Rodgers has highest rating in the league

[Partial]

Re: Rodgers has highest rating in the league

Stats don't mean shit.....look at Carson Palmer. I saw all I needed to see with a 40 year old last week getting the ball off without taking sacks to keep drives alive. They need to redo that QB rating as Arod looks like David Carr back there flopping all over the field killing drive after drive. Any doubt why Favre won all those games. In 2004 (Brett had 14 sacks all season....in 2 games vs. the Vikes in 2009, Arod eclipsed that and lost both games).....Just sayin.

If Rodgers is killing drive after drive, why do the Packers have a top 10 offense, averaging 370+ yards of offense per game? Why was he voted player of the month for October? Why is he 11th in completion percentage and top 10 in pretty much every other catagory? Why are the Packers the 8th best scoring offense in the NFL?

And why, if Aaron Rodgers looks so much like David Carr, why couldn't Carr do any of these things for the Texans?

Lack of talent surrounding him.

I'm not saying Rodgers is Carr, he's much betetr, but lets get real here, he's not an elite QB. Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit. At the end of the day I don't give a flying fudge how spectacular my QB is between the 20s. I want a guy who is unafraid to penentrate.

And we are 4-3, only having been beat by 2 teams this year. We are 2nd place in the division, one game out of a wild card spot. We're winning. We just got beat twice by a superior football team in Minnesota. We aren't the best football team in the division, but that's not Rodgers' fault. In fact, I'd say it's to Rodgers' credit that we've scored as many points as we have. Maybe if there was a better team surrounding Rodgers - specifically in front of Rodgers and behind Rodgers as they line up in formation - maybe we'd be winning more games. But it's not like we're losing to teams we should be beating.

Since wins and losses are the only stat to judge a quarterback's eliteness on, how many games do the Packers have to win in one season for Rodgers to be considered an elite quarterback? 10? 13? 16? Please put a number on it so I can understand what it takes to be elite.

With Peyton Manning this team is undefeated imo. With Favre this team is undefeated imo. With Rodgers we're barely above .500.

Can you argue with this reasonably? You think TJack would burn us like Favre? I do not. You think with Favre we lose to the Bengals? I do not.

Here's what I think. I think if Rodgers were the QB for the Vikings they'd have beaten us twice, same as what happened with Favre being the QB for the Vikings. And the Vikings would be no worse off than they are now at 6-1. I think Rodgers is every bit as capable of winning on teams like the Colts and the Vikings as Favre and Manning are. I'm not sure how much more capable either would be on our team, but undefeated is more than a stretch. This isn't a 7-0 team no matter who the quarterback is.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question. How many games must our TEAM win in order for Rodgers to be considered elite? What's that magic number?

There isn't a specific magic number but do you really think our team is elite? Our team is average. See their record, for example. They haven't a single quality win imo. Chicago might qualify but lets face it Cutler gave that game away.

Smidgeon, very tough to compare differene eras, etc. Manning is a good example. His was picked number one and started immediately for the worst team in the NFL. Rodgers inherited a team coming off an NFC title game with basically the entire cast back together. Unfair comparison. Manning took that team from 3-13 to 13-3 in the second year if I remember correctly. Edge certainly helped. Rodgers has more talent on the team and has not done that.

He's a fine QB but he isn't a winner in my opinion. This team is built to win now and the window is already starting to close. You cannot honestly tell me that you think TT and MM are happy with the way things are going and how competitive the team is, can you?

It's obviously not all Rodgers but he certainly isn't helping. He was fine in the second half against the Vikes but terrible in the first. Why? He is the reason why they were in such a huge hole. Then, when we started to dig them out of the hole he created, he ended up losing the game by coming up short and having to settle for a long field goal.

This is a results driven industry and while ARod has all the physical and leadership skills you want, he needs to start converting some of that to wins.

[Smidgeon]

It is results driven. I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is that you can't assume what a QB is until he's been doing it for several years. Not a year and a half. Several. Even the greatest QBs ever couldn't get it done in the first couple years.

And yes, our team, specifically the OL, is terrible in places. You can't blame those places on AR. You have to give him time.

