RE: The Packers

Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports

Forums Register Login My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums

Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ Ticket List Log Out

RE: The Packers

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk >> RE: The Packers

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 11:24:16 AM

David Levine

Posts: 77938
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline

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.

Post #: 2251

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 1:16:27 PM

ambear

Posts: 4387
Joined: 12/20/2007
From: Fort Lauderdale
Status: offline

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.

Post #: 2252

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 1:46:11 PM

djskillz

Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."

Post #: 2253

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 2:09:06 PM

John Childress

Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 2254

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 2:10:14 PM

John Childress

Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 2255

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 2:19:40 PM

David Levine

Posts: 77938
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline

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.

Post #: 2256

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 4:45:27 PM

John Childress

Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 2257

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 4:46:22 PM

djskillz

Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

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

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.

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."

Post #: 2258

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 4:54:02 PM

John Childress

Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 2259

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 5:23:19 PM

David Levine

Posts: 77938
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline

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

Post #: 2260

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 5:23:40 PM

djskillz

Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."

Post #: 2261

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 5:30:49 PM

David Levine

Posts: 77938
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by David Levine -- 1/16/2011 5:35:35 PM >

Post #: 2262

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 5:35:29 PM

djskillz

Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."

Post #: 2263

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 5:38:50 PM

David Levine

Posts: 77938
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline

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.

Post #: 2264

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 5:43:41 PM

djskillz

Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by djskillz -- 1/16/2011 5:44:51 PM >

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."

Post #: 2265

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 5:47:20 PM

Cheesehead Craig

Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline

I'll take Rodgers every week and twice on Sundays over Bradford or Luck. But then I'm a bit biased.

Post #: 2266

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 5:51:57 PM

David Levine

Posts: 77938
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by David Levine -- 1/16/2011 5:53:03 PM >

Post #: 2267

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 5:53:35 PM

djskillz

Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."

Post #: 2268

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 5:58:35 PM

David Levine

Posts: 77938
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline

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.

Post #: 2269

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 6:00:48 PM

djskillz

Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."

Post #: 2270

RE: The Packers - 1/16/2011 11:50:33 PM

Jon Thomas

Posts: 687
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline

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)

< Message edited by Jon Thomas -- 1/16/2011 11:51:34 PM >

Post #: 2271

RE: The Packers - 1/17/2011 11:03:12 AM

Richard Neussendorfer

Posts: 19614
Joined: 12/7/2007
From: Alamogordo, NM
Status: offline

If i'm starting an NFL franchise right now i'm picking Rodgers over anybody out there. Sam Bradford??? C'Mon man!

Post #: 2272

RE: The Packers - 1/17/2011 11:04:31 AM

Richard Neussendorfer

Posts: 19614
Joined: 12/7/2007
From: Alamogordo, NM
Status: offline

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.

Post #: 2273

RE: The Packers - 1/17/2011 11:05:35 AM

Richard Neussendorfer

Posts: 19614
Joined: 12/7/2007
From: Alamogordo, NM
Status: offline

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)

So what are you saying? Jeff George wasn't supremely talented? Oh and who are the two others?

< Message edited by Richard Neussendorfer -- 1/17/2011 11:16:01 AM >

Post #: 2274

RE: The Packers - 1/17/2011 11:35:37 AM

djskillz

Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."

Post #: 2275