Please let me know where I said there was no need for a QB. I am saying that picking Aaron Rodgers with the number 1 pick brought no direct value to the team in 2005. Or 2006. Or 2007. Look it up. Let me know what I missed.
The original comment I responded to was Porforis saying that you don't draft someone in the first round with zero value when you have needs. I responded that's what Rodgers was. I am quite aware why it was done and it worked out incredibly well. But someone that doesn't start a game for 3 years and only plays in 7 total in that 3 year time is offering nothing to that team. The future team? Maybe. But AR's ~350 passing yards in 3 years is not an impact. He offered no value to the teams in 2005, 2006 or 2007. If Favre had retired the day after the draft in 2005, then he would have had immediate value. But Favre didn't.
You said, "I think nearly everyone thought, "well, OK..." when we went Rodgers. The pick made perfect sense. Favre had seemed invincible, but everyone knew his time was running out, and getting his replacement was imperative over those next two seasons." Nearly everyone did not think OK. Finding a replacement for Favre was a priority. But it was not necessary to draft that person in Rd 1, when there were other needs. Much of Packer Nation was quite upset. That is why I accused you of distorting history. Choosing to look at the past with rose colored glasses, does not change the past. Favre still had a tremendous amount of supporters that viewed this draft choice as the franchise turning their back on #4 as well as failing to make the team markedly better. Doesn't mean it wasn't the right choice. Just didn't make it overwhelmingly popular. Additionally, Favre played 6 years after that draft so it was not "imperative to get his replacement in the next 2 years" as you stated. But that's hindsight.
Did drafting Aaron Rodgers in the first round in 2005 work out well for the Pack? Duh. But that doesn't mean it offered value at the time.
Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan