By virtue of QB rating he is. Of course, we could get into all these sentimental debates about this and that but the NFL's adopted measure of QB's shows Rodgers to be the greatest of all time.
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
Because QB rating is the only measure by which QBs should be judged, even across eras. I guess Brad Johnson with his 82.5 career rating was a better QB than Bart Starr with his 80.5.
To mi_keys... passing on Rodgers? Huh? What were you trying to say?
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
You are either willfully obtuse or your reading comprehension is utterly abysmal. From my post on the page before:
If I have a choice of a two scenarios, the first in which I have a 5% chance to win a title this year and a 5% chance to win next year, the second I have a 4% chance this year and a 7% next; you take the second scenario because it maximizes your chances of winning a title, even though you aren't selling out for today.
A real example of this was drafting Rodgers. We had other needs. We could have thrown all our eggs into the last few years with Favre basket. Instead we took the pick we believed would sustain success in the long hall. This is diametrically opposed to your constant strive to win today rhetoric, yet it's a decision you dismiss as obvious. It's not obvious if you religiously stick to this go for broke mantra.
mi_keys wrote:
In a response to my post, you included the following:
Rodgers is the pearl of great price that you sell and forsake all others for. A rare unique period in franchise history and we have a man worried about waiting for a 4th round comp pick to develop so we might hit 8-8 when Aaron is gone.
uffda udfa wrote:
To that post, my reply included:
Everything you said about Rodgers could've been and was said about Favre. It doesn't address how your mantra would dictate passing on Rodgers in the draft.
mi_keys wrote:
Favre is one of the all time greats. Sitting there with Favre in hand, Ted Thompson used his first pick ever on the future instead of going for broke and trying to win today. Had he stuck to the mantra of going for broke, it would have necessitated using that pick on a player that could help the Packers win in those last few years with Favre.
Ted Thompson doesn't have the championship drive Ron had. Who debates that? You?
uffda udfa wrote:
Then props to Ted Thompson for half-assing it to the same number of titles as Ron.
Ron wanted to win and went to back to backers. That hasn't been done since the Lombardi years when it was easier.
uffda udfa wrote:
And? We lost Super Bowl XXXII. And this isn't consistent with other posts you've made. From this very thread, a post you made in August:
You play sports to WIN. Not winning your final game of every season is LOSING.
uffda udfa wrote:
Not winning your final game of every season is LOSING. Unless of course you're Ron Wolf and uffda is trying to make a point.
Being back to back bowls is a sign of a dominant team not a fart in the wind like we were. We got hot after barely getting in the playoffs, Desmond Bishop made a game saving tackle in Philly and Rodgers went crazy in a couple of those games and we won. It wasn't a dominant performance like Seattle had when they dismantled Denver.
uffda udfa wrote:
The 2010 Packers had the 2nd best scoring defense, the 10th best scoring offense, and the 2nd best point differential of any team that season. They never trailed by more than 7 at any point all year. All of that in spite of the worst injury record of any NFL team that season. From 2010-11 the Packers won 19 straight, a franchise record and one of the longest streaks in NFL history. Calling that team a fart in the wind is ludicrous.
Last time I checked Bishop and Rodgers were players Ted Thompson acquired. They made plays that led us to a championship. Since when is that a knock on the GM that acquired them?
Born and bred a cheesehead