hosemeoff
15 years ago

OK, no offense to anybody, but Bullshit on this eval. Anytime I see a still pic used as evidence in a football game, I want to bitch slap somebody.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:


Wowza! Wish were you here when Favre was being flogged by similar still frames in the NFCCG. I still think that was simply an unfortunate occurance of another pro making a great play rather than a bonehead decision by a QB.

Rodgers is good. He's probably top five ... among young QBs, but he still has a lot to learn before he's better than a lot of vets. I think it's time for the kid gloves to come off, and no, I don't think daggers in both hands should replace the gloves. Being a 5th year QB, I expect to see improvement in decision making. Remembering check-downs, especially when behind, would be a step in the right direction. Rodgers has a talented, deep, and somewhat costly receiving corp. One of Rodgers' problems is that he gets into a mindset where he looks for the big, wide-open strike to his talented WRs. I haven't seen him throwing into a lot of tight spots since his fantastic TD last year. Time to start using that big, accurate arm. No guts, no glory, yada yada yada...

Regarding those who say, if we get Rodgers an O-line he'll be great, I have to disagree or at least approach this cautiously. Good O-lines cost money. We've spent that money on QB, receivers, and some defense. If we secure the money for a better O-line, another area of the team will have to be trimmed. A veteran QB can hide a lot of flaws in a bad O-line. Let's hope we get a little of both: commitment to building a solid, two-deep O-line, and a QB that shows veteran savvy. That's when Rodgers, and more imporatantly the Packers, will be great.
blank
Zero2Cool
15 years ago
I'm not going to continue what I was saying.

I think the guy did a good job and his point is clear. Which is Rodgers held the ball too long a few times and he could have gotten rid of the ball sooner. I disagree with his examples, but firmly agree with his point.
UserPostedImage
porky88
15 years ago
Rodgers should of dumped it off on the fumble. No question about it as they pointed that out on the broadcast, but that's still not to say he had a lot of time to throw the ball. He didn't.

The safety is a different story. The Packers are down so they'll be calling more plays down the field. That's what Rodgers was doing. He was looking down the field. It was also 3rd down. That play isn't going to get you a first down. Not at all. Rodgers was looking for the 1st down like coaches teach quarterbacks to do. I watched that play too. He had 3.5 seconds before the pressure got to him. Then he was flushed out of the pocket, pumped and was sacked.

It's better to take a sack then throw an INT in that situation. Rodgers can't be thinking, I better not take a safety, he's got to be thinking, I better get the first down. If the Packer were winning, the right play is to dump it off.

As far as Favre. That comparison is not fair. Favre is one of the best EVER at getting the ball out fast. That's not to say Favre would be better behind this line because there have been times when Rodgers' mobility have allowed him to escape a sack and attempt to make something happen. Favre cannot do that anymore.

As pointed out as well, Favre had it much easier. Minnesota was rushing four and getting pressure. GB was basically letting Favre beat them. The Vikings gameplanned to stop the Packers' passing game. The Packers did the opposite. They dared Favre to beat them and he did. They wanted to shut down Adrian Peterson.

To expand further it's apples and oranges. Two different players. Watch Tom Brady play, he doesn't get rid of the ball as fast as Favre. Nobody compares them because they're different QBs. Every QB does something different. As far as Rodgers having to improve. Well of course he does. He's only going to be 25 I think. It's his second year as a starter. He needs to improve in a lot of areas and to state otherwise would be ridiculous.

That's not state that he's not good. Rodgers is playing at a Pro Bowl level right now.

However, to state that he's part or half of the problem right like some are doing now with him is even more wrong. It's so absurd that it's becoming my pet peeve. The offensive line and specifically the guards playing tackle is the problem right now and not Aaron Rodgers.

He's just playing his game. He's going to keep the play alive as long as he can. It's not nitpicking pointing out that Rodgers needs to do this better, it is nitpicking when people think he's part of the problem right now or if he could just get rid of the ball faster, GB would be much better. That's just the wrong idea.
zombieslayer
15 years ago

However, to state that he's part or half of the problem right like some are doing now with him is even more wrong. It's so absurd that it's becoming my pet peeve. The offensive line and specifically the guards playing tackle is the problem right now and not Aaron Rodgers.



True dat.

As far as I'm concerned, Aaron is a Pro Bowl candidate. Probably runner-up considering how a few other QBs in this Conference are playing.

If our OL was half as talented as Aaron, we wouldn't have this discussion right now.

Our OL is so bad and Aaron is so talented, that with an AVERAGE OL, our O would be kicking butt.

It's the OL who gets the fail, not Aaron.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Zero2Cool
15 years ago

However, to state that he's part or half of the problem right like some are doing now with him is even more wrong. It's so absurd that it's becoming my pet peeve. The offensive line and specifically the guards playing tackle is the problem right now and not Aaron Rodgers.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



True dat.

As far as I'm concerned, Aaron is a Pro Bowl candidate. Probably runner-up considering how a few other QBs in this Conference are playing.

If our OL was half as talented as Aaron, we wouldn't have this discussion right now.

Our OL is so bad and Aaron is so talented, that with an AVERAGE OL, our O would be kicking butt.

It's the OL who gets the fail, not Aaron.



If we're 3 - 1 ... I don't think we talk about Aaron at all other than positive. When you lose games you feel you could have and should have won, you start looking for things that could be improved.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
15 years ago
Zero - True. However, the OL needs to be improved the most.

Look at the current poll results. I've never seen a landslide poll like this before.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
CDNRodgersfan
15 years ago
Well all I'll say is if holding on to the ball to long is his only problem I can live with that At least to that's more teachable then bad accuracy or other more fundamental problems
Zero2Cool
15 years ago

Well all I'll say is if holding on to the ball to long is his only problem I can live with that At least to that's more teachable then bad accuracy or other more fundamental problems

"Cdnfavre+Rodgersfan" wrote:



If I was getting sacked left and right, I'd be getting rid of that ball fast as fuck! Hut, hut, hike, TOSS IT QUICK!! lol
UserPostedImage
CDNRodgersfan
15 years ago
LOL You remember that movie Nessesary Roughness? I just remembered that backup qb who runs behind the refs. Maybe Aaron should try it
PackFanWithTwins
15 years ago
If Rodgers starts throwing the ball away fast enough to avoid these sacks. Here is what I expect to see. Watch from 1:50 point


The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Fan Shout
Martha Careful (1h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (11h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (11h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (11h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (11h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (11h) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (15h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (15h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (15h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (18h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (18h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (18h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (18h) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (18h) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (18h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (18h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (18h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (19h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (19h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (19h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (20h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (20h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (20h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (20h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (20h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (21h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (21h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (21h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (21h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (22h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
1h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

7h / GameDay Threads / Mucky Tundra

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.