Aaron gets a big win

[Smidgeon]

He's playing well, thats for sure.

Which is it?

He's the next big deal, He sucks, he's good, he's average, he sucks, he's playing well.

He's playing well right now, that doesn't mean he is a star player or even a good player. You cannot look at a few game stretch and ignore the entire body of work. He's still below .500 as a starter.

Again, why the ability for a QB to win during his first two starting years DOESN'T MATTER when judging him based on how good he is going to be overall.

[Fritz]

I've always been bothered by this idea that a player has to win a title in order to be considered truly great.

Was Ernie Banks not great because the Cubs organization wasn't good enough to get the talent it needed?

Was Barry Sanders not great because the Lions couldn't get enough talent to get over the top?

Archie Manning was a fine quarterback, as was Bert Jones. Dan Marino didn't "win" after his first year - did he get bad at his position?

[cheesner]

Any scout that thinks Rodgers is ranked around the 20th best QB in the league should be fired immediately. 4500 yards, 32 passing TDs, 7 interceptions, 360 rushing yards, 5 TDs. That is what Rodgers is on pace for, and we are through 11 games.

No shit.

Putting Rodgers outside the top 10 strains credibility. Putting him around TWENTY?! You're a fucking wacko with a vendetta, if you think that.

Based on youth and potential, there's no one I'd rather have than Rodgers.

As far as comparing him to QBs in the NFL RIGHT NOW, I'd say he's behind Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Brett Favre, and Tom Brady and that's it. I think that the only thing that these guys have on him is their experience to have seen almost anything that an NFL game will throw at you.

I am sure if you searched around enough you could find someone connected to some NFL team, who would rank Tom Brady as awful. But the article was probably written by someone with an axe to grind who had to contact a bunch of 'scouts' to find the response he wanted.

I didn't bother reading - cause this was posted by Partial.

Partial has been busted many times for posting lies and making up statistics to support his foolish views. Distorting the intent or the facts of a article is par for the course for this guy.

[MOBB DEEP]

Favre, Aaron, Bart

PERIOD!

[PlantPage55]

Favre, Aaron, Bart

PERIOD!

AMEN!

....I think.

I'll take your post as a sign that we have been VERY lucky with QBs in our fair franchise. Many like to point to the 70s and 80s, but most franchises have spent more time with worse.

[The Shadow]

Bart #1.
Still have not seen a better Packer QB.

[woodbuck27]

Aaron Rodgers offers us a special opportunity, to again, after Bart Starr and for the long wait for Bret Favre. Enjoy outstanding play at QB immediately after Favre. For that we should all celebrate as Packer fans.

GO PACK GO!

[MOBB DEEP]

Yessir...

"God Bless the Green Bay Packers" - Kabeer

[Partial]

He's playing well, thats for sure.

Which is it?

He's the next big deal, He sucks, he's good, he's average, he sucks, he's playing well.

He's playing well right now, that doesn't mean he is a star player or even a good player. You cannot look at a few game stretch and ignore the entire body of work. He's still below .500 as a starter.

Again, why the ability for a QB to win during his first two starting years DOESN'T MATTER when judging him based on how good he is going to be overall.

Hopefully that is the case. We don't have any evidence supporting that, either. Look at the % of starters who also had shitting win-loss records there first two years and continued to have shitty win-loss records. You cannot cherry pick data of HOFers and say it doesn't matter.

[Partial]

As you can see, statistically it's very close, despite Rodgers surrounding talent coming a Bush recovered fumble away from the super bowl. Cutler's was coming off a 7-9 year. Seems to me that Rodgers had better talent around him.

And Cutler had no talent around him in Denver? Marshall, Royal and down to their 7th string RB but still managed to rush for 1,800+ yards as a team ranking 12th in rushing. They had 3 offensive Pro Bowlers to our 0.

Than he goes to Chicago and all of the people who said Cutler would struggle because he doesn't have the weapons they do in Denver were told that your crazy and Cutler would elevate the whole Chicago offensive attack.

