ATL: Wild Card Round

[trwi7]

So minus the QB right now, who do you think has a stronger team right now, the colts or the packers. Packers right?
This playoffs will tell us a lot.
Luck is 1-0
Lets just compare over the next few weeks.
The packers have home field advantage and have the better roster, Aaron has is knocked up a bit.
Luck has to play against the current GOAT at home.
Lets see how this plays out.

I hope I am wrong and Rodgers throws for 1200 yds and 12 TD's over the next 3 games.

The Packers could lose against Dallas and the Colts could win the Super Bowl... I still wouldn't say that Luck is better than Rodgers, because it wouldn't be true.

Joe Flacco is Rodgers' equal. Same number of Super Bowl wins but Flacco has been better lately in the playoffs.

[Lippo]

Ahhh yes it kinda would unless your using the hammy as an excuse, going 4-0 with Luck's supporting cast.. I bet the Pack are 7 point favorites and Colts 7 point underdogs.
Do you agree ARod has a better supporting cast than Luck? Mathews vs Walden, Lacy vs Herron, Nelson vs Hilton, Cobb vs Wayne. etc

Joe Flacco won the Super Bowl and played out of his mind in the playoffs a couple of years ago. Is he better than Andrew Luck and Aaron Rodgers?

Yes, the Packers supporting cast is superior to the Colts. The NFC is also a superior conference to the AFC. The best team doesn't always win the Super Bowl and the best player doesn't always play the best in every given playoffs.

You want to base who a better player is off of a 1-4 game sample size. I'm not sure how to explain to you why that is a really stupid thing to do. It just seems like common sense to me.

You obviously think rating is more important than yds and tds, romo impresses you, I think what luck did this year with zero running game is incredible. Imagine the cowboys without dez and demarco , that's the Colts.. rating is a scewed by not having to play catch up, not having play action threat of run, Rodgers as much as I love him seems like the kind of guy that wouldn't want to throw hail Mary at the end of a half cause it might tarnish his td:int ratio

[Kerb Hohl]

Luck has a running game, they chose to sabotage it with Richardson 50% of the time as well as the fact that they historically throw it the most since Luck came in.

[trwi7]

Rodgers as much as I love him seems like the kind of guy that wouldn't want to throw hail Mary at the end of a half cause it might tarnish his td:int ratio

[Newz]

You obviously think rating is more important than yds and tds, romo impresses you, I think what luck did this year with zero running game is incredible. Imagine the cowboys without dez and demarco , that's the Colts.. rating is a scewed by not having to play catch up, not having play action threat of run, Rodgers as much as I love him seems like the kind of guy that wouldn't want to throw hail Mary at the end of a half cause it might tarnish his td:int ratio

Romo does impress me, he's a top 10 QB. Luck impresses me, he is also a top 10 QB. Romo was better than Luck this year.

Aaron Rodgers was better than both of them.

Aaron Rodgers doesn't have to play catch-up very often because he often has his team ahead on the scoreboard. Note how he didn't play in multiple 4th quarters this year because he obliterated the other team to the point where the game wasn't even close.

Also, do you remember when Aaron Rodgers had no running game? Do you remember when he had offensive line problems and was sacked like 50 times in one season? Yeah, I do too. He was still significantly better than Andrew Luck has been up to this point.

Also, why would you value bulk yards and TDs over overall efficiency? And if you just want to look at yards and TDs... Romo threw 6 less TDs, but also threw 7 less INTs than Luck. Rodgers threw 2 less TDs than Luck, but threw 11 less INTs AND Rodgers sat out multiple fourth quarters this year.

Luck threw two more TDs than Rodgers and he had nearly 100 more passing attempts.

[HKPackFan]

I am the biggest AROD homer out there and I hate Luck, but he is fantastic.

Huh?

you can't hate someone and still acknowledge they are great?
or the homer part?, I was crying for the Pack to trade Favre the sec Rodgers feel to us, I has crying for him to start for 3 years, I was getting into arguements like this saying he will be better than Favre to all the Packer homers on footballsfuture and about.com for 3 years getting ripped on and called crazy , just like I am now for thinking Luck is or at least will be better than Rodgers in the end. Luck just has a toughness, and isn't as arrogant as Arod. He will likely end up with 2-3 rings and yardage and td records. I am not sure if qb rating will be a huge thing going forward, but right now if you google nfl all time passing leaders, rating doesn't come up, its an advanced stat.

