Aaron Rodgers

[vince]

Why is he so young? Did he skip a grade or two?

He declared for the draft after three years in college, but he also was a grade ahead of others his age in school - starting at Butte Junior College at the age of 17, then 2 years at Cal before entering the draft. I can't pinpoint why or how that happened though. Perhaps someone else has other info. He is, by all accounts, a very intelligent person, so perhaps he skipped a grade as a youngster.

College career
As a junior college transfer with three years of eligibility, Rodgers was named the starting quarterback for California in the fifth game of the 2003 season, ironically, against the only team that offered him a division I opportunity out of high school, Illinois. He helped lead the Golden Bears to an 8-6 record, including an upset win over then-No. 3 ranked University of Southern California and an Insight Bowl victory against the Virginia Tech Hokies. As a junior, Rodgers led California to the No. 4 ranking in the country, earning a spot in the Holiday Bowl. After the season, Rodgers entered the 2005 NFL Draft.

[LL2]

Wasn't he only 21 when he turned pro? So, does that make him 23 now? So, if Favre retires after this year he'll only be 24 when he becomes a starter. If he turns out to be a better than avg QB he could have 10-12 years as a starter after riding the pine for 3 yrs.

[Joemailman]

Rodgers doesn't turn 24 until this December. By comparison, Ingle Martin turns 25 this week. Paul Thompson is actually 2 weeks older than ARod, making ARod the youngest QB on the Packers roster.

[Merlin]

First of all, I don't for one second "hate" Rodgers because I have a woody for Favre. I don't like Rodgers because we wasted a #1 pick on a guy that to this point has still shown he isn't anywhere near ready. Sure, he did some things right in the game, like not make a big mistake. The things he did wrong though are what separates a serviceable QB from a bench warmer. He telegraphs every pass. When the receiver isn't open, he stares at him until he is and then runs out of bounds when he isn't. He does not read the defense, he does not go through his progressions. He reminds me of a typical high school QB. For this being his third year, he should have picked up on that now. Without that one single fundamental attribute, he will never be anything but a backup. I do question his arm strength as well. It's easy to dismiss it when he is always telegraphing his passes. Why? Because he is going to make one throw, not think about making another. I want to see him do something, anything that makes him look like he can lead the team. He isn't doing that right now.

More interesting is the lack of snaps that Martin and Thompson got. It's clear that Rodgers is the guy and no one will be given the opportunity to supplant him. That's really sad. Even when we had Doug Pederson, at least the third stringer got a lot of snaps. Rodgers isn't anywhere near as good as Pederson was in regards to a backup. Craig Nall was instantly relegated to #3 the day we signed Rodgers. Martin and Thompson are nothing more then camp arms at this point. I guess we will have to wait for Favre to retire to see what we have on our roster because it's clearly evident that 3T has all his eggs in Rodgers basket...

[The Leaper]

The things he did wrong though are what separates a serviceable QB from a bench warmer. He telegraphs every pass. When the receiver isn't open, he stares at him until he is and then runs out of bounds when he isn't. He does not read the defense, he does not go through his progressions. He reminds me of a typical high school QB. For this being his third year, he should have picked up on that now. Without that one single fundamental attribute, he will never be anything but a backup.

For the most part, this comment could have been said of Brett Favre during 1994 without much debate. He turned out to be OK.

It takes time and reps to reach the level of understanding and experience you demand. We sit here and are completely ignorant of just how great Favre is...and that his greatness causes us to demand too much of a QB. You want a kid who hasn't started one NFL game to go out there and read defenses and go through progressions like Favre...who has operated in this offense for years and probably has taken 30,000 snaps in practice and games for the Packers in his career.

For his age and level of experience, I don't think Rodgers is really that far behind other QBs. If you think Ingle Martin or Paul Thompson has any chance to supplant Rodgers, you must not be watching the same football games I am. Neither of those guys looks anything close to Rodgers in terms of pocket awareness or poise at this point...and their accuracy is even worse than Rodgers.

[The Leaper]

Craig Nall was instantly relegated to #3 the day we signed Rodgers.

And what has Nall shown to this point to suggest that was an error? God forbid! The coaches might have actually been right!

It would have been STUPID to not put a FIRST ROUND DRAFT pick ahead of some guy taken late on day two. It was clear from day one that Rodgers had more talent than Nall.

