The value of Aaron Rodgers· Page 8

Rockmolder
Honored Member

15 years ago

I'd take Aaron Rodgers over Big Ben any day of the week, and that was before we learned that Ben may well be a sociopath.

The whole Big Ben belongs in the Hall just baffles me. Huh? I don't get it. Prove it to me. If you make the claim, you have to come up with the proof. And don't give me the 2 SB wins bullshit. Seriously. That's bullshit and you know it. The first win was the absolute WORST performance by a winning QB ever. Ever. In the history of the Super Bowl, NO ONE has had a performance near that bad and still won.

Geez. Like I said before, I want that guy to buy me a lottery ticket. Right place at the right time.

He's had one Pro Bowl. You don't put a QB in the Hall with one Pro Bowl.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Problem is, there are two schools of thought everywhere. One measures QB succes by individual performance and the other one by how many Super Bowls they've won.

The problem I have with that second one is that it totally ignores supporting cast. Even more than the first one. Those are the same people that got Terry Bradshaw into the HoF and are keeping Ken Anderson out.

Rockmolder
Honored Member

15 years ago

#72

As per Dhazer's request, I asked this question to the people over at PP.O. I tried not to single out Dhazer as the only one who's in favor of trading him, so I just told them there where 2 camps. I wanted to wait for Marrdro to respond before posting it over here, but you'll just have to check back later to see that.

http://www.purplepride.org/index.php/community/discussion/7-trash-the-pack/1048218-a-question-for-you-purple-people

So far, two people agree with Dhazer. And it surprises me that even those two agree, tbh. The Vikings know how hard it is to get a franchise QB. This is not about Rodgers, this is about QBs. I'm not a homer when I say that I wouldn't take that trade as the Chargers for Phillips and wouldn't take that trade as the Saints for Brees. You just don't trade away (young) franchise QBs.

Packers_Finland
Registered

15 years ago

#73

1st, 2nd, 3rd... let me see that.

I've done some research over the last 10 drafts recently.

1st Round - About 50% pan out at the level expected, about 25% become decent players, and about 25% bust.

2nd Round - About 50% become starters, the rest become backups or nobodies.

3rd Round - About 33% become starters, the rest become backups or nobodies.

(note: these percentages are measured after 5 years of that particular draft)

We would probably get 2 starters with those picks.

One of those picks would probably be a QB. The other would be, let's say a starting strong safety.

There's no reason to think Bradford or Clausen would come anywhere near Rodgers' level, very few QBs do. I'd much rather have Rodgers than a 50% chance of becoming a succesful QB and a starting safety.

This is a placeholder

zombieslayer
Registered

15 years ago

#74

"Rockmolder" wrote:

Thank you, Rock. That's a great example.

Another example for you young ones - I'd take McNabb over Ben R. McNabb's had TO for a few years and we all know how great of a team player TO is. Yes, he's an elite WR but he ended up killing that locker room.

Westbrook was elite too, but as an all-purpose player, not as a runner.

2004 was McNabb's year to win it all. 13-3 regular season, strong team both sides of the ball. SB comes and he's got to win the game alone as the Eagles rush for 45 yards. But the Patriots were just the more complete team. I was rooting for McNabb to beat Brady. Didn't happen though. Like you said, supporting cast. McNabb had a strong supporting cast that year. Brady had a better one. Both put up spirited performances. Brady had to do less.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

earthquake
Member

15 years ago

#75

We can find random people on the internet to agree with either viewpoint, and i shouldn't have said that you can't find *anyone*, i should have said you couldn't find anyone who knows a damn about football, or a quality GM in the league that would take that trade.

This has less to do with Rodgers than it does with young, pro-bowl level, franchise QBs that are going to be the face of your team for the next 5-10-15 years. I would group these guys in there as well:

Rodgers
Brees
Rivers
Ryan
Schaub

These teams simply would not give up these guys for that trade, if they would, the Rams would jump on it in a heartbeat. QB is not a position you just grab on a whim, look at teams like the Lions and Bears who have been trying to find a QB for the last 30 years! There are just as many if not more, Joey Harringtons, Rex Groessmans, Tim Couchs, and Ryan Leafs than there are players the quality of Rodgers, Rivers, etc. The fact is, that 1/3rd of all the teams in the league would be seriously interested in trading for these guys, but you simply do not trade away franchise quarterbacks that arent Crybabys or Raplistburgers.

