MplsPacker
Cheesehead
This is right on the money. Rodgers is scared to take the neccessary risks to win games. Even in Brett's earlier years, he was a gun slinger and won many games he had no business winning.
So, in the end, who would you rather have?
- Thread starter Jess
- Start date
This is right on the money. Rodgers is scared to take the neccessary risks to win games. Even in Brett's earlier years, he was a gun slinger and won many games he had no business winning.
Is it possible for you to admit that the Vikings have a better team than the Packers this year and give them credit? You seem to be full of "what ifs"......"if" A Rod had more time....."if" our special teams could stop Harvin......"if" the Vikes didn't benefit from bad calls (although I seem to remember a ridiculous roughing the passer call on Ray Edwards, no call on Woodson for clutching and arm barring, and a Ryan Grant fumble that wasn't called)....Special teams are part of the game, bad calls are part of the game, fluke plays are part of the game (Vikes fumble from Farve mis-snap). A Rod is a good QB, will continue to develop, and like any QB, will play better as the talent around him improves (O-line, backfield, etc.) Fact of the matter is the O-line is not that good right now and until that improves, the Pack can beat up lesser teams but will continue to have difficulty with the better teams in the league.
MplsPacker
Cheesehead
Let's hope Aaron Rodgers doesn't end up like Marc Bulger. Sure he put up good numbers at the start of his career, but he was never a true field general and game changer. Just a paper QB brought up to not make mistakes.
Quientus
Oenophile
I would say 6,5 seconds in the pocket is plenty of time ... - Something that all the "haters" used to say: "Any quarterback can get to a open receiver when having so much time ..." - Yet Rodgers still got sacked ...
Rodgers is a HUGE Talent ... But he has got to start to "step up" in the "Big Games" more than he has, and try to win those games, instead of "not losing" them ..., because any time you are trying to come back from behind, it requires you to take some risks, because the opponent knows you have to air it out ...
Watching Rodgers last season and so far this season reminds me of Matt Cassel in New England, when Brady got hurt ... - Anyone remember ? Cassel was being painted as the "2nd coming" and there were actually alot of hype about whether or not Belichick should continue with Cassel over Brady, once Brady was due back ... - The rest is, as the saying goes, - history ...
Rodgers is a HUGE Talent ... But he has got to start to "step up" in the "Big Games" more than he has, and try to win those games, instead of "not losing" them ..., because any time you are trying to come back from behind, it requires you to take some risks, because the opponent knows you have to air it out ...
Watching Rodgers last season and so far this season reminds me of Matt Cassel in New England, when Brady got hurt ... - Anyone remember ? Cassel was being painted as the "2nd coming" and there were actually alot of hype about whether or not Belichick should continue with Cassel over Brady, once Brady was due back ... - The rest is, as the saying goes, - history ...
I agree.
Also, I dislike how Rodgers appears to be machine-like in his demeanor. Remember that long run last nite and when he was running out of bounds looking up at the crowd and pumping his arm? God, he looks so doggone stiff it hurts me just watching him.
I don't care to pick out such menial traits, but he drives me nuts with that Robo-Rodgers stuff.
Emphasis Added.
Really, you do make it too easy. It is not justifiable because of the respective CAUSES of the loss. If a quarterback throws an interception that gives the opposition the ball in your own territory or midfield in opposition, that is an entirely different scenario then a game where a deffense could not hold a lead OR the quarterback leads a drive within field goal range, only to have it shanked.
Why do I even need to explain this?
Quientus
Oenophile
Actually you got it quite wrong ... - Alot of posters here are actually trying to "simplify" it in order to make it more easy for you to understand ... - Yet you have yet again demonstrated you don't really read the posts, to which you are replying ... let alone checking your syntax ...
It's rather difficult to believe you to be a full grown adult, when you are spewing out your nonsense and insisting on name-calling ...
ANd let me simplify something for you. How is this name-calling?
It seems to me to be a very rational, well-reasoned distinction between the sorts of losses that a quarterback suffers, those that are primairly his fault, and those that are not. YES, or NO? Stand and deliver, or be gone.
Quientus
Oenophile
Your lack of simple comprehension is amazing ... - For a person of your age really ... I underlined and enlarged the font where you are resorting to name-calling ...
Kinda funny how you seemingly forget what you write, the instant after you have posted ?
Your "simple" logic, by blaming every interception on the quarterback alone (when it comes to Favre), while totally disregarding the circumstances leading up to that interception is impressive ...
Not to mention when pointed out that *that* same logic, *could* also be applied to another scenario where the quarterback holds on to the ball for too long, thus also leading to missed points, and in case of a fumble or a safety also leading to turn-overs, where the - by your logic - that would also be on the quarterback alone ... - Yet when it comes to certain players, you don't seem to understand the ambiguity of that logic ...
Hey, that is not what I asked you. The import of your attack against me is that all I do is name call. Yeah I insult people I do not like, who offend my sensiblities, if you do not like go screw and stop reading or responding to my posts
NOW--answer the f----ing question! Where is the name calling in the passage I underlined, which was the real substance of that message. STAND AND DELIVER!
NOW--answer the f----ing question! Where is the name calling in the passage I underlined, which was the real substance of that message. STAND AND DELIVER!
Quientus
Oenophile
Actually that was exactly what you asked ... - Because you apparently edited it out in your SECOND posting ... - I had infact QUOTED your (FIRST - original) Post when I replied (the first time where I mentioned the name-calling) ...
- Your second post is edited, and I provided you with (your) first post, in which I underlined where ...
Can't really get more "simple" than that ... But if you fail to understand even that ... well then you are beyond help ...
Incase you missed it ... read post #35 (in THIS thread) ... - I answered you there ...
angryguy77
Cheesehead
Q has had nothing but logic in his posts and you resort to 5th grade tactics. How you are not banned by now is beyond me. Deal with the fact that the Pack dont have it this year. You are becoming a joke with your remarks.
NO--your "response" was not responsive. I will ask a FOURTH TIME.
That passage I refered to is here.
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND I NEVER ASKED YOU WHETHER "DUMMY DUM POM POM" IS AN INSULT? I know it is. I will say this a second time, I insult and deride those who offend my sensibiltites. I will also repeat if you do not like it, GO SCREW! Do not read my posts or respond to them if you cannot handle that.
To reiterate again, I mix that up with substance. Your attack suggested all I do is insult, and that is very far from the case.
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
Quientus
Oenophile
Actually I've never posted that ... nor accused you of doing such ...
What I did infact write was, that whenever someone disagrees with you ... *Then* you start on your insults ... - Your most recent posts on this thread only confirms this ...
Again ... - Try to READ the posts to which you are replying to BEFORE you HIT the "reply" button ...
You are jumping the gun and reading alot into something where there is nothing ...
PackersRS
Cheesehead
when the voting is 14 - 4, I don't think it's as case closed as you might think... Oh, if only the NFL ended tomorow...
No wrong. It is onyly when I disagree with people over certain, obvious truths that I get mean. I can actually be a nice guy.
Oh and for the record, these were your exact words:
Of course I read into what people write--language has explicit and implicit meaning. To suggest that people cannot believe I am grown adult is pretty much suggesting that is all I am capable of.
Oh, and you still have not answered MY question, which I have asked what, four times? And you dare to condescened to me about reading comprehension.
Please do not bother to respond unless you do answer that question.
FanOfTheGame
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 51
- Reaction score
- 0
Here's my take on it: I would rather have Favre for the next 2 years and Rodgers for the next ten. I agree with Quientus that Thompson could have worked something out to keep Rodgers. It was very possible to have it both ways. I'm not saying Favre would be making a difference with this team right now, I don't know, but that's not what matters in my mind. What matters is that Favre would not be playing for the Vikings right now and they would not be 7-1. Further, we would not be 4-3. We would probably be 6-1 and leading the division. We likely would have won the two games against the Vikings. Not because we had Favre, but because the Vikings wouldn't have Favre. The Vikings have an overall better team right now, but they wouldn't be where they are with Jackson or Rosenfels. I don't see it as who is a better quarterback between Favre and Rodgers. I see it as who is a better quarterback between Favre and Jackson/Rosenfels.
Eh, I do no think Rodgers would have extended the contract under any circumstances if, after Judas siad he retired, said he wanted to go backk and Packers management just said, ok fine. Aaron, sorry we need to take that nod away. You can sit on the bench for another couple of years. WHo knows, maybe Rodgers would windup with the Vikings
This really sucks--and that bastard is the one who is doing it to us, and is not just beating us, we now hold a reverse raffle ticket where if the nubers come up right, our most hated rival finally wins a superbowl. And I am concerned that the Vikings are a Superbowl contender, iff he holds out. The Saints beat a Falcons team that out played themselves. I think the Saints, maybe the Eagles/Giants can legitimately derail the Vikings, In the AFC, Colts, maybe Broncos, Bengals. I do not want to think aboout New England because I hate that team almost as much as the Vikings. Ravens or Steelers or if they get their act together.
PackersRS
Cheesehead
You're totally right. After they commited to him, there was just no way they could back off. Any sane mind can see that only someone with absolutely no integrity could do that. However, I think they're reffering to another situation. That had they not just let Favre retire (yes, I know, it's a bit preposturous that they could force him not to retire), they could work a way that both QBs would still be here.
I find it hard to believe, a situation where you would put a 5 year backup, that has talent to play, extend his contract with the team. But we'll never know, if both were to be given a chance to compete for the job... if Rodgers and Favre would accept that...
Unfortunately, we are undergoing one of the most arduous moments in all of sports, there is much dissension, and a lot more pandemonium, so that such a sane mind is not always to be encountered.
Had Judas committed immediately after 07, Polar Bear would have been obligated to say ok. Maybe Rodgers would have stayed, but probably not. There is NO way he would have if we ****** him around.
By the way, I want to thank you for the opportunity to actualyly have an intelligent, productive conversation. Also, thanks for indulging the vitriol I have directed toward certain odious persons on here.
PackersRS
Cheesehead
I know how you feel... But a lot of us are tired of talking about Favre, and want to discuss the team... If you focused more on Packers subjects, you would find a lot more people that woun't put so much emotion into arguments. Not that it's a bad thing, but emotions are hard to overcome sometimes...
But after the fans reaction to him and to Rodgers, it was pretty sure that most will cheer for the Packers. It's not like we love Rodgers. He didn't do anything so far. But more, the fact that he's the CURRENT QB of the Packers.
Personally, I believe discussing hypotetical situations won't lead nowhere... It's improductive. We can't change what happened, we can't know for sure what would've happened. We can, however, cheer for the team, or protest against the management; we can try to change this team's future. But the past won't change. Nothing will erase what Favre did to us, both the good things and the bad things. He's a Minnesota Vikings, now, not a Green Bay Packer.
Thinking Rodgers isn't the answer is fine, seeing flaws in his game and appointing is fine. However, it's only fine when one do it with the Green Bay Packers' best interest in mind, and not Brett Favre's best interest in mind. It's the secret agendas that drives me nuts.
Sorry for the long text, needed to vent a little
Uh, well Rodgers has committed himself to the team, and has played quite well, and has subjected himself to a beating under a suspect line, so I do feel he has done somethning for us. He has also takken the thankless task of weathing the controversey that has stemmed since Judas left.
Similar threads
