This guy looks like a moron now

[ThunderDan]

I would gladly give in if I actually believed Rodgers was a star. He's not yet. He hasn't shown any reason to believe he will be. If the QB is not a star, move on imo. Too many things have to go right to build a consistent winner without a star at QB.

So being the 2nd QB EVER in the history of the league to throw for over 4,000 yards his 1st year starting gives you no hope at all?

What a complete joke!!!

[The Shadow]

I would gladly give in if I actually believed Rodgers was a star. He's not yet. He hasn't shown any reason to believe he will be. If the QB is not a star, move on imo. Too many things have to go right to build a consistent winner without a star at QB.

So being the 2nd QB EVER in the history of the league to throw for over 4,000 yards his 1st year starting gives you no hope at all?

What a complete joke!!!

Sometimes you just have to scratch your head.

[cpk1994]

I would gladly give in if I actually believed Rodgers was a star. He's not yet. He hasn't shown any reason to believe he will be. If the QB is not a star, move on imo. Too many things have to go right to build a consistent winner without a star at QB.

So being the 2nd QB EVER in the history of the league to throw for over 4,000 yards his 1st year starting gives you no hope at all?

What a complete joke!!!

Sometimes you just have to scratch your head.

What I find amazing is that the Defense and ST were around 25th in the league in 2008 while the offense was top 10, and Partial blames Rodgers.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I would gladly give in if I actually believed Rodgers was a star. He's not yet. He hasn't shown any reason to believe he will be. If the QB is not a star, move on imo. Too many things have to go right to build a consistent winner without a star at QB.

So being the 2nd QB EVER in the history of the league to throw for over 4,000 yards his 1st year starting gives you no hope at all?

What a complete joke!!!

Sometimes you just have to scratch your head.

What I find amazing is that the Defense and ST were around 25th in the league in 2008 while the offense was top 10, and Partial blames Rodgers.

Pack could go with high school players on ST and Defense...and he'd still find a way to blame it on Rodgers.

A. Stats are overrated.
B. You judge a QB on wins and loses

A is always correct, except when you want to validate your argument in regards to a 4 time all-pro (randall cunningham) by using stats. But, cannot be used to argue against Vince Young and his 68.8 passer rating or his 22 tds to 32 ints.

B is always correct, except when you want to diminish a QB like Cunningham who won 85 of 144. Which puts him in ahead of many qbs.

Using partial criteria: the punky QB is obviously a great QB..won about 70%.

Carson Palmer sucks...loses over half his games.

Archie Manning sucked with only 35 wins.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1808=1

[Partial]

[quote="Tyrone Bigguns"]

WE have phenomenal receivers and they are blue chip. LOL

Didn't say that. We have a top 5 receiving corps in the NFL.

Is it possible at all that Rodgers play was improved due to the phenomenal receiving corps?

I see, our phenominal receivers are phenominal (not that you said that , but they aren't blue chip. Sigh.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

You said Blue chip, not I. They are absolutely phenomenal. I love how you call me out on that, but fail to acknowledge the massive plate of crow I served you. I guess thats how losers play the game, though.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote="Partial"]

WE have phenomenal receivers and they are blue chip. LOL

Didn't say that. We have a top 5 receiving corps in the NFL.

Is it possible at all that Rodgers play was improved due to the phenomenal receiving corps?

I see, our phenominal receivers are phenominal (not that you said that , but they aren't blue chip. Sigh.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

You said Blue chip, not I. They are absolutely phenomenal. I love how you call me out on that, but fail to acknowledge the massive plate of crow I served you. I guess thats how losers play the game, though.

I don't have time to go over some many errors. I just looked at the most glaring.

You said you never said phenomenal, you did.

But, now i we are getting a view of how you use adjectives...phenomenal/top 5 receiving crew doesn't equal blue chip. Unbelievable talent doesn't equal blue chip. [b]

phenemenal
highly extraordinary or prodigious; exceptional

Let me get this straight...highly extraordinary/exceptional isn't blue chip.
It might help if you learned your mother tongue.

Cunningham: You play with stats, and lie with them. Cunningham didn't start a game till his second year and tenth game.

He lead his team to the playoffs in his first starting year. Pro bowl consecutively 88, 89, 90. All pro 89, 90, 92. So, we can safely say that for a 5 year run he was at the top of his profession. Also, he punted and was very good at that as well.

It is hilarious to watch you argue against a player that was Vince Young before there was a Vince Young..and was better at it. In 90 he ran 942 yards..3rd most EVER..and 10th best in the league.

Blew out his ACL and came back the next year and was ALL-PRO and comeback player of the year. LOL

Next 2 years he had injuries and the eagles were in disarray coaching wise. He retired in 95.

Comes back after being out for a year and leads the Vikes to the playoffs...oops, we don't judge a qb on wins and losses do we?

In 98 he is again All-Pro. So, ten years into his career..with 2 missed seasons..one for injury, one retired...he is at the top of his game. So, he is 4 time all-pro while really only playing 7 seasons.

99 he was benched for to many ints...9 in 6 games..for Jeff George..hmm, seems like a viking decision.

After that he was a backup. That is what happens as you get older...in your late 30s.

I guess under your logic, if Brett plays this year..he is a journeyman. 4 teams to Cunninghams 4.

A player that passed for over 200 tds and threw less than 140 picks.