[Partial]

It is results driven. I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is that you can't assume what a QB is until he's been doing it for several years. Not a year and a half. Several. Even the greatest QBs ever couldn't get it done in the first couple years.

And yes, our team, specifically the OL, is terrible in places. You can't blame those places on AR. You have to give him time.

The OL isn't that bad. They're bad, sure, but Rodgers had a lot of time on many of those sacks last week and in prior weeks. His limitations towards feeling and avoiding pressure of one of the reasons he is not elite.

[Chevelle2]

According to Partial, Kerry Collins was the best QB in 2008.

[Partial]

According to Partial, Kerry Collins was the best QB in 2008.

Peyton Manning.

[Brandon494]

Every game we have lost the defense has given up atleast 30 points, AR is not the problem. He does get alittle too greedy at times and looks for the big play instead of dumping it off but that will come along with experience. Aaron Rodgers might not have a winning record as a starter but he is no doubt our MVP.

[Partial]

Every game we have lost the defense has given up atleast 30 points, AR is not the problem. He does get alittle too greedy at times and looks for the big play instead of dumping it off but that will come along with experience. Aaron Rodgers might not have a winning record as a starter but he is no doubt our MVP.

Blaming the D... D can't be on the field the entire first half against Minne 'cause the O can't get it going.

D is fine. Not great or even good on third down, but they're solid against the run. Rod set them up for failure in the first half big time.

[Brandon494]

Every game we have lost the defense has given up atleast 30 points, AR is not the problem. He does get alittle too greedy at times and looks for the big play instead of dumping it off but that will come along with experience. Aaron Rodgers might not have a winning record as a starter but he is no doubt our MVP.

Blaming the D... D can't be on the field the entire first half against Minne 'cause the O can't get it going.

D is fine. Not great or even good on third down, but they're solid against the run. Rod set them up for failure in the first half big time.

You can blame AR all you want but they also couldnt stop them in the 2nd half in which they scored more points.

[Smidgeon]

Re: Rodgers has highest rating in the league

Rodgers inherited a team coming off an NFC title game with basically the entire cast back together.

You're saying that almost as if the same team didn't go 8-8 the year before that or 4-12 the year before that.

Rodgers has more talent on the team and has not done that.

A team full of talent? Talent, yes. Ability to consistently display that talent? Certainly not. 2007 was full of games that were being won that always felt like the right things went right at the right time. Special teams won our first game, which was ugly. Mike Sherman undermined the talent of the team, and it's taken TT five years to restore that. Now the experience needs to kick in. QBs don't just come on the scene and be absolutely amazing from day 1.

As for comparing across eras, yes you can. You're talking about winning. Winning is the same in every era. They haven't changed the rules about winning. You still have to have more points than the other team when time runs out. I get the feeling that if you would have cut every single one of those Hall of Famers that didn't have a winning victory either of their first two years. Favre barely had winning seasons. He was 8-5 and 9-7 his first two seasons starting. What I found when I looked at these records is typically the third year is when the record follows. So I'm going to reserve judgment on him until the end of next year. Whether or not you do the same is up to you, but in my opinion it's way too early to even try to come to a conclusion.

The OL isn't that bad. They're bad, sure, but Rodgers had a lot of time on many of those sacks last week and in prior weeks. His limitations towards feeling and avoiding pressure of one of the reasons he is not elite.

The OL is bad. Favre had a lot of time on his throws too, but his OL kept him clean. How bad is our OL? It made a superstar out of the Bengal's Odom and was getting beat cleanly by the first 0-16 team in NFL's history's third string DL. Maybe they have the talent, but between injuries and inexperience, they just haven't used that talent consistently. Until they use that talent consistently, they will continue to be a bad OL.

[Partial]

Re: Rodgers has highest rating in the league

CAPS...

Rodgers inherited a team coming off an NFC title game with basically the entire cast back together.

You're saying that almost as if the same team didn't go 8-8 the year before that or 4-12 the year before that.

WHAT IS SO UNEXPECTED ABOUT THAT? THIS IS ESSENTIALLY LINEAR PROGRESSION AS THE PLAYERS DRAFTED GREATLY IMPROVED..

Rodgers has more talent on the team and has not done that.

A team full of talent? Talent, yes. Ability to consistently display that talent? Certainly not.