I guess we see that 1 QB doesn't make that great of a difference. Because if Cutler could he should have taken a 9-7 Chicago team last year with no "Awesome" QB to at least 11-5 because he has "it" and should be able to win the games that Sexy Rexy couldn't.

I didn't say he didn't have any talent. Why are you twisting words and being incredibly dense and argumentative.

He has absolute garbage talent around him in Chitown. Put ARod on that team and he has less picks but WAY more sacks. Probably 3x the sacks as he does in GB. If he has proven anything its that he'd rather take a sack than possibly wing up an INT.

He is a solid player right now on the verge of becoming a good player. Part of being a good player is to consistently win games he should. We should have beaten Tampa and a whole lot of games last year that we didn't. He's not there yet but is he is getting there.

To be a great player, you need to beat teams that you should not beat once in a while, and carry the team on your back. Comeback wins, big time plays, playoff games, etc. It takes a long time to reach this status.

In my book, you need to climb the latter. Some of you seem to put a player at the top rung and wait for them to drop down. Rodgers started out as unproven, has progressed to average, and is now at solid. Will he ever get to good or great? Maybe. Hopefully. Not only does one have to be able to do it consistently or a significant period of time (Rodgers hasn't started a significant period of time), but they have to have success in the big games. I have a very hard time rating Rodgers higher than a player who has been in the playoffs and won big games. Why? Because we have no idea how he will handle the pressure. He hasn't won a truly huge game yet, so we don't even know if he can. Beating the Steelers will be a pretty damn big game I would think.

[Bossman641]

As you can see, statistically it's very close, despite Rodgers surrounding talent coming a Bush recovered fumble away from the super bowl. Cutler's was coming off a 7-9 year. Seems to me that Rodgers had better talent around him.

And Cutler had no talent around him in Denver? Marshall, Royal and down to their 7th string RB but still managed to rush for 1,800+ yards as a team ranking 12th in rushing. They had 3 offensive Pro Bowlers to our 0.

Than he goes to Chicago and all of the people who said Cutler would struggle because he doesn't have the weapons they do in Denver were told that your crazy and Cutler would elevate the whole Chicago offensive attack.

I guess we see that 1 QB doesn't make that great of a difference. Because if Cutler could he should have taken a 9-7 Chicago team last year with no "Awesome" QB to at least 11-5 because he has "it" and should be able to win the games that Sexy Rexy couldn't.

I didn't say he didn't have any talent. Why are you twisting words and being incredibly dense and argumentative.

He has absolute garbage talent around him in Chitown. Put ARod on that team and he has less picks but WAY more sacks. Probably 3x the sacks as he does in GB. If he has proven anything its that he'd rather take a sack than possibly wing up an INT.

Come on Partial. 3 times the sacks? So Rodgers would have 132 sacks through 11 games?

Well, the NFL record for sacks in a game is 12. Good to hear that Rodgers would be topping that number every single week.

[Smidgeon]

He's playing well, thats for sure.

Which is it?

He's the next big deal, He sucks, he's good, he's average, he sucks, he's playing well.

He's playing well right now, that doesn't mean he is a star player or even a good player. You cannot look at a few game stretch and ignore the entire body of work. He's still below .500 as a starter.

Again, why the ability for a QB to win during his first two starting years DOESN'T MATTER when judging him based on how good he is going to be overall.

Hopefully that is the case. We don't have any evidence supporting that, either. Look at the % of starters who also had shitting win-loss records there first two years and continued to have shitty win-loss records. You cannot cherry pick data of HOFers and say it doesn't matter.

I can and am saying it doesn't matter because you keep saying that because he hasn't been winning he doesn't have what it takes. The W-L record in a QB's first two years cannot tell you with any indication if the QB will be a winning QB for the long haul. You have to look at other factors, and those other factors are statistics and leadership. AR has the first and appears to have the second. I agree that I think it's easy to see if a QB will be crap when they can't do jack the first couple years. But the only think AR is missing from his resume is the Wins, and you can't keep putting him down just for not getting those yet.

