Rodgers is looking infinitely better

[Gunakor]

A-rod may never have the stats of Favre but is on track to win more super bowls than #4.

child please....

By my count, Favre has led the Packers to just ONE Super Bowl Championship during his 16 years as a Packer. Please explain to me why you feel that Rodgers can't do better.

[Tarlam!]

Please explain to me why you feel that Rodgers can't do better.

Because he's not Michael Vick, Donavan McNabb, Vince Young, Jason Campell, Tarvaris Jackson....

[Gunakor]

Please explain to me why you feel that Rodgers can't do better.

Because he's not Michael Vick, Donavan McNabb, Vince Young, Jason Campell, Tarvaris Jackson....

Hold on a second, I need a moment to calculate the number of Super Bowls those quarterbacks have won.

...

...

...

Done. Zero. And I don't think any of those guys have a better chance than Rodgers at winning even one ring. Those teams have about the same talent level as ours does. Which brings us to the very point of my argument - TEAMS win Super Bowls, not quarterbacks. Which is why I feel Rodgers has a very good chance of surpassing Favre in total rings won.

[Tarlam!]

It's clear to one poster, Gun. Have a little think about it.

[Gunakor]

It's clear to one poster, Gun. Have a little think about it.

My apologies if I've offended you. That rant wasn't directed at you. I only quoted you because your post doesn't sound too far from the truth from the perspective of those I intended that rant for. No hard feelings.

[Tarlam!]

No, Gun. I apologize and absolutely no hard feelings towards you!

My post was sarcastic. There are some posters that believe race is as important as skill in being successful. My list of QBs was a potshot at that belief, or at least, at the provocations.

I believe Rogers is a pro bowler in the making. Will he earn 3 league MVP titles? I'd be happy if he wins one. But the discussion is his # of SB wins. This depends IMO largely on the team around him in any given season. "Will QB be a missing piece as long as he's working the shift?" might be a more pertinent question. I don't believe so. Then again, in how many seasons with Favre under centre was QB a weakness?

I think the discussion is flawed, but hey, what do I know?

Sorry again for the initial misunderstanding, BTW. Nothing against you, Mate.

[Gunakor]

No, Gun. I apologize and absolutely no hard feelings towards you!

My post was sarcastic. There are some posters that believe race is as important as skill in being successful. My list of QBs was a potshot at that belief, or at least, at the provocations.

I believe Rogers is a pro bowler in the making. Will he earn 3 league MVP titles? I'd be happy if he wins one. But the discussion is his # of SB wins. This depends IMO largely on the team around him in any given season. "Will QB be a missing piece as long as he's working the shift?" might be a more pertinent question. I don't believe so. Then again, in how many seasons with Favre under centre was QB a weakness?

I think the discussion is flawed, but hey, what do I know?

Sorry again for the initial misunderstanding, BTW. Nothing against you, Mate.

But if race were a factor, why would they be pimping Favre over Rodgers? I think, to them, it has more to do with celebrity. In fact, I think it has almost everything to do with celebrity. Rodgers isn't famous yet, he isn't the face of the league, so he can't possibly win the big game twice. That's what I took from it anyway.

[Tarlam!]

This just in from NFL.com: http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...s&confirm=true

I liked Smith better than Rogers coming out, but I think picking splinters out of his behind for 3 seasons certainly helped him in the long run. If I'm Rogers, the long wait in the Green Room back then seems a lot less painful now.

[Gunakor]

I think Aaron's mentors, one on the field and one on the sideline, have been the biggest factor in his becoming a star caliber quarterback. McCarthy, especially, has a history of getting maximum production out of his quarterbacks. This goes all the way back to Aaron Brooks in New Orleans, and extends all the way to Matt Flynn in Green Bay. Kinda makes you wonder what's going on in Brian Brohm's head, why he doesn't quite get it yet.

[Sparkey]

Sounds like you want him to be the next Favre.

...or Montana, or Bradshaw, or Brady. You know, a future Hall of Famer. Is that asking too much?

Fair enouigh. Thing I dont like is that he threw for 4K last season. Is he now gonna be expected to do that or more yearly? If anything he needs to throw a few less yards because it means the D played better and the run game was strong. The fact that two WRs had 1000yds while grant had 1200 doesnt set right with me. The 6-10 records seems to agree.

No one should expect, or necessarily even want Rodgers to throw for over 4k yards this season. The yardage production last year by the offense shows an offense good enough for a team to have a much better record. The issues then become:

- Timeliness of the offensive production, and I don't just mean at the ends of games. Putting a team away early is important in the final record too. First drives of a half can be nearly as important, to make the opponent immediately play catch-up. For all their offensive production in '08, the Packers were bad in first drives of the halves. An improvement in this alone could change the final results.

- Defensive play,

- Special Teams play.

- Coaching decisions.

I agree with you.

A line of 10-17 for 186 yards with 2 TDs and the running game goes 39 carries for 180 yards and a TD with the defense getting three sacks and 2 turnovers and allowing under 300 total yards of offense would win many games.


