RE: The Packers

RE: The Packers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk

Message

David Levine -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 11:24:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz I don't know if he's in the "elite" yet. But there's not many QB's I'd take over Rodgers for my team right now. Brady Manning Brees maybe Rivers That honestly might be it. No way on Rivers and Rodgers has moved ahead of Manning and Brees also Rodgers is easily the #2 QB in the NFL Funny how the Vikings fans here talked so much shit about him for 2 years I would kill for the Vikings to have a QB that good I kind of hate to admit it, but if I could have one player in the NFL, it would be Rodgers. All the talent in the world, plays even bigger in the playoffs, and (unlike Brady) gives you a legit 8-10 year window.

ambear -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 1:16:27 PM)
I'm one who talked his share of shit about Rodgers, but last night was a thing of beauty for him. Could the football gods smile on us for just a better than average QB....please.

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 1:46:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz I don't know if he's in the "elite" yet. But there's not many QB's I'd take over Rodgers for my team right now. Brady Manning Brees maybe Rivers That honestly might be it. No way on Rivers and Rodgers has moved ahead of Manning and Brees also Rodgers is easily the #2 QB in the NFL Funny how the Vikings fans here talked so much shit about him for 2 years I would kill for the Vikings to have a QB that good I kind of hate to admit it, but if I could have one player in the NFL, it would be Rodgers. All the talent in the world, plays even bigger in the playoffs, and (unlike Brady) gives you a legit 8-10 year window. Good argument to be made there. Even though it's riskier, I'll take Bradford or Luck over the next 10 years.

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 2:09:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz I don't know if he's in the "elite" yet. But there's not many QB's I'd take over Rodgers for my team right now. Brady Manning Brees maybe Rivers That honestly might be it. No way on Rivers and Rodgers has moved ahead of Manning and Brees also Rodgers is easily the #2 QB in the NFL Funny how the Vikings fans here talked so much shit about him for 2 years I would kill for the Vikings to have a QB that good I kind of hate to admit it, but if I could have one player in the NFL, it would be Rodgers. All the talent in the world, plays even bigger in the playoffs, and (unlike Brady) gives you a legit 8-10 year window. Good argument to be made there. Even though it's riskier, I'll take Bradford or Luck over the next 10 years. Not even realistic Bradford had a good half season and fell apart Luck hasn't thrown one pass Your bias is unbelievable Seriously, at least try to be objective

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 2:10:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ambear I'm one who talked his share of shit about Rodgers, but last night was a thing of beauty for him. Could the football gods smile on us for just a better than average QB....please. You aren't the only one About half of the board gives Rodgers and Cutler no credit at all yet they are the ones playing for the NFC CG They are both stud QBs Let Cutler get to stay in this system another year and watch how good he gets The Vikings are light years behind

David Levine -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 2:19:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Good argument to be made there. Even though it's riskier, I'll take Bradford or Luck over the next 10 years. I wouldn't even consider it for a second. The guy has been pretty damn otherworldly on the biggest stage: 3 games: 77/105 (73%), 969 yards, 10 TDs, 1 INT. 2 rushing TDs. Game 1: 28/42 (66.7%), 423 yards, 4 TDs, 1 INT. 121.4 Rating. 1 rushing TD. 45 points scored. Game 2: 18/27 (66.7%), 180 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTs. 122.5 Rating. 21 points scored. Game 3: 31/36 (86.1%), 366 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INT. 136.8 Rating. 1 rushing TD. 48 points scored. Sure, both those guys are younger, but Rodgers isn't even in his prime yet - he's 6.5 years younger than Brady.

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 4:45:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Good argument to be made there. Even though it's riskier, I'll take Bradford or Luck over the next 10 years. I wouldn't even consider it for a second. The guy has been pretty damn otherworldly on the biggest stage: 3 games: 77/105 (73%), 969 yards, 10 TDs, 1 INT. 2 rushing TDs. Game 1: 28/42 (66.7%), 423 yards, 4 TDs, 1 INT. 121.4 Rating. 1 rushing TD. 45 points scored. Game 2: 18/27 (66.7%), 180 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTs. 122.5 Rating. 21 points scored. Game 3: 31/36 (86.1%), 366 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INT. 136.8 Rating. 1 rushing TD. 48 points scored. Sure, both those guys are younger, but Rodgers isn't even in his prime yet - he's 6.5 years younger than Brady. quote: Rodgers first year starting 28 TDs 13 INTs Last year 30 TDS 7 INTs This year 28 TDs 11 INTs Have the Vikings EVER had a 3 years stretch of QB play that good?

