The "too soon" part for me, is that 8 or so games into his tenure a starting QB was a risk by Ted. He still had a year and a half left on his deal at a decent salary, performance to that point was limited to x amount of games. Is it really that big of deal, no it worked out in the end, Rodgers had a decent second half to late part of the season. But at that point.. yes it was a risk.

What strikes me funny is some of the same people stirred because you mention the Rodgers deal as premature, are some of the same ones arguing the Grant and Williams shouldn't be allowed to get paid properly because they are caught in a loophole of the CBA. (Not pointed at anyone in particular, just a general statement of opinion in the Williams thread.)

Rodgers had time left on his deal, yet these kids that made it through the grinds of the UDFA pool shouldn't be allowed to bargain or ask to be paid fairly, even though they have proven themselves upon the field.

All I am saying with the Rodgers deal, at the point it was struck, it was a bigger risk for the Packers because of the small sector of games he played in.

But your market analogy is fair... no arguing that, and hence why I don't have issue with either Grant or Williams getting paid fairly even when the system is rigged against them.

"MassPackersFan" wrote:

I fail to see how Rodgers was thrown into an "ideal situation." Yes, he had three years to sit behind a legend -- a legend, I might add, who stated publicly it wasn't his job to teach his successor the ropes -- but he was thrown into a situation in which a) a sizable contingent of fans, rather than giving him a fair shot, chose instead to openly ridicule and revile him; and b) he had to play with a defense which, despite the offense putting the team into position to win, time and time again collapsed late in the games, setting his spectacular efforts at naught.

Rodgers' predecessor came in with zero expectations. Rodgers came in with the world on his shoulders. I don't think he gets enough credit for that.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

After thinking about this more, that's not true. Favre was traded for a 1st round pick. That weighs some expectations.

Take Alex Smith vs Aaron Rodgers. No one can argue that Rodgers was in the ideal situation and Smith was thrown into a bad situation.

Rodgers was here when we won only four games, he was here when we won 13. He's seen the highs and the lows and now has experience on how to handle them both shown to him by a legend. Smith has not had that.

Rodgers is in the ideal position with the ideal team with the ideal coach and with the ideal fans. Yes, some fans are being stupid, but guess what, MANY fans wanted Favre GONE after his first and second season. I could be mistaken, but if I recall correctly the lashing Brett took was far greater than the one Rodgers has gotten.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Let's not say someone sent their kids to cuss out Rodgers. One kid did it on his own accord.

The point I'm making is that Brett was not instantly loved and adored like some are perceiving it to have happened.

Some have forgotten that Majik was still adored by many many fans and wanted him back in the line up.

"SlickVision" wrote: