Rodgers has highest rating in the league

[MichiganPackerFan]

Aaron is okay but he's not great. He has the physical tools but he isn't special or rare.

He's about the 10th best quarterback in the NFL according to my assessment.

Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit.

How do you know these things? Is it because of the wins/losses record? Your ability as a scout to sift through hours upon hours of film and games to accurately judge a QB in the midst of an entire team?

I'm assuming the scout thing because it certainly can't be by record. The following is a list of some of the greatest QBs ever, as well as some are still playing that would likely be on your list (plus Aaron Rodgers at the end for comparison). This list has their first year of starting more than one game and their record during that year:

Johnny Unitas (1956) - 3-4
Sonny Jurgensen (1957) - 2-3
Bart Starr (1957) - 3-8
Fran Tarkenton (1961) - 2-8
Len Dawson (1962) - 11-3
Roman Gabriel (1962) - 0-3-1
Joe Namath (1965) - 3-5-1
Bob Griese (1967) - 3-7
Roger Staubach (1970) - 2-1
Terry Bradshaw (1970) - 3-5
Ken Anderson (1971) - 0-4
Dan Fouts (1973) - 0-5-1
Joe Montana (1980) - 2-5
Dan Marino (1983) - 7-2
John Elway (1983) - 4-6
Warren Moon (1984) - 3-13
Steve Young (1986) - 1-4
Jim Kelly (1986) - 4-12
Troy Aikman (1989) - 0-11
Brett Favre (1992) - 8-5
Peyton Manning (1998) - 3-13
Tom Brady (2001) - 11-3
Drew Brees (2002) - 8-8
Aaron Rodgers (2008) - 6-10

A couple of notes:
* Only 5 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their first year (Dawson, Staubach, Marino, Favre, Brady).
* Only 12 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their second year (not shown).
* Only 4 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their first two years (Dawson was the odd one out).
* 11 of the 24 QBs didn't have a record above .500 in either of their first two years.

So I'm desperately hoping that when you say "he isn't special or rare" that you're referring to your ability as a scout to dissect a players ability and accurately place that ability within the modern realm of the sport in terms of capably leading a team in the future. Because it couldn't be his stats (which are historically high for a first year/second year starter), and it certainly couldn't be his winning record. Because if it were his winning record, by your estimation, it sounds like you'd also be ready to move on from players like Bart Starr, Fran Tarkenton, Joe Namath, Bob Griese, Terry Bradshaw, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Steve Young, Jim Kelly, and Troy Aikman, 10 of the 11 QBs who didn't have a winning record in either of their first two years (I'm leaving out Brees because his career isn't complete).

Among those 10, you have:
* 10 HOFers
* 16 NFL championships (including 3 pre-Super Bowl by Starr)
* 6 Super Bowl MVPs
* 26 Pro Bowl appearances
* 6 AFL All Star appearances (by Namath and Griese)
* the only player to be in both the NFL HOF and the Canadian HOF (Moon)
* the only QB to guide his team to 4 consecutive Super Bowls (Kelly)

**EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot to mention: all the above QBs played in the era where it was still okay to mug the WR on every play.**

I'm not saying at all that Aaron Rodgers is at their level. Not one bit. All I'm saying is that you can't judge a QB based on his first couple years starting. You have to judge him based on his career.

P.S. Your boy, Peyton Manning? 3-13 his first year as a starting. You would have run him out of town so fast he wouldn't have had a chance to pack his bags.

Owned.

Nice research and solid argument there!!

[MichiganPackerFan]

I think YTD that Rodgers is responsible for a third of the sacks. I think yesterday he was responsible for more. Is it a question of receivers not getting open? Or is he waiting for them to be MORE open? I don't see a lot of replay's of the coverage... They have to play a smaller game to open up the big game.

[Brandon494]

I think YTD that Rodgers is responsible for a third of the sacks. I think yesterday he was responsible for more. Is it a question of receivers not getting open? Or is he waiting for them to be MORE open? I don't see a lot of replay's of the coverage... They have to play a smaller game to open up the big game.

AR gets alittle greedy at times and looks for the big play instead of dumping it off to the short reciever. Sometimes it works and he looks like a stud or other times he takes a sack for a 8 yard loss to kills a drive. We need to realize even though he has been around for awhile this is only his 2nd year starting and he is only a year older than Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco. With time comes experience and he will learn.

