Fine Zero i will say what i really believe about Rodgers *was trying to stay away from it) but to me he is the most over rated player on this team. Alot of posters on here have him as a great qb because of 1 year but yet others match his numbers but they did it because of the offense they run. Hell i have seen people saying he will be our qb for the next 10 years. Do you people realize he has only played 1 year right? Should have let him play out his contract and go from there but nope Ted Thompson's son had to be paid after what 6 games? Ted Thompson is also over rated he had 1 winning season but yet everyone is saying he is doing the right thing.
"porky88" wrote:
You just don't like him because he's not Brett Favre or whatever. I mean come on. That's what it comes down too. A select few of fans will not like Rodgers until he wins a Super Bowl. If he never does, he'll be overrated and disliked in their opinion. 49er fans felt that way about Steve Young.
Paying Rodgers is like paying a draft pick. In that case, it's not a real problem. Actually, Rodgers' contract is probably about what Matthew Stafford will make this year. It's right on par with Matt Ryan's deal just about and while I like Ryan better as a pro going forward, Rodgers did put up better numbers.
"dhazer" wrote:
I would say that a lot of those people won't like Rodgers even if he wins
two superbowls, and here's why:
1. They see him as the reason Brett got "railroaded" (see it from their perspective - that's what they think went down) out of GB. They think he was behind the scenes agitating and creating an environment where the FO felt they HAD to make a choice. They will never forgive him for this, and more importantly they'll never forgive him for not being Brett Favre.
2. He is inextricably linked to Thompson, who is inextricably linked to the Favre soap opera. He is thought of as "Ted's son" and a million other inaccurate things. Those that hate Thompson will always hate Rodgers by extension.
Packers fans are not normal fans, as we all know. For some of them, Favre was, is, and will always be a golden god, and none of them will be happy until Thompson and Rodgers are gone - and if you think those people aren't willing to sit through as much losing as necessary to see that happen, you're underestimating just how rabid about this they are.
Where DHazer is absolutely correct is that Rodgers has only started @ the position for one year, and football history is littered with guys who rocked for one season and then petered out. Where he's absolutely wrong is that you do NOT leave your best viable option at the QB position twisting in the wind when you know that roughly a third of the other NFL teams would be more than happy to pay him handsomely - and
by no means do you do so if that QB is already taking metric shit-tons of heat from psychotic Packers fans (I mean, really - who wouldn't rather go to another team and be greeted as a hero instead of spat on as a Judas?) for no other reason than he happened to be second on the depth chart when Favre left town. You pay him if you have any indication that he can get the job done, because you have nothing better @ that position.
And there is where the Thompson/Rodgers haters really screw the pooch. Other than the totally non-plausible "Bring Brett back!" argument, what alternative to Rodgers have they ever suggested? Who is their choice to play starting QB for the Packers? I've yet to hear one. All we ever hear or read is that Rodgers is going to fail - we never hear who SHOULD be the Packers QB. And until someone can answer that question, all the hand-wringing and angry typing adds up to a big fat goose egg - it's clear that they're not concerned about watching a winning team, just hell-bent hoping that a couple guys they don't like will lose their jobs.