Those silly Vikings

[Tony Oday]

Was reading an article about NFC Draft need and got this gem:

In 2005 the Vikings passed on Aaron Rodgers ... twice. Once, to draft wide receiver Troy Williamson at No. 7 and again at No. 18 picking defensive end Erasmus James. Neither lived up to their hype and even more noteworthy both aren't on the roster.

that makes me giggle.

[Tarlam!]

I've said it before and I'll continue saying it: Rogers benefitted greatly from holding a clipboard for 3 seasons. He was terrible in his first pre-season outings and he proved to be brittle early in his career. M3's QB school was instrumental in his development and being allowed to mature helped immensely. He was also given time to mature physically. Remember the over 50 sacks he took in the '09/'10 season? I doubt he could have sustained that punishment early. The pressure cooker environment of replacing a first ballot HOFer was an ideal seasoning environment.

Had he been thrown in á la Alex Smith or been poorly coached á la T-Jack, I doubt he'd have been the instant success he's become. Smith is a great case study on how to burn out a promising QB. Now, obviously some QBs coming in are equipped to do well as we've seen in recent years. Rapistburger, Matt Ryan and Sam Bradford, even Palmer. But look no further than Detroit to see a talented QB not being able to stay upright.

Rogers and the NFL got lucky with the way things panned out. Just my opinion. But, they Vikings are still silly, regardless!!

[Pugger]

Why do you call Rodgers brittle?

[Tony Oday]

He broke his ankle...then he drank milk so now he's good.

[Tarlam!]

Why do you call Rodgers brittle?

What I wrote is "was brittle early in his career".

[Zool]

Rodgers was never brittle IMO. Alex Smith is brittle.

[Tarlam!]

Rodgers was never brittle IMO. Alex Smith is brittle.

He has always been tough, Zool. He finished that Patsies game with a broken foot i.e. in great pain. But he broke pretty easily on that play. Didn't he get injured again the following year? No matter, he strengthed greatly during his clipboard years. Something Alex Smith never has had a chance to do, because he's always rehabbing. It'll be interesting to see if Stafford suffers a similar fate in Detroit. I don't watch any other team closely, but he seems brittle. He certainly could have used a season or two of strengthening, I'm sure.

I'm high on Rodgers and I always have been, but IMO, he got lucky (we all did!) in his development process. I think it all came together very nicely.

[Fritz]

Emotionally brittle? I'm not sure if Rodgers was brittle early on or not -maybe the argument about his not being bulked up enough to withstand the pounding is a good point. Or that he would've been sacked more cuz he couldn't read defenses quickly enough. But I don't think he was "naturally" brittle.

But actually I agree for the most part with Tarlam. I believe that in the vast majority of instances, teams ruin their prize young QB's by throwing them out there way too soon. Ryan in Atlanta is an exception, for sure, but for the most part the prize kiddy QB's get ruined by being thrown to the dogs right away.

[Lurker64]

To be fair, the reason the Vikings had a pretty good reason for passing on Rodgers: Daunte Culpepper was coming off a fantastic season in 2004 (4700 yards, 39 passing TDs, 11 INTs). Since they didn't exactly know he would shred his knee in the 2005 season, they didn't exactly see QB as a need. The Vikings deserve scorn for badly whiffing on both of those picks, yes, but not necessarily on passing on Rodgers.

[get louder at lambeau]

To be fair, the reason the Vikings had a pretty good reason for passing on Rodgers: Daunte Culpepper was coming off a fantastic season in 2004 (4700 yards, 39 passing TDs, 11 INTs). Since they didn't exactly know he would shred his knee in the 2005 season, they didn't exactly see QB as a need. The Vikings deserve scorn for badly whiffing on both of those picks, yes, but not necessarily on passing on Rodgers.

That's a good point, but I think you're missing the moral of the story-

The Vikings are stupid. And purple. And they suck.

[Tony Oday]

That's a good point, but I think you're missing the moral of the story-

The Vikings are stupid. And purple. And they suck.

Yup Get Louder Gets it

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rodgers struggled in his first preseason (like most rookie QBs), but by his second preseason I thought he had a good chance at succeeding. After his third preseason and after the Dallas game in the regular season, I thought he had a chance to be pretty damn good. I don't buy that he sucked his first three preseasons. I see it as struggled in his first, made vast improvements in his second, and shined in his third.

I also don't buy that Alex Smith would be succeeding in Green Bay and Aaron Rodgers would be sucking in San Francisco, if the tables had been turned. The cream rises to the top. What he went through was helpful to his development, but I suspect that he would have been pretty damn good no matter what. His skills and mental fortitude are top notch. I doubt Alex Smith would have handled succeeding Favre nearly as well as Rodgers did.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Small sample, but Rodgers QB rating his second and third preseasons was 101.1 and 98.3. He threw 6 TDs and 1 interception in those two preseasons combined.

[RashanGary]

How about this:

A lot of people were very upset with Aaron Rodgers as the first pick. When they saw him struggle in his first preseason game, his quality of play got blown way out of proportion. Reading further into it, there is no knowing just how good Aaron Rodgers would have been had he started early. Chances are he wouldn't have been one of the best QB's in the league from day 1 like he was after sitting, but he has a lot of talent and desire so he very likely would have been good and gotten better every game he played.

Aaron Rodgers is good. No matter where you toss him, he is good. Nobody in the game combines the amazing throwing, top notch decision making and ability outside the pocket of Aaron Rodgers. The only ones in the history of the game who you compare him to are in the HOF. He's fuckin good. Numbers show it. His hardware shows it. His post season dominance like nobody in GB since Bart Starr shows it.

I don't remember how good the guy he replaced was 20 years ago, so I can't compare that. That said, he's better than the guy he replaced (in recent memory years) and apparently that's a pretty big deal too. Some people thought we'd never live down that decision. We got better because of it.

[Guiness]

He has always been tough, Zool. He finished that Patsies game with a broken foot i.e. in great pain. But he broke pretty easily on that play. Didn't he get injured again the following year? No matter, he strengthed greatly during his clipboard years. Something Alex Smith never has had a chance to do, because he's always rehabbing. It'll be interesting to see if Stafford suffers a similar fate in Detroit. I don't watch any other team closely, but he seems brittle. He certainly could have used a season or two of strengthening, I'm sure.

I'm high on Rodgers and I always have been, but IMO, he got lucky (we all did!) in his development process. I think it all came together very nicely.

It might not make sense to some, but I agree with you Tarlam.

It takes a while to fully mature into your body. He was 21 when he was drafted - I know I gained a lot thickness and strength in my early twenties. Rodger's Wikipedia page says he was 5'10" coming out of highschool, so he hadn't even finished growing.

Those couple of years watching from the bench allowed him not just to learn the craft, but also allow his body to fully develop. If he'd had 300lb DT's slamming into him on a regular basis the fall of 2005, I don't know that he'd have been able to physically withstand it, and I really believe he'd be out of the league by now.