Cutler and Rodgers are actually back to back in my QB rankings.
I actually prefer Rodgers slightly more because I think he's got a better attitude and a "moxy" about him that a lot of the great ones have. A quiet cool so to speak.
I never saw that in Cutler.
I think people overestimate Chicago quite a bit.
For example, Matt Forte who has become a very big time back in many people's eyes put up basically the same numbers as Ryan Grant did last year. Both averaged about 3.9 yards a carry. Forte is a little more versatile, but when it came to running, both were about equal.
Yet Grant is viewed as a disappointment by many people including Packer fans and Forte is being touted as the next great Chicago back. The best one since arguably Walter Payton.
I don't get that and I bet if you look at a lot of rankings for backs in the game today, Forte is ahead of Grant by a lot. No way does catching the ball out of the backfield justify that in my view.
Much like some people put Cutler between 5 and 10 in the best QB's in the game today and Rodgers is quite away behind.
It makes little sense and it wreaks of big city bias if you ask me.
"dd80forever" wrote:
You also might want to factor in that Forte was basically placed in a one dimensional offense because of terrible QB play whereas GB has a good set of WR's. Grant should put Forte to shame in this scenario.
"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:
Out of nothing but simple curiosity (stick a needle in my eye, honest), is there a reason you'll bend over backwards to defend a rookie RB for the Bears but don't seem nearly as inclined to give some players on the Packers' roster the same consideration?
You couldn't even give Rodgers a wee prop, up there - it's our "good set of WRs" that accounts for the balance that Grant should have been feasting on.
"dd80forever" wrote:
I was just just pointing out a fact, shoot me.
I love A-Rod, he will be a hall-of-famer and Brett sucks.
"porky88" wrote:
See?
Thats exactly where you lose everyone.
You have NO BALANCE.
You can't accept ANYONE that doesn't have the last name FAVRE as a decent QB.
Do you think that saying we think AR is good mean that we also are saying BF sucks? Did ANYONE here say that???
Nope.
The fact is that BF isn't "our" QB anymore, and alot of us see AR as being pretty darn good. If you look around the NFC North, look at how many QB's each team has gone through, and they STILL don't have one as good as AR. The Vikings, Bears, and Lions have been through QB after QB, and still don't have anyone as good as the starter we have now.
Will Cutler be any good? I don't think he's gonna be as great as some think. After all, he didn't have a winning record in Denver, did he? Didn't think so. Yet he's the best thing since sliced bread.
So you jump on anyone that DARES to say that AR looks to be a decent QB. I think for his 1st season behind center, he did a darn good job.
I guess in your eyes that automatically means i HATE BF. (Which i don't, of course)