Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PackersRS" data-source="post: 367876" data-attributes="member: 1429"><a href="http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8207e213/article/rodgers-great-but-must-accomplish-more-to-be-called-best-qb?module=HP_cp2" target="_blank">NFL.com news: Rodgers great but must accomplish more to be called best QB</a><a href="http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-top100-2011/09000d5d8207f22c/Debating-Rodgers-ranking-Too-high-or-too-low?module=HP_cp2" target="_blank">NFL Videos: Debating Rodgers' ranking: Too high or too low?</a>No no. The "pundits" think that's accurate.It is incredible the ammount of stupidity that comes from the national "analysts". And I say "analysts" because they don't analyze anything, they just spew out crap disguised as opinion, with no data whatsoever to support any claim they make. (I know it was voted by the players, but their perception is highly influenced by the media)Oh well. This is actually a good thing. We all know how vengeful Rodgers is (see Kornheiser, Homer, Cowherd...). This will be just fodder for another title.In fact, it was a tendency. Collins was too low, Jennings was too low, Rodgers was too low, Raji was too low, Tramon and Sitton didn't even make it... Maybe Woodson, Matthews and Clifton were right and won't be disturbed by the rankings, but the majority of the Packers got snubbed in this list.It'll be one more motive for them to not get complacent.</blockquote>

Total: 1,136 (members: 1, guests: 1,135)