Oh god, I'm "bashing" him because I don't think he's perfect (I EVEN LISTED WHAT I LIKED ABOUT HIM).

I feel like the best idea for me is to not even discuss Rodgers because some people (not mentioning names) have this weird Rodgers inferiority complex. Its funny because I would guess a lot of people that defend Rodgers to the death no matter what and make way out there excuses for him are the same people that bomb people that defended or did defend Favre too heavily because their blind "Favre homers".

He's great but its OKAY to criticize him when its valid because at the end of the day he's 10-13 after taking over a team that was 13-3. He's young and inexperienced, he will learn and get better but right now he is not "there"yet (IMO anyway).

---

I still think people are missing hte point. Its not an "all or nothing" argument. It can be somewhere in the middle.

Do I think Rodgers is THE problem we suck the last year and a half. NO. Do I think Favre is THE reason why we lost to the Rams or the Eagles or the Falcons in those playoff games.

Do I think Rodgers is PART of the problem we suck, YES. Because he is inexperienced and has not made the players around him better like Favre used to. You can't make this OL or RB excuse every time anyone has anything negative to say about Rodgers. Then do the same handicapping with Cutler and his RB/WRs.

Do I think Favre is PART of the reasons why we lost those games, YES of course. Favre did a lot with those teams even though many times he had inferior talent (i.e. Scheroder v. Holt/Bruce) but at the end of the day, they lost. So YES, of course he is part of the blame. Did he not defend 4th and 26 right, no but did he throw an INT in OT, yes of course he did.

---

This I agree with. It seems like people are little sensitive to any criticism of Rodgers when the fact is he could improve his play. I don't think it's a conscious decision to try to pad his passer rating, but throwing a few balls away for incompletions would be better for the team than taking sacks which cost yards, potential fumbles, and injuries.

---

That is exactly my point. I don't think he is padding his stats because what is hte point of that, its the NFL, your judged on winning. I justwould rather have a QB rating of 103 or whatever with some incompletions than 110 with 8-9 unnecessary sacks that cause you to lose yards AND risk injury.

---

Based on what? Media hype? Ouside of Rodgers, where are all of these great QBs he developed? Gannon was in his 8th season before he played under McCarthy, and he was mediocre his four years under McCarthy there. It was't until his second year in Oakland that his career took off, and that only lasted three years. Grbac was a bust, and Bono never amounted to much more than a journeyman on that same Chiefs' roster. I'll throw in Montana had two of the worst years of his career in KC, but he was older and already a HOF QB.

Favre was already a 3 time MVP when McCarthy coached one year, the Ray Rhodes year, which was one of Favre's worst for TD% and INT%.

Aaron Brooks was never more than an average QB under McCarthy, and actually got worse over six years with one minorly succesful year in his 4th year. Brooks never completed 60% of his passes in a season, and his TD:INT ratio was 1.3:1. Not exactly something to write home about.

Lastly, we have Alex Smith who played one year under him along with Rattay, Dorsey, and Pickett. None of them played well, and the Niners had one of the worst offenses in the league.

So where in all of that does he earn the reputation of being a great developer of QBs?

---

I can't speak for Zero, but I don't think he was saying you're bashing him. Regardless, the vast majority of us have acknowledged a number of Rodgers' flaws. No one is saying Rodgers is perfect, but that doesn't mean we can't point out the invalid claims against him.

---

Wow, I missed this one.

Where did I say you were bashing him RedSoxExcel? I don't know if I have ever specifically said anyone was bashing him. I do think some are trying to discredit some of his play.

Anyone with a "Rodgers inferiority complex" needs to look at the bigger picture of how he's playing. There's several times a game he makes mistakes that I don't think a 2nd year starter should be making. Point in case, his decision to not run for the first down on 3rd and 5 on one of the early drives last week. That shit bugs me.

As for the other thing you mention. I'm going to hope you (and others) see where I am going with this and respectfully NEVER go there again with a thread that's not about that individual. I'd really like to have some threads that don't turn into whiny piss contents. I'm all out of piss!!! 🙂

---

Rodgers is apart of the solution and not apart of the problem. Rodgers has been nothing but solid. He hasn't been great like some make him out to be, but certainly not bad either. You're expecting Rodgers to make players better like Brett Favre did, but you're also forgetting that Brett Favre is one of the best players in the history of the NFL. Rodgers can't be held to that standard. It's not fair to Rodgers and it also takes away from what Favre was able to bring to the table for so many years. In fact, only two QBs playing right now can be held to that standard and that's Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Two out 32 starting right now. That's a small number. I don't even hold Favre to that standard anymore due to his age.

My point is you can't compare apples and oranges and that's what you're doing with statements like Rodgers isn't making receivers look better like Favre used too. Favre is almost one of a kind and quite honestly, maybe a little under-appreciated by some. Actually, he clearly is. Expecting Rodgers or any young QB mentioned in this thread to be like Brett Favre or do some of the great things he did is ridiculous. It's not going to happen because Favre was that good and currently he is playing that well too.

Now I know by hyping Favre that brings back the question of whether or not the Pack made the right move, but their is more to it. Yahoo sports did a great interview with Bill Belichick and mentioned the likes of win now versus going forward. The question at hand with the decision about Rodgers over Favre is a little more complicated. Do you take 10 years (give or take) of Rodgers or two or three of Favre? The Packers went with Rodgers because they liked the longevity. Beyond that, there is no reason to compare the two players. They're different players on different teams playing with different players.

Rodgers has a lot to improve and you hit the nail on the head with the way he takes too many sacks. I don't think it's as bad as some are making it out to be, but it's a problem. You also bring up a good point with the lack of clutch play in the fourth quarter, although I think you overkill it when using the Viking game as an example, but again all your points have great merit when you get down to big picture. What I think most people and I can't speak for anyone else need to realize is if you're expecting Brett Favre out of Rodgers because that's who he replaced, then you'll always be disappointed. It's not as much as a knock on Rodgers as it is an appreciation of what Favre was able to do.

---

Porky, great post. I agree 100%. I am not trying to compare him to FAvre though. Because I personally think that is not even close (no Offense to Rodgers). One guy is one of hte best QBs ever and stil doing it at 40 and the other guy is a 2nd year QB that hasn't proved anything worthwhile yet (though maybe someday they will be mentioned in the same breath). But right now I don't think its even close.

That said, the things I point out are not necessarily things I think Favre is good at or Rodgers should strive to be like. I just think, 23 games into his career, he does things that he should't be doing and there are some things that he is going to have do. And one of those things is making up for less than steller teammates. Sure the OL sucks but if all we're going to do is sit around and throw out the OL thing every time there is a criticism of Rodgers or he does something wrong, then he is not going to grow as a QB. Because you are not going to have that "perfect" team, there will always be weaknesses and its your ability to make up for those weaknesses. I just don't get the constant handicapping of Rodgers only. Then you should handicap Cutler for his WRs and RBs and Favre because he's 40, etc.

Thats one thing I will give MM, he's acknowedged the OL sucks but is not letting Rodgers thiink that he is not holding on to the ball too much. But he is.

And Zero, I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to "yooperfan". And I wasn't going"there", lol. I just meant that he inheriated a decent team and not the Raiders or something. And he is 10-13, so there is obviously room for criticism. So why do people get so up in arms about it?

---

Sorry guys, bashing was definitely an overstatement.
I realize most people are simply pointing out his room for growth.