Huh!?! Did you even watch Rodgers in 2005/2006 preseason? He was awful. He was so terrible, which is not uncommon for young QBs. I remember watching him in 2007 preseason and finally thinking...OK, he's finally reached Mr. August level like Matt Hassleback and some of our previous backups used to have great preseasons. But in 05/06 he was pretty bad.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=250820002

Rookie first-round draft pick Aaron Rodgers struggled taking over for Favre. He finished 4-of-9 for 21 yards and an interception in four series.

Without Favre, the Packers managed a mere 108 yards offense the rest of the game.

I'm not going to go through the box scores from all 05/06 preseason games but I recall Rodgers was raw and needed work. He absolutely benefited from sitting for a couple years. He may have been ready around '07 but Favre pulled off an almost MVP renaissance that year getting 1 play away from the SuperBowl.

Starting Rodgers in 05 makes zero sense at all, especially considering the Pack had a pretty decent QB under center.

[rilamann]

I remember my very first impression of Rodgers in the '05 pre-season was..''ok,I see why he slipped in the draft.''

But yeah the '07 pre-season and then that game against Dallas ironically when he came in for Favre was when he opened everyone's eyes.

[ACGB]

So there are still people who value bulk stats and team success when evaluating Quarterbacks in 2015. That's interesting.

[El Duderino]

I remember my very first impression of Rodgers in the '05 pre-season was..''ok,I see why he slipped in the draft.''

But yeah the '07 pre-season and then that game against Dallas ironically when he came in for Favre was when he opened everyone's eyes.

Yea his throwing motion had to be changed pretty dramatically from the way Tedford at Cal had all of his quarterbacks throw. In fact, that is one reason Aaron slipped. Previous Tedford quarterbacks had been mostly busts. It took time between Rodgers and McCarthy working on his throwing mechanics from the way it was when he was drafted to how it became after a few years.

Had Aaron instead been drafted by the 49ers or another team where he was pushed on the field right away vs having time to work with McCarthy on altering his throwing mechanics as much as he did with the Packers, he may never have become the HOF quarterback he's become.

In the NFL, who a quarterback gets drafted by, how he's coached, the stability of the organization, and the talent around him when first put on the field can all impact how that guy develops. I still recall McGinn writing a column about Rodgers as his first training camp was wrapping up and both McGinn and unnamed people in the Packers organization having serious concerns as to whether Rodgers might be a bust. Now he's already a lock for the HOF. Credit to him for for working his butt off and being receptive to coaching which was asking him to drastically overhaul his throwing mechanics. Some in his place may have resisted that being a first round pick who had lots of success throwing how he had in college.

[HKPackFan]

I remember my very first impression of Rodgers in the '05 pre-season was..''ok,I see why he slipped in the draft.''

But yeah the '07 pre-season and then that game against Dallas ironically when he came in for Favre was when he opened everyone's eyes.

Yea his throwing motion had to be changed pretty dramatically from the way Tedford at Cal had all of his quarterbacks throw. In fact, that is one reason Aaron slipped. Previous Tedford quarterbacks had been mostly busts. It took time between Rodgers and McCarthy working on his throwing mechanics from the way it was when he was drafted to how it became after a few years.

Had Aaron instead been drafted by the 49ers or another team where he was pushed on the field right away vs having time to work with McCarthy on altering his throwing mechanics as much as he did with the Packers, he may never have become the HOF quarterback he's become.

In the NFL, who a quarterback gets drafted by, how he's coached, the stability of the organization, and the talent around him when first put on the field can all impact how that guy develops. I still recall McGinn writing a column about Rodgers as his first training camp was wrapping up and both McGinn and unnamed people in the Packers organization having serious concerns as to whether Rodgers might be a bust. Now he's already a lock for the HOF. Credit to him for for working his butt off and being receptive to coaching which was asking him to drastically overhaul his throwing mechanics. Some in his place may have resisted that being a first round pick who had lots of success throwing how he had in college.

Absolutely. Besides making rookie mistakes like staring down receivers, I remember watching him step back and stand in the pocket with the football raised next to his ear, thinking, WTF is that!? Why is he holding the ball next to his ear, damnit Tedford!





This is a pretty good article talking about Rodgers first couple of years in the NFL. Good to see a lot of those Scouts were wrong, but he was nowhere near ready his first couple of years.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/ ... 56133.html

Snip:

As a rookie, Rodgers' six substantial outings included a scrimmage against Buffalo, four exhibition games and the fourth quarter of a December night game in Baltimore.