I AGREE WITH THIS.

2007 was full of games that were being won that always felt like the right things went right at the right time. Special teams won our first game, which was ugly.

THATS ONE GAME. I AGREE THAT EARLIER IN THE YEAR THINGS WERE LIKE THIS. I FEEL LIKE HALF WAY THROUGH THE YEAR THINGS WERE GOING INCREDIBLY SMOOTHLY AND WE WERE REALLY ROLLING. A GAME OR TWO MIGHT BE DETERMINED ON LUCK AND CHANCE, NOT WEEK AFTER WEEK. THEY WERE A VERY GOOD TEAM.

Mike Sherman undermined the talent of the team, and it's taken TT five years to restore that. Now the experience needs to kick in. QBs don't just come on the scene and be absolutely amazing from day 1.

I AGREE. THIS IS RODGERS 5TH YEAR. HOW MANY MORE YEARS DOES HE GET A FREE PASS?

As for comparing across eras, yes you can. You're talking about winning. Winning is the same in every era. They haven't changed the rules about winning. You still have to have more points than the other team when time runs out. I get the feeling that if you would have cut every single one of those Hall of Famers that didn't have a winning victory either of their first two years. Favre barely had winning seasons. He was 8-5 and 9-7 his first two seasons starting. What I found when I looked at these records is typically the third year is when the record follows. So I'm going to reserve judgment on him until the end of next year. Whether or not you do the same is up to you, but in my opinion it's way too early to even try to come to a conclusion.

CAN'T COMPARE EVEN WINNING. LESS TEAMS BACK IN THE DAY. LESS ATHLETES. RACIAL ISSUES, ETC.

The OL isn't that bad. They're bad, sure, but Rodgers had a lot of time on many of those sacks last week and in prior weeks. His limitations towards feeling and avoiding pressure of one of the reasons he is not elite.

The OL is bad. Favre had a lot of time on his throws too, but his OL kept him clean. How bad is our OL? It made a superstar out of the Bengal's Odom and was getting beat cleanly by the first 0-16 team in NFL's history's third string DL. Maybe they have the talent, but between injuries and inexperience, they just haven't used that talent consistently. Until they use that talent consistently, they will continue to be a bad OL.

I AGREE THE OL IS BAD, BUT WHEN PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA/FORMER PLAYERS KEEP SAYING THAT RODGERS HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR HALF TO TWO THIRDS OF THE SACKS, HE IS PART OF THE PROBLEM TOO. M3 EVEN ALLUDED TO THAT RODGERS WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR A GOOD AMOUNT OF THE PRESSURE.

IT'S NOT AS BAD AS PEOPLE THINK IN MY OPINION.

[Partial]

[You can blame AR all you want but they also couldnt stop them in the 2nd half in which they scored more points.

Harmonic synergy. The system is set-up for success when everyone does their job. If the O can't stay on the field in the first half, what are the odds the D is going to have success in the second half. Unless they're an exceptional team, which most teams aren't, I don't think they're going to be successful.

I'm a believer that a lot of the good defenses do not have elite talent on their D. The O contributes a lot to the Ds success in my opinion. Just my opinion.

[3irty1]

Putting the blame on Rodgers is ridiculous. Yes he takes sacks, but he doesn't lose games. There are a lot of players on offense that are losing their battles including units that used to be elite like the WR corps. Better QBs than Rodgers have done much worse. Wins don't tell the story.

[mraynrand]

The best thing about Rodgers is that, even though he is playing extremely well, he can get much better. He is playing far better than Favre was at a comparable time in his career (starts). Rodgers will get quicker at the reads and the sky's the limit. Give him a more solid line and, as Retail will tell you, all his problems will disappear. Can't argue with that: bedtter line + more experience - injuries = HOF Rodgers.

[The Leaper]

Rodgers is the guy we build around going forward. He has the talent to be a top 5 QB in the league for the next 10+ years. Ted just has to go out and acquire a running game and OL that can compliment him.

[BZnDallas]

Rodgers is the guy we build around going forward. He has the talent to be a top 5 QB in the league for the next 10+ years. Ted just has to go out and acquire a running game and OL that can compliment him.