[Partial]

As you can see, statistically it's very close, despite Rodgers surrounding talent coming a Bush recovered fumble away from the super bowl. Cutler's was coming off a 7-9 year. Seems to me that Rodgers had better talent around him.

And Cutler had no talent around him in Denver? Marshall, Royal and down to their 7th string RB but still managed to rush for 1,800+ yards as a team ranking 12th in rushing. They had 3 offensive Pro Bowlers to our 0.

Than he goes to Chicago and all of the people who said Cutler would struggle because he doesn't have the weapons they do in Denver were told that your crazy and Cutler would elevate the whole Chicago offensive attack.

I guess we see that 1 QB doesn't make that great of a difference. Because if Cutler could he should have taken a 9-7 Chicago team last year with no "Awesome" QB to at least 11-5 because he has "it" and should be able to win the games that Sexy Rexy couldn't.

I didn't say he didn't have any talent. Why are you twisting words and being incredibly dense and argumentative.

He has absolute garbage talent around him in Chitown. Put ARod on that team and he has less picks but WAY more sacks. Probably 3x the sacks as he does in GB. If he has proven anything its that he'd rather take a sack than possibly wing up an INT.

Come on Partial. 3 times the sacks? So Rodgers would have 132 sacks through 11 games?

Well, the NFL record for sacks in a game is 12. Good to hear that Rodgers would be topping that number every single week.

Obviously tahts an exagerration, but Cutler chucks it up when he feels pressure. Rodgers takes the sack. I'm not confident either team has a different record if you swap the QBs. Maybe the Packers do. I do think the Bears beat the Packers in week 1 and the Bears lose to the Steelers.

[sharpe1027]

Obviously tahts an exagerration, but Cutler chucks it up when he feels pressure. Rodgers takes the sack.

Rodgers also has 247 yards of rushing and 45 attempts, which is a pretty good substitute for chucking it up. Arguably, Cutler would have more sacks than Rodgers because most of those 45 attempts were avoided sacks.

[ThunderDan]

I didn't say he didn't have any talent. Why are you twisting words and being incredibly dense and argumentative.
He has absolute garbage talent around him in Chitown. Put ARod on that team and he has less picks but WAY more sacks. Probably 3x the sacks as he does in GB. If he has proven anything its that he'd rather take a sack than possibly wing up an INT.

He is a solid player right now on the verge of becoming a good player. Part of being a good player is to consistently win games he should. We should have beaten Tampa and a whole lot of games last year that we didn't. He's not there yet but is he is getting there.

To be a great player, you need to beat teams that you should not beat once in a while, and carry the team on your back. Comeback wins, big time plays, playoff games, etc. It takes a long time to reach this status.

In my book, you need to climb the latter. Some of you seem to put a player at the top rung and wait for them to drop down. Rodgers started out as unproven, has progressed to average, and is now at solid. Will he ever get to good or great? Maybe. Hopefully. Not only does one have to be able to do it consistently or a significant period of time (Rodgers hasn't started a significant period of time), but they have to have success in the big games. I have a very hard time rating Rodgers higher than a player who has been in the playoffs and won big games. Why? Because we have no idea how he will handle the pressure. He hasn't won a truly huge game yet, so we don't even know if he can. Beating the Steelers will be a pretty damn big game I would think.

Way to go "Positive Posterboy"

Chicago went 9-7 last year. They have no talent? Way to try and fit the real "facts" to your conclusion. 3X the sacks. Stop being ridiculous, wait maybe you were serious who knows with your posts!

Cutler's W-L is worse than Rodgers. Yet you hold him in high esteem. What has he done (other than lose 3 games last year down the stretch to not clinch a playoff spot) to warrent this "love?"

Real QBs win those games and bring their team to the playoffs!