[Smidgeon]

Aaron is okay but he's not great. He has the physical tools but he isn't special or rare.

He's about the 10th best quarterback in the NFL according to my assessment.

Yards not mean shit. Wins means shit.

How do you know these things? Is it because of the wins/losses record? Your ability as a scout to sift through hours upon hours of film and games to accurately judge a QB in the midst of an entire team?

I'm assuming the scout thing because it certainly can't be by record. The following is a list of some of the greatest QBs ever, as well as some are still playing that would likely be on your list (plus Aaron Rodgers at the end for comparison). This list has their first year of starting more than one game and their record during that year:

Johnny Unitas (1956) - 3-4
Sonny Jurgensen (1957) - 2-3
Bart Starr (1957) - 3-8
Fran Tarkenton (1961) - 2-8
Len Dawson (1962) - 11-3
Roman Gabriel (1962) - 0-3-1
Joe Namath (1965) - 3-5-1
Bob Griese (1967) - 3-7
Roger Staubach (1970) - 2-1
Terry Bradshaw (1970) - 3-5
Ken Anderson (1971) - 0-4
Dan Fouts (1973) - 0-5-1
Joe Montana (1980) - 2-5
Dan Marino (1983) - 7-2
John Elway (1983) - 4-6
Warren Moon (1984) - 3-13
Steve Young (1986) - 1-4
Jim Kelly (1986) - 4-12
Troy Aikman (1989) - 0-11
Brett Favre (1992) - 8-5
Peyton Manning (1998) - 3-13
Tom Brady (2001) - 11-3
Drew Brees (2002) - 8-8
Aaron Rodgers (2008) - 6-10

A couple of notes:
* Only 5 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their first year (Dawson, Staubach, Marino, Favre, Brady).
* Only 12 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their second year (not shown).
* Only 4 of the 24 QBs posted a record above .500 in their first two years (Dawson was the odd one out).
* 11 of the 24 QBs didn't have a record above .500 in either of their first two years.

So I'm desperately hoping that when you say "he isn't special or rare" that you're referring to your ability as a scout to dissect a players ability and accurately place that ability within the modern realm of the sport in terms of capably leading a team in the future. Because it couldn't be his stats (which are historically high for a first year/second year starter), and it certainly couldn't be his winning record. Because if it were his winning record, by your estimation, it sounds like you'd also be ready to move on from players like Bart Starr, Fran Tarkenton, Joe Namath, Bob Griese, Terry Bradshaw, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Steve Young, Jim Kelly, and Troy Aikman, 10 of the 11 QBs who didn't have a winning record in either of their first two years (I'm leaving out Brees because his career isn't complete).

Among those 10, you have:
* 10 HOFers
* 16 NFL championships (including 3 pre-Super Bowl by Starr)
* 8 Regular season MVPs
* 2 Regular season AFL MVPs (by Namath)
* 6 Super Bowl MVPs
* 26 Pro Bowl appearances
* 6 AFL All Star appearances (by Namath and Griese)
* the only player to be in both the NFL HOF and the Canadian HOF (Moon)
* the only QB to guide his team to 4 consecutive Super Bowls (Kelly)

**EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot to mention: all the above QBs played in the era where it was still okay to mug the WR on every play.**

I'm not saying at all that Aaron Rodgers is at their level. Not one bit. All I'm saying is that you can't judge a QB based on his first couple years starting. You have to judge him based on his career.

P.S. Your boy, Peyton Manning? 3-13 his first year as a starting. You would have run him out of town so fast he wouldn't have had a chance to pack his bags.

Forgot to put in the data for regular season MVPs for the NFL and AFL. Please see that data in the post above.

[SnakeLH2006]

It's been frustrating with ARod mainly because of the sacks IMO. But if they sign some FA guys with some skills for once on the OL or draft high, maybe we can fix the OL in the next year or so. Imagine if Arod threw the football behind the Vike's OL, for example. That would be scary.

[Cheesehead Craig]

To those saying Rodgers is running for his life....

From the horses mouth...

I thought (Rodgers) had plenty of time to throw,” McCarthy said. “I’m real curious to see the film because either they’re doing a hell of a job covering us, I mean there was time and again that our receivers were on crossing routes versus that coverage, I mean it’ll be curious to see what the film looks like.”

So a coach you have said stinks, you are now taking his word and analysis as proof that we need to get rid of a player that you believe has no hope of being a good player. Holy crap.