He was brutal every time out.

In each of the exhibition games, Brett Favre started before turning it over to Rodgers. Until his 20th and final series, when the Packers scored a touchdown in Tennessee with the aid of a 33-yard penalty for pass interference, Rodgers had not generated a point. Sixteen possessions ended with punts, two on interceptions and one on a fumble.

If the No. 2 quarterback job had been awarded based on performance in training camp and games, it would have gone to Craig Nall hands-down.

Against the Ravens, Rodgers threw an interception, fumbled twice and was sacked three times.

As the 2006 draft drew near, Rodgers told NFL Network that he had heard the rumors of the Packers possibly selecting a quarterback with the No. 5 selection in a move that would likely end his career in Green Bay. Ted Thompson, the general manager who had drafted Rodgers with the No. 24 pick the year before, didn't rule it out.

A month before the draft, a panel of 18 personnel men were asked to compare Rodgers against that year's quarterback pool led by Matt Leinart, Vince Young and Jay Cutler. Not only didn't Rodgers draw any first-place votes, he had only one second and three thirds. Eleven scouts put him fourth, and three others even had him behind Brodie Croyle and Charlie Whitehurst.

Snip:

Last week, that same scout said, "After his second preseason, if they had released him, I don't know that anybody would have been shocked. I mean, he wasn't a very good player. He couldn't make a play."

Once again, Thompson said he wouldn't rule out drafting a quarterback. In April 2007, 12 of 18 scouts said Brady Quinn was a better prospect than Rodgers.

Snip:

According to many personnel people, Rodgers didn't have much feel in the pocket. Either he would bolt prematurely or he would hold the ball too long. His timing was off, his running was rather ineffective and his accuracy was disappointing, too.

He also kept fumbling the ball, seven times (four lost) in his first three exhibition seasons.

Rodgers was just 21, three years removed from his high school graduation, when his pro career began. He came across as overly self-assured and a little too slick. Even though Favre had been excused by Sherman, Rodgers tried to be funny by calling the three-time MVP "lazy" for not attending a minicamp in May 2005.

Far worse were the numerous cases in which Rodgers seemed to show up teammates by gesturing toward them after bad plays as if he were never the one at fault.


It goes on to say Rodgers got quite humbled and turned things around by summer of '07 and never looked back and kept improving his game every year after. It's a great story to look back on, but anyone who remembers clearly, Rodgers was not close to being ready his first couple of seasons.

[Lippo]

You obviously think rating is more important than yds and tds, romo impresses you, I think what luck did this year with zero running game is incredible. Imagine the cowboys without dez and demarco , that's the Colts.. rating is a scewed by not having to play catch up, not having play action threat of run, Rodgers as much as I love him seems like the kind of guy that wouldn't want to throw hail Mary at the end of a half cause it might tarnish his td:int ratio

Romo does impress me, he's a top 10 QB. Luck impresses me, he is also a top 10 QB. Romo was better than Luck this year.

Aaron Rodgers was better than both of them.

Aaron Rodgers doesn't have to play catch-up very often because he often has his team ahead on the scoreboard. Note how he didn't play in multiple 4th quarters this year because he obliterated the other team to the point where the game wasn't even close.

Also, do you remember when Aaron Rodgers had no running game? Do you remember when he had offensive line problems and was sacked like 50 times in one season? Yeah, I do too. He was still significantly better than Andrew Luck has been up to this point.

Also, why would you value bulk yards and TDs over overall efficiency? And if you just want to look at yards and TDs... Romo threw 6 less TDs, but also threw 7 less INTs than Luck. Rodgers threw 2 less TDs than Luck, but threw 11 less INTs AND Rodgers sat out multiple fourth quarters this year.

Luck threw two more TDs than Rodgers and he had nearly 100 more passing attempts.

Forsett was the more efficient RB
Matavious Bryant was the better than Brown, he was more efficient.

Just like the NBA its gets harder to be efficient when your volume increases.

[Lippo]

Rodgers took over a 13-3 team and went 6-10, 11-5, 10-6
Luck took over a 2-14 team and went 11-5, 11-5, 11-5

Luck had a better first 48 games than Rodgers did.
As you stated AROD would have failed if he started right away, mechanics, etc. Luck did this at the age Arod was taking him time fixing his mechanics.