I think the thing that impresses me more than anything else, in regards to Aaron Rodgers play last year, was the fact that he did not throw a single interception in the red zone. 64-39 for 268 yds 20 TD 0 int in 2008. That shows a composure and confidence in his and his teams abilities.

"Aaron Rodgers, like Ryan, threw 64 red zone passes last year. Of those he completed 39 – 20 of which went for touchdowns. If that wasn’t enough, he was the only QB with 50 or more attempts in the red zone not to throw an interception."

http://www.ffmastermind.com/fantasy-football-red-zone-analysis.php

[MOBB DEEP]

A-rod may never have the stats of Favre but is on track to win more super bowls than #4.

child please....

By my count, Favre has led the Packers to just ONE Super Bowl Championship during his 16 years as a Packer. Please explain to me why you feel that Rodgers can't do better.

child please = where's the proof that he's "on track?" and why the heck is that relevant?

ppl need to stop thinkn pro rodgers = anti favre and visa versa; we should just be happy we had a great replacement for favre ala montana and young...u think every time young had a good game folk were minimizing what joe did for the franchise?

and yes, charlie batch is on track to win mor SBs than rodgers and lord favre

[Gunakor]

A-rod may never have the stats of Favre but is on track to win more super bowls than #4.

child please....

By my count, Favre has led the Packers to just ONE Super Bowl Championship during his 16 years as a Packer. Please explain to me why you feel that Rodgers can't do better.

child please = where's the proof that he's "on track?" and why the heck is that relevant?

ppl need to stop thinkn pro rodgers = anti favre and visa versa; we should just be happy we had a great replacement for favre ala montana and young...u think every time young had a good game folk were minimizing what joe did for the franchise?

and yes, charlie batch is on track to win mor SBs than rodgers and lord favre

Okay, then stop looking at it as Favre vs. Rodgers. I'm not, and I thought I made that much clear by now. Favre didn't win any Super Bowls, and Rodgers isn't going to. The PACKERS won Super Bowls, and the PACKERS are going to again.

Why is Rodgers on track for more rings as a Packer than Favre has? Because he has more weapons around him than Favre ever had. Think about it. In what year during Favre's Packer career did he have a deeper WR corps than Rodgers has now? How bout his RB's? Finley and Lee could be Chumura and Jackson - Finley, especially, looks to be the most athletic and toughest to cover of all of them. This offense is primed to be better over the next few years than it has been over the past couple of decades. If we can get half the defensive production of Shurmur's squads we're poised to win many more Super Bowls than we had during the Favre era. The team is just plain better.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Why is Rodgers on track for more rings as a Packer than Favre has? Because he has more weapons around him than Favre ever had. Think about it. In what year during Favre's Packer career did he have a deeper WR corps than Rodgers has now? How bout his RB's? Finley and Lee could be Chumura and Jackson - Finley, especially, looks to be the most athletic and toughest to cover of all of them. This offense is primed to be better over the next few years than it has been over the past couple of decades. If we can get half the defensive production of Shurmur's squads we're poised to win many more Super Bowls than we had during the Favre era. The team is just plain better.

I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. The Packers of the late 90's were some of the best squads in the history of the league, ranking near or in first place offensively and defensively. The current edition has won two pre-season games, and while things look hopeful (who's doesn't in the preseason (Lions, Browns, Chiefs not so fast)), they haven't accomplished anything or performed in a game yet.

[Gunakor]

Why is Rodgers on track for more rings as a Packer than Favre has? Because he has more weapons around him than Favre ever had. Think about it. In what year during Favre's Packer career did he have a deeper WR corps than Rodgers has now? How bout his RB's? Finley and Lee could be Chumura and Jackson - Finley, especially, looks to be the most athletic and toughest to cover of all of them. This offense is primed to be better over the next few years than it has been over the past couple of decades. If we can get half the defensive production of Shurmur's squads we're poised to win many more Super Bowls than we had during the Favre era. The team is just plain better.

I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. The Packers of the late 90's were some of the best squads in the history of the league, ranking near or in first place offensively and defensively. The current edition has won two pre-season games, and while things look hopeful (who's doesn't in the preseason (Lions, Browns, Chiefs not so fast)), they haven't accomplished anything or performed in a game yet.

Depth. I'm talking depth. Like, Ryan Grant could go down and we plug in Jackson and keep chugging. Driver goes down and we plug in Jones or Nelson and keep chugging. God help any defense that has to worry about all of them on the field at once. 1-5 at WR, 1-3 at RB, the TE tandem, ALL better overall than Favre had to work with.

This isn't about 2 preseason games. I thought they were well on their way to being a better offense even last season.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The 1996 team had the #1 offense in the league. They had two solid RBs in Bennett and Levens with Freeman, Rison, and Beebe and two great TEs in Jackson and Chmura. They may not have had a Randy Moss, but they didn't lack offensive talent. The defense was also #1 and they had the best return man in the game. Rodgers doesn't have that kind of talent around him--even offensively. The WRs are better, but the RBs and TEs are not.