And, then you are stupid enough to bring up QB rating..which RC's career was 81.5 to Favre's 85.4.

And, Brett played with an offensive coach in Holmgren and a decent offense. Anyone who watched Buddy Ryan's teams would tell you there was no offensive philosophy..Ryan didn't care about offense.

RC played for Ryan and rich kotite. LOL

The rest of your shit is just stupid. You think Plax isn't as good as DD. Plax is a dominant receiver, you have to game plan for him..DD not so much. Plax has played and started on SB winners...DD, not so much.

You think our TE is good...that is why we spent a high draft pick on a te.

You think our line was good last year.

Keep digging.

[LEWCWA]

I think many of you miss the point here. Thing is the Packers probably made the right decision. My only concern is if the Packers suck or are mediocre for the next 5 years, I would have rather watched Favre for 1 or 2 more years...Brett is a once in a generation type player and I will never get enough of watching him play. I hope Rodgers leads this team to a superbowl and "great success", but chances are he will end his career as an average to slightly above average quarterback for one reason or another and we will have missed out on Favre finishing his career here for us.

[Fritz]

I would gladly give in if I actually believed Rodgers was a star. He's not yet. He hasn't shown any reason to believe he will be. If the QB is not a star, move on imo. Too many things have to go right to build a consistent winner without a star at QB.

So being the 2nd QB EVER in the history of the league to throw for over 4,000 yards his 1st year starting gives you no hope at all?

What a complete joke!!!

Sometimes you just have to scratch your head.

What I find amazing is that the Defense and ST were around 25th in the league in 2008 while the offense was top 10, and Partial blames Rodgers.

Pack could go with high school players on ST and Defense...and he'd still find a way to blame it on Rodgers.

A. Stats are overrated.
B. You judge a QB on wins and loses

A is always correct, except when you want to validate your argument in regards to a 4 time all-pro (randall cunningham) by using stats. But, cannot be used to argue against Vince Young and his 68.8 passer rating or his 22 tds to 32 ints.

B is always correct, except when you want to diminish a QB like Cunningham who won 85 of 144. Which puts him in ahead of many qbs.

Using partial criteria: the punky QB is obviously a great QB..won about 70%.

Carson Palmer sucks...loses over half his games.

Archie Manning sucked with only 35 wins.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1808=1

Tyrone's post has the perhaps unintended effect for me of pointing out that Partial is much like Big Brother in Orwell's 1984.

Wow. Partial, do you serve bad gin at parties?

[RashanGary]

I think many of you miss the point here. Thing is the Packers probably made the right decision. My only concern is if the Packers suck or are mediocre for the next 5 years, I would have rather watched Favre for 1 or 2 more years...Brett is a once in a generation type player and I will never get enough of watching him play. I hope Rodgers leads this team to a superbowl and "great success", but chances are he will end his career as an average to slightly above average quarterback for one reason or another and we will have missed out on Favre finishing his career here for us.

This is an honest, reasonable view for supporting Favre. It's not based in pseudo facts or fairytales. It's another persons opinion. I agree to disagree, but still, I can't argue your reasoning and I can't hate on it. We're just different.

Partial's problem is that he's just wrong.

[Bossman641]

But, now i we are getting a view of how you use adjectives...phenomenal/top 5 receiving crew doesn't equal blue chip. Unbelievable talent doesn't equal blue chip.

Quote:
phenemenal
[b]highly extraordinary or prodigious; exceptional


Let me get this straight...highly extraordinary/exceptional isn't blue chip.
It might help if you learned your mother tongue.

Would you expect anything else from someone who once broke down the QB categories as

Elite 1-4
Average 5-25
Terrible 26-32

[Scott Campbell]

Partial's problem is that he's just wrong.

I'd like to coin a new phrase - Partially correct.

[retailguy]

But, now i we are getting a view of how you use adjectives...phenomenal/top 5 receiving crew doesn't equal blue chip. Unbelievable talent doesn't equal blue chip.

Quote:
phenemenal
[b]highly extraordinary or prodigious; exceptional


Let me get this straight...highly extraordinary/exceptional isn't blue chip.
It might help if you learned your mother tongue.

Would you expect anything else from someone who once broke down the QB categories as

Elite 1-4
Average 5-25
Terrible 26-32

Look. Don't you think the "partial bashing" has gone on long enough?

What did he miss? Above average, below average? So, you split the "middle category" to accomodate those. If that's not the problem, then how many "elite" QB's do you think we have? What I read from all of this is that "partial is a fool" because he ranked Rodgers at 12, and several here think he's "top 8". So 4 spots takes you from genius to fool. Yeah.

I really have to laugh. When this whole "debate" started after the season, Partial commented that he saw Rodgers as about "top 12". He got summarily bashed for that. Yet, just a couple pages back in this very thread, his main "basher", said he thought Rodgers was "top 12".

Ironic? You decide.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Actually, Partial had ARod around 18 originally, but has changed his tune slightly.

EDIT: I think he said around 18 originally, but I can't verify that. I could find where he said Rodgers was in the 12-17 range. Personally, I don't think that's even the point. It's the constant, ill-informed Rodgers bashing wherever possible that gets old. Since I had to show Partial how to throw a football, I don't take it too seriously though.

[KYPack]

Partial bashing has probably gone too far, tis true.

It survives bc it is fun.

[Zool]

LEAVE PARTIAL ALONE!!!!