For better or for worse, dhpackr, Rodgers is locked up for megabucks with a long-term contract, so he IS our franchise quarterback.

And anyone who isn't willing to give Rodgers his due, after he put out the second-best rookie campaign of any quarterback in NFL history, is just wilfully blind.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Well than who had the better season than him because looking at the likes of Culpeppers stats of 3937 yds 33tds and 16 ints is a tad better i think, Hasselback was 3841 yds 26tds 15 ints in his 5th year in the league but 1st time he started 16 games. Ok heres another one 4211 yards, 36 tds 19ints in his 1st time starting 16 games but it was actually his 5th year in the league. So really i don't see how you can say hes a rookie? Sorry just don't see it.

"dhazer" wrote:

What difference does it make???
Geez.....the argumant of whether it was Aaron Rodgers's "rookie" or 4th year.
Fact is, he had a great QB rating, great TD to INT ratio, and the loses being pinned on him are just plain wrong.
He did his job. He can't go out and tackle on D or special teams to stop the other teams. He doesn't kick field goals.
The guy did his job, and did it better then 2/3rd's of the QB's in the NFL.
Those are the facts.
What year he's in doesn't matter. It was his first as a starter, and he did great.
Unfortunately, the rest of the team let him (and us) down.

"Cheesey" wrote:

"dhazer" wrote:

A qb with a west coast offense will have a better qb rating than someone that plays in a wide open offense. So like i said i don't believe in those small stats. Same with the completion percentage i mean if you dump off little 2 yard passes 16 times a game you will look like the best qb in the league by that stat.

"dhazer" wrote: