What I don't get is where you're getting this assumption that read #1 was to Nelson was. The fact that he got open doesn't mean he was the first read. Which is the problem I continually have with these types of arguments that rely on assumptions with no supporting data beyond "it fits what I already think". It'd be like me assuming that there's no way Nelson was the first read since Rodgers didn't look his way if I think Rodgers is flawless, and using that as the basis of my argument. Which is ridiculous because we don't know what the reads on the play are. You can twist what you see into being whatever you feel like to back up your argument but that doesn't mean your assumptions are correct. Which is funny since you told me " Just to say, "it cant be done, because I said so," is meaningless childish caddy cliquey blather ". "Nelson was his first read, because I said so" is meaningless childish caddy cliquey blather.



How else are we supposed to quantify how long Rodgers is holding the ball for? Stats can be misleading if you're not applying them correctly but opinions based on gut feelings are about as worthless as just making shit up. Like you told me, 'because I said so" is meaningless and childish. How else would you suggest that we logically analyze things if not to compare how long Rodgers is holding the ball as compared to other QBs in this league? Just because you FEEL LIKE he's holding it for too long doesn't make it so, just like me FEELING LIKE he doesn't doesn't make it so. Which is why I'm quantifying things instead of trying to pretend that my observations are magically more valid than yours.

I certainly rarely read such drivel. If someone feels they have that much to say, they should probably start their own football blog. Then we could link to the post on here like other articles. Problem solved!

I hope folks that make those extensive "analysis" posts are getting paid for their time. Otherwise, there are a lot more important things to spend one's time on. If they're getting compensated in some way, fair enough, I suppose.

Not often you see a post that comes complete with chapters.

---

Geez....a guy has a bunch of 300 plus pound linemen, and LB's chasing him around, and he doesn't see an open WR. YOU of course have the view on TV, and thus Rodgers should ALWAYS see the open guy. I can't believe how little of reality some of these guys use to whail on one of the best Packer QB's of all time.
Just mind blowing.

---

Holding the ball to long means = if its a detriment to your team and the game. If you got protection and they are not rushing then hold as long as feasible if not then throw it before you are sacked or cause yourself an injury.

Well if he's going thru his progressions, he knows exactly when and where the receivers are. If #1 is covered he goes to read 2, then 3; then out to valve. Rarely are all 3 or 4 WRs not open. If he's going through his progressions on 80-90% of the plays the rush cant get to him. So he's not running around with his hair on fire.

Now, if he's skipping the progressions and going to glory hound, statwhore, playground stuff; now your point comes into play and i agree.

The greatest QB in GB history is Bart and he'll be at the game Sunday. If Bart was activated and started, I'm sure you could imagine an exhaustive list of criticisms of his play. This list would be accurate and it would not negate anything he did in the 50's and 60's, right? Because he was great in the past; should we not criticize, for example, his lack of arm strength; inability to scramble his poor accuracy [3-34 passing w/ 2 INTs for -11 yards]; or should we say he's playing like a great QB, when he clearly is not only because of what he did in the past?

Obviously, you see the complete lack of sensibility in your argument. If you want to rebut my argument, talk about the play and demonstrate where the criticism is not justified. Ya know, like a man! It's simple!

The problem is attaching arbitrary LABELS and the absolute inability to see anything beyond the label. Rodgers has even admitted this off season needed to rededicate himself to the game; he knows Barfarn is usually spot on with his praise and/or criticisms!