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 4:46:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz I don't know if he's in the "elite" yet. But there's not many QB's I'd take over Rodgers for my team right now. Brady Manning Brees maybe Rivers That honestly might be it. No way on Rivers and Rodgers has moved ahead of Manning and Brees also Rodgers is easily the #2 QB in the NFL Funny how the Vikings fans here talked so much shit about him for 2 years I would kill for the Vikings to have a QB that good I kind of hate to admit it, but if I could have one player in the NFL, it would be Rodgers. All the talent in the world, plays even bigger in the playoffs, and (unlike Brady) gives you a legit 8-10 year window. Good argument to be made there. Even though it's riskier, I'll take Bradford or Luck over the next 10 years. Not even realistic Bradford had a good half season and fell apart Luck hasn't thrown one pass Your bias is unbelievable Seriously, at least try to be objective [&o] It has nothing to do with being "biased". Rodgers is a very, very good QB, no question. I just like those 2 guys' futures even more. I think it's a bit foolhardy to base a QB completely on 2-3 playoff games.

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 4:54:02 PM)
It is foolhardy to think a guy who has never played in the NFL will do better than Rodgers start As for Bradford, he fell apart as the year went on. 1 TD pass the last 5 games and lost the division. Some of your posts are so off the charts they are comical

David Levine -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 5:23:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz I think it's a bit foolhardy to base a QB completely on 2-3 playoff games. How about 3 years as a starter? 64.4%, over 4000 yards/year, 87 TDs, 32 INTs. Year 1: 28 TDs 13 INTs Year 2: 30 TDS 7 INTs Year 3: 28 TDs 11 INTs

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 5:23:40 PM)
He's a ROOKIE! How did Aaron Rodgers do his first year in the league? Oh ya, he didn't start at all. Let's all hear it for the infallible, always correct JC! Get over yourself, seriously.

David Levine -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 5:30:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz I think it's a bit foolhardy to base a QB completely on 2-3 playoff games. How about 3 years as a starter? 64.4%, over 4000 yards/year, 87 TDs, 32 INTs. Year 1: 28 TDs 13 INTs Year 2: 30 TDS 7 INTs Year 3: 28 TDs 11 INTs In fact there have only been 18 seasons in NFL history where a QB has finished with better than 63%, 28 TD, 3900 yards and 13 or fewer INTs. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/pBaDH Rodgers has 3 of the 18 and has done it every year as a starter. I can't imagine wanting to gamble that an unproven player is going to be better than that. --edit-- And if you limit that criteria to occurring in their first 6 years in the league, it drops to 9 total. With a full 3rd of them belong to Rodgers. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/VdskL I hate that he's as good as he is - but he is THAT good.

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 5:35:29 PM)
You can't just look at stats. So much of it is the system, the receivers, etc. in GB. Rodgers is great; I'd be happy to have him at QB for the Vikes. But I think both Bradford and Luck will be excellent as well.

David Levine -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 5:38:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz But I think both Bradford and Luck will be excellent as well. They MIGHT be. But why would you take that risk over a guy who has already proven to be great in the NFL and even better in the Playoffs? I mean I guess I can see saying you'd take Luck or Bradford over Brady (I wouldn't) just because he's 33. But Rodgers just turned 27 last month.

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 5:43:41 PM)
But Rodgers will be in his mid-30's at the end of that. I think if we're talking 10 years, I may take those guys. Certainly good arguments both ways though. Again, I like Rodgers; he's very good. But I think 1) we can't just look at stats, as I noted. 2) it's a pretty damn small sample of playoff success, and not exactly against good passing defenses.

Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 5:47:20 PM)
I'll take Rodgers every week and twice on Sundays over Bradford or Luck. But then I'm a bit biased. [:D]

David Levine -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 5:51:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz But Rodgers will be in his mid-30's at the end of that. I think if we're talking 10 years, I may take those guys. Certainly good arguments both ways though. Again, I like Rodgers; he's very good. But I think 1) we can't just look at stats, as I noted. 2) it's a pretty damn small sample of playoff success, and not exactly against good passing defenses. I'm sorry, but I honestly can't see the other side of this one. Rodgers is REALLY good. The odds of Bradford or Luck being better are slim. Plus if those guys don't pan out as studs, you're stuck with an enormous #1 overall salary (CBA TBD for Luck). I mean barring injury, Rodgers should still have the same ability in 8 years for sure. And in 10 years he'll be 36-37 - that isn't exactly ancient for a QB these days. I'm not trading 3 a lengthy window with a proven stud for 3 or 4 years on the backend of a 'potential' guy.