[Newz]

You obviously think rating is more important than yds and tds, romo impresses you, I think what luck did this year with zero running game is incredible. Imagine the cowboys without dez and demarco , that's the Colts.. rating is a scewed by not having to play catch up, not having play action threat of run, Rodgers as much as I love him seems like the kind of guy that wouldn't want to throw hail Mary at the end of a half cause it might tarnish his td:int ratio

Romo does impress me, he's a top 10 QB. Luck impresses me, he is also a top 10 QB. Romo was better than Luck this year.

Aaron Rodgers was better than both of them.

Aaron Rodgers doesn't have to play catch-up very often because he often has his team ahead on the scoreboard. Note how he didn't play in multiple 4th quarters this year because he obliterated the other team to the point where the game wasn't even close.

Also, do you remember when Aaron Rodgers had no running game? Do you remember when he had offensive line problems and was sacked like 50 times in one season? Yeah, I do too. He was still significantly better than Andrew Luck has been up to this point.

Also, why would you value bulk yards and TDs over overall efficiency? And if you just want to look at yards and TDs... Romo threw 6 less TDs, but also threw 7 less INTs than Luck. Rodgers threw 2 less TDs than Luck, but threw 11 less INTs AND Rodgers sat out multiple fourth quarters this year.

Luck threw two more TDs than Rodgers and he had nearly 100 more passing attempts.

so Forsett had a better year than Murray, Murray just had more carries.

Good lord. Forsett was more efficient in the carries he had. RB is a different animal than QB and the situations are completely different.

First of all Forsett did have a higher YPC than DeMarco. If he would have been able to keep up that level of production with the extra carries then yes, you could say that he had as good of a year as DeMarco Murray. One of the most important traits for an every down back or a guy that you can constantly use is durability. DeMarco was able to stay healthy with the extra carries, Forsett is a smaller guy and thus has to fill a different role.

In addition I find it amusing that you use DeMarco Murray for examples. He had the most bulk stats this year, but if you listen to just about any NFL program no one is really saying he is the best back in the league. That honor tends to go to Le'Veon Bell. Running back is also a position that is more heavily impacted by other positions on the team... primarily offensive line. If they give them no where to run, the running back is obviously going to be terrible.

This is a good example of why teams do not value running back nearly as high as they used to. It's why running backs, unless they are unbelievably gifted, just don't go in the first round of the draft anymore. Because guys like Justin Forsett can produce like guys like DeMarco Murray in the right situations.

Aaron Rodgers is literally better than Andrew Luck in every way besides bulk touchdowns and bulk yardage. If he had played in the 3-4 fourth quarters that he sat out because the Packers had already obliterated the other team, then he would have beat him in those statistics as well.

If you really need proof you can look here:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RodgAa00.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LuckAn00.htm

Rodgers is better than him at everything and has been for a while. If you think Luck is better because he throws 2 more TD passes in 100 more attempts and for more yardage... then I have absolutely no idea what to tell you other than you need to educate yourself not only on football, but you need to catch up on your basic math skills as well.

Are QBs impacted by their supporting cast? They certainly are. But you can look back on years where Rodgers was sacked 50 times and had absolutely no running game... he was still a more efficient and better player than Andrew Luck.

You literally have no argument besides "Well he threw for more yards and more touchdowns". You put no critical thinking into your analysis at all. Your opinion is based off of arguments like "Sure, Rodgers is better than Luck... but if they swapped teams we would win more games with Luck.", "We should look at this years playoff success as to who is better" and "Yeah, sure, he threw 100 more passes... BUT HE HAD 2 MORE TOUCHDOWNS!!!1!!1!1"

You must think Drew Brees is the greatest quarterback ever. That dude threw a metric **** ton of passes and put up better bulk stats than most guys for years. He must be the best ever.

I'm not even sure why I am still having this conversation. You are so clueless that it is actually annoying me.

[Newz]

Rodgers took over a 13-3 team and went 6-10, 11-5, 10-6
Luck took over a 2-14 team and went 11-5, 11-5, 11-5

Luck had a better first 48 games than Rodgers did.
As you stated AROD would have failed if he started right away, mechanics, etc. Luck did this at the age Arod was taking him time fixing his mechanics.

Where did anyone in this thread say that Luck isn't a very good player? Where did anyone say that he has no chance of being as good or better than Rodgers at some point?

He isn't better than him now. There is literally a 0% chance that we win more games with Andrew Luck than Aaron Rodgers at this point.

[Newz]

Just like the NBA its gets harder to be efficient when your volume increases.

So your opinion is if Rodgers had to throw 100 more passes this year he wouldn't have been able to throw 2 more TDs... and he would have thrown 11 more INTs... and his efficiency would have went into the tank?

Is that your honest opinion or are you just not thinking about what you are saying at all?

[bcl20]

As already noted, Rodgers got to throw a lot less passes because there were games where they obliterated teams, mostly because of him. He wouldn't likely have 100 more attempts but he'd likely have quite a but more but he put himself in a position where he didn't have to.

Also,using wins and losses to judge an individual player is an awful thing to do.

[Lippo]

Huh?

you can't hate someone and still acknowledge they are great?
or the homer part?, I was crying for the Pack to trade Favre the sec Rodgers feel to us, I has crying for him to start for 3 years, I was getting into arguements like this saying he will be better than Favre to all the Packer homers on footballsfuture and about.com for 3 years getting ripped on and called crazy , just like I am now for thinking Luck is or at least will be better than Rodgers in the end. Luck just has a toughness, and isn't as arrogant as Arod. He will likely end up with 2-3 rings and yardage and td records. I am not sure if qb rating will be a huge thing going forward, but right now if you google nfl all time passing leaders, rating doesn't come up, its an advanced stat.

Huh!?! Did you even watch Rodgers in 2005/2006 preseason? He was awful. He was so terrible, which is not uncommon for young QBs. I remember watching him in 2007 preseason and finally thinking...OK, he's finally reached Mr. August level like Matt Hassleback and some of our previous backups used to have great preseasons. But in 05/06 he was pretty bad.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=250820002

Rookie first-round draft pick Aaron Rodgers struggled taking over for Favre. He finished 4-of-9 for 21 yards and an interception in four series.

Without Favre, the Packers managed a mere 108 yards offense the rest of the game.

I'm not going to go through the box scores from all 05/06 preseason games but I recall Rodgers was raw and needed work. He absolutely benefited from sitting for a couple years. He may have been ready around '07 but Favre pulled off an almost MVP renaissance that year getting 1 play away from the SuperBowl.

Starting Rodgers in 05 makes zero sense at all, especially considering the Pack had a pretty decent QB under center.

Turned out ok, I was just sick of Favre playing great every season just to start winging it in the playoffs and throw 2-3 picks in game year after year. I guess the Colts could have went that route as well and had Luck play behind Manning for 3-4 seasons, I just prefer letting the young QB's play and learn under fire, the great ones make it through.

[Lippo]

You obviously think rating is more important than yds and tds, romo impresses you, I think what luck did this year with zero running game is incredible. Imagine the cowboys without dez and demarco , that's the Colts.. rating is a scewed by not having to play catch up, not having play action threat of run, Rodgers as much as I love him seems like the kind of guy that wouldn't want to throw hail Mary at the end of a half cause it might tarnish his td:int ratio

Romo does impress me, he's a top 10 QB. Luck impresses me, he is also a top 10 QB. Romo was better than Luck this year.

Aaron Rodgers was better than both of them.

Aaron Rodgers doesn't have to play catch-up very often because he often has his team ahead on the scoreboard. Note how he didn't play in multiple 4th quarters this year because he obliterated the other team to the point where the game wasn't even close.

Also, do you remember when Aaron Rodgers had no running game? Do you remember when he had offensive line problems and was sacked like 50 times in one season? Yeah, I do too. He was still significantly better than Andrew Luck has been up to this point.

Also, why would you value bulk yards and TDs over overall efficiency? And if you just want to look at yards and TDs... Romo threw 6 less TDs, but also threw 7 less INTs than Luck. Rodgers threw 2 less TDs than Luck, but threw 11 less INTs AND Rodgers sat out multiple fourth quarters this year.

Luck threw two more TDs than Rodgers and he had nearly 100 more passing attempts.

I take it back Romo doesnt suck, he is an NFL QB, of course he is talented, just Like Brandon Knight is a starting PG in the NBA, of course he doesn't suck, but i hear it 30 times a week on the Bucks forums.

[Newz]

Lippo,

I would keep responding to you... but you are the worst. Maybe someone else will continue to respond to your ridiculous posts. I'm going to stop wasting my time though.