[Joemailman]

First of all, I don't for one second "hate" Rodgers because I have a woody for Favre. .

Who's gonna break the bad news to Brett?

[PackerBlues]

Craig Nall was instantly relegated to #3 the day we signed Rodgers.

And what has Nall shown to this point to suggest that was an error? God forbid! The coaches might have actually been right!

It would have been STUPID to not put a FIRST ROUND DRAFT pick ahead of some guy taken late on day two. It was clear from day one that Rodgers had more talent than Nall.

I looked at Nall the same way that I looked at Kampman and Jenkins. They always seemed to show that they had what it takes to be a starter, and yet they never seemed to get a chance. Kampman and Jenkins have their starting positions now, and Nall is playing elsewhere. I understand what Merlin is saying about how Rogers instantly became the #2 QB. I also think it was BS. Nall already had some knowledge of the system before Rogers got here, and what would be stupid here, is to say that Rogers had more talent than Nall from day one. Considering as how even the most devoted of the Aaron Rogers fans have said that he is just now finally starting to show much needed improvement. Nall had 3 pre-seasons under his belt before Rogers showed up, and I thought he looked pretty good the last few times I saw him play in GB. He easily had more knowledge of our Offense than Rogers.
We have different opinions on Nall and Rogers, no biggie, but "God forbid that the coaches may have actually been wrong."

[Merlin]

The things he did wrong though are what separates a serviceable QB from a bench warmer. He telegraphs every pass. When the receiver isn't open, he stares at him until he is and then runs out of bounds when he isn't. He does not read the defense, he does not go through his progressions. He reminds me of a typical high school QB. For this being his third year, he should have picked up on that now. Without that one single fundamental attribute, he will never be anything but a backup.

For the most part, this comment could have been said of Brett Favre during 1994 without much debate. He turned out to be OK.

It takes time and reps to reach the level of understanding and experience you demand. We sit here and are completely ignorant of just how great Favre is...and that his greatness causes us to demand too much of a QB. You want a kid who hasn't started one NFL game to go out there and read defenses and go through progressions like Favre...who has operated in this offense for years and probably has taken 30,000 snaps in practice and games for the Packers in his career.

For his age and level of experience, I don't think Rodgers is really that far behind other QBs. If you think Ingle Martin or Paul Thompson has any chance to supplant Rodgers, you must not be watching the same football games I am. Neither of those guys looks anything close to Rodgers in terms of pocket awareness or poise at this point...and their accuracy is even worse than Rodgers.

Rodgers has always started in every game with the #1 offense. By the time anyone else get's in there to play QB for their one series, you are down to the bottom of the barrell. I guess you don't really watch that many games. Martin and Thompson haven't played near the snaps, Martin in two seasons now. Rodgers has been spoon fed from day one and still sucks.

[Merlin]

Oh yeah, remember not to have an alternate opinion from the masses in here. For whatever reason, logic is never welcome...

[The Leaper]

Nall had 3 pre-seasons under his belt before Rogers showed up, and I thought he looked pretty good the last few times I saw him play in GB. He easily had more knowledge of our Offense than Rogers.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the hell Nall has accomplished so far that is making all of you giddy about his "potential". The guy had every chance in Buffalo to step in and become a starter...because neither Losman or Kelly Holcomb showed much last year.

Instead, Nall didn't get a whiff of even passing Holcomb...who has "career backup" written all over him...on the depth chart.

Yep...he had "starter" written all over him!

[Merlin]

Nall had 3 pre-seasons under his belt before Rogers showed up, and I thought he looked pretty good the last few times I saw him play in GB. He easily had more knowledge of our Offense than Rogers.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the hell Nall has accomplished so far that is making all of you giddy about his "potential". The guy had every chance in Buffalo to step in and become a starter...because neither Losman or Kelly Holcomb showed much last year.

Instead, Nall didn't get a whiff of even passing Holcomb...who has "career backup" written all over him...on the depth chart.

Yep...he had "starter" written all over him!

You are comparing apples to oranges. They aren't on the same team anymore. But if Favre went down, I would have rather had Nall in there then Rodgers at the time. When Nall came in what were his stats in the regular season? What were Rodgers again?

Case closed.....next

[Zool]

So either you like JP Losman more than you like Rodgers, or you think that NFL coaches and GM's are stupid and have no idea how to evaluate talent.

