Jim Rome's burn on Aaron Rodgers· Page 2

Rockmolder
Honored Member

13 years ago

1. 28/42 - 66,7% - 423 yards - 10.1 avg - 4 TDs - 1 Int - 121,4 QB Rating.

Offense puts up 45 points.

2. 18/27 - 66,7% - 180 yards - 6.7 avg - 3 TDs - 0 Ints - 122,5 QB Rating.

Offense puts up 21 points.

Number one is a bad QB with the monkey on his back of just knacking under the pressure in the play-offs. A player who just can't win (in his 2nd year starting).

Number two is some kind of god who's balls we should all slobber on becaue he just won against the Eagles.

It really makes no sense.

musccy
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#12

+1 to brnt247 and rockmolder, my thoughts exactly. He had a good but not great game vs. the Eagles, but is a win all that it takes to validate him as quarterback royalty?

Is Bjack a HOF rb since he just happened to be on the 45 man roster of a team that happened to win a playoff game?!?

peteralan71
Registered

13 years ago

#13

It's about time that an analyst realizes that he had an amazing game last year against the Cards, and if the defense had done what they did all season, the game would have been an absolute blowout. Rodgers played phenomenally in both of his playoff games, the only difference was the defense.

It should be noted however that Starks opened it up a LOT of Rodgers. The guy can play. Hopefully now all of the haters out there for this whole season, you know who you are, will realize that there is something behind all of this talk about Starks.

Green Bay: Home of the Green & Gold. And the hunter orange. And the camouflage.

peteralan71
Registered

13 years ago

#14

"musccy" wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily say that he didn't have a great game. He had much less passes and passing yards, because we had a running game. This is why the passer rating is very valuable. It can take a small sample and grade just as well as a large sample. Look at the stats that Rockmolder put up, for example. You would think that he had a much better game last year because he had more yards and more TD's. However this year his success was quantitatively smaller, the passer rating was just slightly better because what he DID do, he did it very well. Since we had a running game, we didn't have to rely on him so much this year. But when we called on Rodgers, he excelled.

Green Bay: Home of the Green & Gold. And the hunter orange. And the camouflage.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

13 years ago

#15

True, although his yards per attempt was phenomenal against the Cards and slightly below average against the Eagles. But yes, overall, it was a superb performance.

Rockmolder
Honored Member

13 years ago

#16

Nr. 1 is the statline of a QB who's carrying a team.

Nr. 2 is the statline of an efficient QB. One who doesn't have to win it by himself, but just has to manage the game.

musccy
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#17

"peteralan71" wrote:

By no means am I saying he had a bad game. His pocket presences was as good as ever, he moved well, kept plays alive, was accurate...all the usual stuff.

I'm just saying relative to some of his other performances, he wasn't as vital to the Packers success (thanks to Starks, defense) yet THIS is the game that gives the media wood for Rodgers?!? Morons!

peteralan71
Registered

13 years ago

#18

"musccy" wrote:

"peteralan71" wrote:

Hahaha great point. That is my "burn" on analysts, is that they constantly miss things are are glaringly obvious.

Green Bay: Home of the Green & Gold. And the hunter orange. And the camouflage.

zombieslayer
Registered

13 years ago

#19

I haven't been on his bandwagon since day 1, but since the Cows game in 2007. As awesome as Favre was that year, Rodgers looked like a pretty dang good backup in case Favre went down again.

Then in 2008, Rodgers was excellent as a starter and hasn't disappointed since.

The thing is, he's only 27. I won't say his prime yet as the prime for a QB is around 30. It would be awesome to get his first ring this year before his prime as he's only going to get better. Here's to hoping we have Aaron, TT, MM, and Dom Capers on the same team for the next 5+ years. My only fear is that some other team will give Dom an offer he can't refuse.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

musccy
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#20

. My only fear is that some other team will give Dom an offer he can't refuse.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

This is a thread I've been thinking about starting, but anywho, the hiring of Rivera with Fox, Gruden, and Cowher still floating around seems very encouraging, and obviously the deeper the Packers can go in the playoffs, the better.

Denver is apparently waist deep in their search already and although I heard Dom's name in one rumor, since then Fewell and the OC from StL have become leading candidates. I've heard Cle is heavily leaning towards Fox, so it's looking promising that we will retain Dom for at least 1 more year!

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (18m) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (1h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (1h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (2h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (2h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (2h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (2h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (2h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (2h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (2h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (2h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (2h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (2h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (2h) : 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 (2h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (2h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (2h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (2h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (2h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (3h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (3h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (3h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (3h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (3h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (3h) : Packers will get in

beast (3h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (3h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (3h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (5h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (6h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (6h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (6h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (7h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (16h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (16h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (16h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (20h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks

Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak

beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other

beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)

Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.

beast (21-Dec) : I think a great running game will do that for most QBs

packerfanoutwest (21-Dec) : Coach Matt LaFleur has said quarterback Jordan Love is playing the best football of his career.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS