodgers, Ryan and even Hasselbeck. Warner and Rodgers I see as similar with Rodgers getting the edge due to age. Hasselbeck and company may prnounce him fine, but back injuries aren't that easy to get over.

I may make assumptions, but at least I don't change and amend my arguement everytime it gets shot down.

[retailguy]

I may make assumptions, but at least I don't change and amend my arguement everytime it gets shot down.

I think that's a debatable point and that's why I entered this discussion.

Personally, I think you're a lot like Partial, just on the other side of the debate. Kind of like "anti-twins".

For the record, my ranking aren't that different than yours but I'd rank Rodgers down a few spots because I value past performance higher than "projections".

I have the same type of back trouble that Hasselbeck has, and if he's done what the docs say he should do, he will be fine this year. It will eventually drive him into retirement, but he can manage it for a while, certainly longer than this year with the availability of good trainers, doctors, and other personnel and medication. Don't count him out...

[mraynrand]

I may make assumptions, but at least I don't change and amend my arguement everytime it gets shot down.

I think that's a debatable point and that's why I entered this discussion.

Personally, I think you're a lot like Partial, just on the other side of the debate. Kind of like "anti-twins".

For the record, my ranking aren't that different than yours but I'd rank Rodgers down a few spots because I value past performance higher than "projections".

I have the same type of back trouble that Hasselbeck has, and if he's done what the docs say he should do, he will be fine this year. It will eventually drive him into retirement, but he can manage it for a while, certainly longer than this year with the availability of good trainers, doctors, and other personnel and medication. Don't count him out...

Are you going to get pummeled and sacked the way he is this year? If so, you both should retire and have a few mixed drinks together.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=17598&start=0

[retailguy]

Are you going to get pummeled and sacked the way he is this year? If so, you both should retire and have a few mixed drinks together.
http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/vi...=17598&start=0

Don't know, it depends on how crabby my wife is.

I think the bigger question related to Hasselbeck is the health of Walter Jones. If Walter is OK, I think Hasselbeck will be fine. With or without the Vodka.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I get both of your points related to Ryan and Flacco. However, if you're going to rank on "potential" you've got to include "wins". You can say Flacco rode a good defense, but fairly that's only part of the picture. He played well in stretches, and led his team to two playoff victories.

I would disagree with you on Flacco. He didn't lead his team to two playoff victories, he was simply along for the ride of the defense.

WC game - 9/23 135 yds. The game was clearly won by the Balt D with 4 INTs and a fumble recovery.

Divisional Round - 11/22 161 yds 1 TD. TN turns the ball over twice inside the 20 of Balt. Again, the Balt D plays a much bigger role in the win then the offense.

Right now, Flacco is a game manager and I would clearly rate Rodgers ahead of him without hesitation.

[sharpe1027]

Sharpe - you've entered the domain of "That depends on what "is" really means".

In the offseason, NO ONE is injured, yet. We can talk about the "projected" 32 starters and it would be reasonable to rank them. You want to change the "denominator" during the season, fine, but last I checked it was May. No one slipped on a McDonalds bag yet, so the 32 forecasted starters are still the 32 forcasted starters.

I see. So this discussion is purely hypothetical predictions for next year. As partial has pointed out when confronted with Rodger's statitisics and other facts, it is too early to make judgments about Rodgers. Round and round we go this merry-go-round of arguing for the sake of being right.

Anyone one else want on?

[Partial]

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

Which ones are better? I don't recall seeing you "define" anything.

It was the same thread that Partial lsited his. I believe it went something like this:

P Manning
T Brady
B Rothliesberger
D Brees
E Manning
P Rivers
T Romo
A Rodgers

I see. So what's your rationale to rank Rodgers over Flacco & Ryan? Also, what about Hasselbeck? He's got several years of proven experience including a super bowl appearance.

Not to mention Kurt Warner, Donovan McNabb, etc.

[Partial]

I haven't ignored Warner. Warner is there with Rodgers, Ryan and even Hasselbeck. Warner and Rodgers I see as similar with Rodgers getting the edge due to age. Hasselbeck and company may prnounce him fine, but back injuries aren't that easy to get over.

I may make assumptions, but at least I don't change and amend my arguement everytime it gets shot down.

Why are you factoring in age at all? This isn't projecting who is going to be the best quarterback for the next 5 years. If so, you certainly have to start to examine Mannings age, etc.

The fact that you're accounting age in shows that you're speculating on the future versus what we've seen now.

As for tossing for 4 grand of yards... What about Ryan taking a team picking #3 the previous year to the playoffs, including beating Rodgers on his home turf with the super PR fans there making Lambeau 3x as loud as normal? There isn't a lot of sense in that move..

What about Dono McNabb? Dude was absolutely beyond lights out the second half of the year. He is absolutely a play maker and deserves to be top 9 in your list (even with Age considered). He put up these big time numbers with a receiving corps that can't hold the Packers jock

What about Warner? Slightly better receiving corps sure, but not nearly as good from the TE, RB or OL spots. He also put up better numbers, including staging late game heroics in the super bowl and was very good in the playoffs.

Your scale is showing it's bias. The whole age thing is being factored in when it shouldn't be, and unfairly at that. I don't think there is a single person who wouldn't have Dono Mac as a top 10 QB when healthy. His problems are injury based, not performance based.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

When you start saying that the Cards WRs are "slightly better" than ours...it explains everything.

[cpk1994]

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

Which ones are better? I don't recall seeing you "define" anything.

It was the same thread that Partial lsited his. I believe it went something like this:

P Manning
T Brady
B Rothliesberger
D Brees
E Manning
P Rivers
T Romo
A Rodgers

I see. So what's your rationale to rank Rodgers over Flacco & Ryan? Also, what about Hasselbeck? He's got several years of proven experience including a super bowl appearance.

Not to mention Kurt Warner, Donovan McNabb, etc.

I already mentioned why I put Rodgers ahead of Warner. As for McNabb, He is in that lump of QB's that are similar to Rodgers and while McNabb got to the Playoffs last year, it was becuase of their defense, something ROdgers wasn't given. Add to that agin the revolving door OL M3 put there, passing for 4000+ yards makes it easy for me to place Rodgers on top of that group. And before you ask, Palmer blows and only amentally retarded monkey would put "Mental Case" Young ahead of Rodgers.

[Partial]

So basically, you don't have any rational. You haven't looked up their stats or their performance. Right. McNabb is the 15th best quarterback in the NFL

<ty> </ty>