[The Leaper]

Case closed.....next

Not really...you are also comparing apples to oranges.

Nall had one of the best offenses in the league to run when he stepped in for Favre briefly. Rodgers has mostly had nothing to work with the few times he's seen action. Let's compare Favre's numbers in 2004 and 2006...yeah, there's a reason for that.

I think most QBs in the NFL could look good on the Packer offense in 2003/2004...which is why Nall didn't look horrible. Truth be told, he wasn't all that great...which is precisely why he still hasn't become a starter in the league 3 years after the fact.

Rodgers is a better QB...he needed reps to become better, which is why the coaches wanted to move him to #2 over Nall. If Favre had gone down to injury that season long term, it is probable that Nall would've moved to the starting slot ahead of Rodgers due to experience.

Basically, the coaches realized Nall more or less had reached the zenith of his potential...so he was going to remain at #3 unless Favre was injured and the team needed a 2-4 game replacement to fill in.

Why that is confusing to you, I'm not sure.

[woodbuck27]

Re: Aaron Rodgers

He'll never be Brett Favre. However, there is nothing that says he can't be pretty good after watching him play last night. He moved the ball, didn't turn the ball over, looked comfortable and scored points. He did the things you want your quarterback to do.

There are people in GB who feel Favre was abandoned and they feel so much for Brett that they feel they were personally abandoned by the Packers. Eventually their emotional fanism turns into hating a guy that they know nothing about. There are people who just don't want Rodgers to succeed and will never give him his due. After Favre, this is what we can expect.

For those who just want to see good things for this team and had an open mind, it's hard to walk away from that game and not think Rodgers has a chance. 1st round QB's are far from a sure thing and he is still far from a sure thing but he showed a little glimps that maybe he can be a winning QB. I don't think anyone should come out and crown his ass after one good TC and a good preseason game, but an objective mind would be open after the showing he had tonight. Unfortunately, there are many non-objective minds in the emotional rollercoster of Packer fanism leading up to the post Favre era.

I'll take the opposite view here.

I'm a Packer fan first but for me to be that and ignore the neglect our current GM has demonstrated overwhelmingly against support for our 'O' under the greatest QB we may ever witness sickens me.

I'm not anti Aaron Rodgers. I'm not anti Ted Thompson. I am a Ted Thompson critic. There is much I can't pass on criticizing that I feel is important for our future, in terms of realized growth from TT in terms of him demonstrating he has it to be successful as our GM. He has a lot to learn. The proof of and his position on that learning curve will be the state of our 'O' in 2007.

RE: Aaron Rodgers:

Aaron's got to improve his consistency and be ready to lead us after Favre. Favre and the Packer coaching staff will do all they can to develop the confidence of new WR's that TT brings to the Packers. Brett Favre is paid very well to assume this role for our future.

Too bad it couldn't be more for Favre.

Favre isn't encouraged by Ted Thompson to continue as our QB for the foreseeable future beyond 2007. Favre wants to win. Ted Thompson has done all he can to stunt that reality despite his stance otherwise that he (TT) wants to win this season.

Ted Thompson has held Favre's needs in check and growing frustration for only one reason. To see him out of Green Bay and retired from the NFL as a Packer.

It's over the top too obvious. It's certainly embarassing to me as a Packer fan. You'd have to be in total denial not to see that has been one of TT's prime objectives since his arrival. Some of you are just there or for whatever reason - in denial, for your own personal needs. It's OK.

I'm not tagging you with that JH. I see some signs of reality in you particularly of late. DAM your only a young man. Your strides ahead of some in certain regards

Secondly those of you who like to use the word to decribe some here as hating (or who. . . hate) must be very familiar with that emotion to accuse another of it. Uhhhh ??

To hate is to carry too much emotion too far.

To damage oneself or be destructive. Hatred is a definite sign of a lack of maturity in the human growth process or spirit. A symptom of an inferiority complex or an unhealthy ego.

My suggestion to you Mr. JH is to not devide us by inferring that some here are so debased as to be seen as hateful in your observation.

Favre supporters are not necessarily about hatred more about reality and frustration.

How well do you understand this terrible and inferior emotion JH, that you can ascribe such to another. Another or others that you havn't even come to know in a proper sense or face to face?