Both sides are correct in the AP vs Aaron Rodgers argument. Both sides are also wrong. The fact is both picks were A quality picks. Even A+ quality picks. AP is the best runner of this generation and Aaron Rodgers is a franchise quarterback. He's a QB who has replaced a legend something that has only been done once in the modern era by the way.
They play different positions so you can't compare them directly. They've both have had huge impacts on their organizations. They've both been to the Pro Bowl.
As far as the money argument. That's nitpicking. Rodgers was selected to develop behind Favre. Paying him a lot of money is no different than San Diego paying Phillip Rivers a lot of money. Rivers actually made more on the bench and makes more now too. I really don't get that.
"porky88" wrote:
Both are A+ picks, but that doesn't take away from the fact that, when you can choose, you'd go the franchise QB way.
Peterson is the best overall runner. Maybe not the most productive one right now, but he's more all-around and more powerfull than CJ in his running style. (Although that's an argument worth having, as well.)
I don't know how much you like Rodgers. I recall that you thought Ryan had more potential at the start of the year than Rodgers. And that's still very valid. I think that Rodgers is one of the best, already. You have Manning and Brady who are in a league of their own right now and then you have Favre, Rivers and Rodgers. And Rivers and Rodgers haven't entered their prime or are just doing so.
Of course, I'm going to get blasted for this green and gold goggle crap again, but I don't care. I'd pick Rodgers over Peterson any day of the week. Positional value gives the nod to Rodgers.
Darrelle Revis, Adrian Peterson, Patrick Willis, they're all A+ picks in the 2007 draft. That doesn't change the fact that I'd rather have Adrian Peterson than Patrick Willis.