Again, look at the Cutler trade, 2 firsts and a 3rd for a malcontent QB seeking a new blockbuster contract, that has NEVER had a winning season. This is where market Value starts, and it goes up and up for any of the guys on the list above.

blank

dhazer
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#76

Well first off I'm trying to find where someone said Ben will be in the HOF, and from reading over at PPO looks like the majority of the people agree with me so far, as one stated

No player is worth that amount. And if they were, no team would be willing to trade for them. You're losing 2 draft picks which probably result in starting players, and a potential starter in the 3rd rounder.

I'd say a likely trade of that magnitude would be more like swapping 1st round picks, you receive their 2nd or 3rd, and they get Rodgers.

The #1 overall pick is so incredibly valuable. They are potentially getting a player better than Aaron Rodgers who is 21-22 years old.

or this one is exactly what I was getting at

In a heart beat.

Like I said before, the #1 overall pick, #33, and #65 are tremendously valuable.

Add that to the Packers current picks and they have 11 overall, with 6 in the first 3 rounds.

That's recipe for a monster draft class.

People would forget we still have our draft picks. I liked what the one guy said that we could pick up Jason Campbell for cheap and he would be serviceable and never know what he could do with the weapons we have.

Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)

Packers_Finland
Registered

15 years ago

#77

That Jason Campbell, serviceable part is just hilarious.

It's almost impossible to win a Super Bowl without an amazing QB. Unless you have the best defense in the league, it's impossible to even get near the Super Bowl without an amazing QB.

QB's win, that's the most important position. That's why you can't trade these young top 5 QBs.

This is a placeholder

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

15 years ago

#78

Wait, what's going on in this thread? Are we six pages deep into discussing trading Aaron Rodgers, who only threw for more than 8,000 yards, 58 TD's with only 20 interceptions in his first two years of starting?

Man, I have to agree with Vikesrule when he says we're ungrateful for what we have.

But I'll join in because it's fun. :)

If we landed the 1st overall, 33rd overall, and 65th overall added to our current allotment of draft picks for Aaron Rodgers. I'd be hesitant on it, but that's an awful lot to pass up on.

The picking up of Jason Campbell sounds nice, but I just don't think he can take the Packers to the promised land.

After thinking about it ... it's a great package, but I'll take Rodgers over a crap shoot with the extra picks.

Considering how much dhazer hates Ted Thompson, he'd also side with keeping Rodgers as well. How do I verify this statement? Because he thinks Ted sucks at everything he does, including drafts. In his perception, giving Ted more picks is like giving Stevie Wonder more bullets ...

dhazer
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#79

"Packers_Finland" wrote:

Ya I know Finny Rex Grossman is an elite qb, along with Doug Williams, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Jeff Hostlitlier do I need to keep going?

You never know what Campbell could be on a good team, plus you can draft a Bradford or Clausen and let him sit for a year or 2. We supposedly have the awesome defense so we would be ok. Hell think of the players we could get and be set for years to come instead of good at one position for another 5 years we could be set at alot of positions.

Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)

Packers_Finland
Registered

15 years ago

#80

"dhazer" wrote:

Ya I know Finny Rex Grossman is an elite qb, along with Doug Williams, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Jeff Hostlitlier do I need to keep going?

"Packers_Finland" wrote:

And they all had terrific defenses. Brad Johnson was better at the time than Campbell is now. Rich Gannon didn't win, but even if he did he was good enough to be considered amazing (at the time). Grossman didn't win either. Look at the defense Dilfer had, and read my post. Possibly one of the best defensive units at the time.

Of course there will always be a couple of exceptions (and it speaks volumes that you have to go back to the 80s to find enough). 9 out of 10 times the Super Bowl winning team has an excellent QB under center. And when they don't, they have an outstanding defense. We don't have that defense (what with giving up 50 points vs the Cardinals and all), so we need to have that amazing QB.

My point: When you have a QB that you feel can carry your team (which Rodgers could've done unless our defense gave up 50+ points) all the way, you don't trade him.

This is a placeholder

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

packerfanoutwest (6h) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.

Zero2Cool (6h) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat

wpr (7h) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.

wpr (7h) : now 3

Zero2Cool (8h) : Who? What?

beast (16h) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?

Martha Careful (21h) : meh

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast

wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.

wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!

dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am

wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days

beast (18-Apr) : 6 days

wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep

dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire

dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that

dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.

dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move

dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what

Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24