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 5:53:35 PM)
eh, to each their own. he is really good. but he's also got a GREAT system and GREAT receivers to play with. it's not all about stats. i do think he's a top 5 qb right now though.

David Levine -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 5:58:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz eh, to each their own. he is really good. but he's also got a GREAT system and GREAT receivers to play with. it's not all about stats. i do think he's a top 5 qb right now though. He's a guy that would work anywhere. He can make all the throws, he's very accurate (even deep), and he's a gamer. The only thing holding him back from being elite before this was that he'd ALWAYS try for the big play. He's really balanced that out this year.

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 6:00:48 PM)
he did. and he would work anywhere. but his stats would not be as good if he wasn't in GB's system, with their set of WR's. imo. he's got one of, if not the, best system for a qb in the whole league.

Jon Thomas -> RE: The Packers (1/16/2011 11:50:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Good argument to be made there. Even though it's riskier, I'll take Bradford or Luck over the next 10 years. I wouldn't even consider it for a second. The guy has been pretty damn otherworldly on the biggest stage: 3 games: 77/105 (73%), 969 yards, 10 TDs, 1 INT. 2 rushing TDs. Game 1: 28/42 (66.7%), 423 yards, 4 TDs, 1 INT. 121.4 Rating. 1 rushing TD. 45 points scored. Game 2: 18/27 (66.7%), 180 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTs. 122.5 Rating. 21 points scored. Game 3: 31/36 (86.1%), 366 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INT. 136.8 Rating. 1 rushing TD. 48 points scored. Sure, both those guys are younger, but Rodgers isn't even in his prime yet - he's 6.5 years younger than Brady. In the "Stats Prove Nothing Category"... Rodgers 10 TD's in first three playoff games beats record of 9 TD's previously held by Jeff George (and two others) [:D]

Richard Neussendorfer -> RE: The Packers (1/17/2011 11:03:12 AM)
If i'm starting an NFL franchise right now i'm picking Rodgers over anybody out there. Sam Bradford??? C'Mon man!

Richard Neussendorfer -> RE: The Packers (1/17/2011 11:04:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz I think it's a bit foolhardy to base a QB completely on 2-3 playoff games. How about 3 years as a starter? 64.4%, over 4000 yards/year, 87 TDs, 32 INTs. Year 1: 28 TDs 13 INTs Year 2: 30 TDS 7 INTs Year 3: 28 TDs 11 INTs In fact there have only been 18 seasons in NFL history where a QB has finished with better than 63%, 28 TD, 3900 yards and 13 or fewer INTs. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/pBaDH Rodgers has 3 of the 18 and has done it every year as a starter. I can't imagine wanting to gamble that an unproven player is going to be better than that. --edit-- And if you limit that criteria to occurring in their first 6 years in the league, it drops to 9 total. With a full 3rd of them belong to Rodgers. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/VdskL I hate that he's as good as he is - but he is THAT good. This is spoken like someone who is paying attention. Rodgers is at the very least "the most talented" qb in the game. We can argue anything after that I suppose but the man has talent that is much better than any other QB.

Richard Neussendorfer -> RE: The Packers (1/17/2011 11:05:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jon Thomas quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Good argument to be made there. Even though it's riskier, I'll take Bradford or Luck over the next 10 years. I wouldn't even consider it for a second. The guy has been pretty damn otherworldly on the biggest stage: 3 games: 77/105 (73%), 969 yards, 10 TDs, 1 INT. 2 rushing TDs. Game 1: 28/42 (66.7%), 423 yards, 4 TDs, 1 INT. 121.4 Rating. 1 rushing TD. 45 points scored. Game 2: 18/27 (66.7%), 180 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTs. 122.5 Rating. 21 points scored. Game 3: 31/36 (86.1%), 366 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INT. 136.8 Rating. 1 rushing TD. 48 points scored. Sure, both those guys are younger, but Rodgers isn't even in his prime yet - he's 6.5 years younger than Brady. In the "Stats Prove Nothing Category"... Rodgers 10 TD's in first three playoff games beats record of 9 TD's previously held by Jeff George (and two others) [:D] So what are you saying? Jeff George wasn't supremely talented? Oh and who are the two others?

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/17/2011 11:35:37 AM)
Most talented? I don't think so. Not if we're talking about the complete package. He's definitely amongst the "best" though. Top 5.

Page: << < prev 89 90 [91] 92 93 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode