RealGM

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Aaro ... far-111411

Jeez man, lighten up.

That article is a steaming pile of garbage.

What I read was "I'm old..rabble rabble rabble...I'm old"

None of these naysayers with their inflated stats argument can explain why Rodgers is so much better than every other QB right now.

Put any QB ever on this Packer team and do they have better stats? There are maybe a few guys.

Maybe Favre in his three MVP years, maybe Young, Elway, Brady, Manning and Marino. Maybe.

But that's why it's a debate... is because it's not a fact, it's a maybe. No one is saying Aaron Rodgers is the best QB to ever play the game. Longevity factors into that. What people are saying is that right now, in his prime, he's playing just as good as anyone else has ever played.

I don't see what's wrong with that, since it's true.

He shows some great credibility in his judgement with that whole Romo line:

When Tony Romo gutted out a victory over the Redskins despite playing with broken ribs, I was convinced he’d arrived as a championship quarterback. The next week, when he handed the Lions a victory with back-to-back pick-six interceptions, I was convinced Romo would never win another game. Romo is never who I thought he was.

Yeah, how about judging whether a guy is good or not good by his statistics and production? That's how I pick Super Bowl QBs, if the guy plays with injury. Instead, it looks like you overrated the intangibles of the game like a lot of sportswriters? Why don't you write an article about that?

Al Harris should be in the Hall of Fame for playing with appendicitis.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the game has changed so much that coaches have no choice but to be super aggressive offensively. Watching Smith and Coughlin make the same “stupid” decision —- a move we’ve seen Belichick make in recent years — caused me to reflect.

No, that wasn't the same decision, you idiot. Belichick's percentages actually favored going for it. It wasn't overtime, and they had a lead. A first down ended the game in a win, and not getting a first down guaranteed nothing in their case a few years ago in that Colts game where the decision in question happened.

Mike Smith's was so stupid. Getting a first down meant they still needed 40 yards for a FG to win. If they missed it, the game was in effect over.

Jason Whitlock wrote:Maybe I’m wrong.

You are.

emunney wrote:None of these naysayers with their inflated stats argument can explain why Rodgers is so much better than every other QB right now.

Whitlock claims his supporting cast has something to do with it, which is odd, because you never heard him or any members of the national media hyping his supporting cast prior to this with the every now and then exception of Jennings.

And of course last year, when his supporting cast was decimated by injuries...

I mean, I get it Rodgers isn't Montana or even Marino yet (career wise), and Luck certainly isn't Elway yet but this is just a horrible, horrible, horrible column.

Newz wrote:That article is a steaming pile of garbage.

Probably because it was written by a steaming pile of garbage.

I hate it how some people use A-Rod's great supporting cast as a knock on him while they never mention the weapons guys like Montana, Young, Manning, and Brady had. Each of them had one of the top receivers of all time at some point in their career, and while Jennings is amazing, he isn't quite at a Rice/Moss/Harrison level.

of all the years, isnt it more impressive this year. Ive never seen so many random results happen. Week by week the unexpected happens, but the one thing that stays consistent is the packers winning