Aaron Rodgers - Best season for a QB in Packers history?

Post #1 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sun Jan 3, 2010 11:16 pm

Just looking at the numbers is seems like Starr's '66 would be his closest competition.

What Rodgers has done, in just his second season as a starter, is absolutely remarkable.

an_also · Post #2 » by **an_also** » Sun Jan 3, 2010 11:20 pm

Rodgers has been great but I would still go with Favre's 96 campaign.

Post #3 » by **MickeyDavis** » Sun Jan 3, 2010 11:21 pm

Playoff wins mean more, so we'll see what happens starting next week. Great regular season though.

Thunder Muscle · Post #4 » by **Thunder Muscle** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 12:54 am

I guess we'll see what happens. Right now I'd go with Favre's 1996 season as well, and I am not a huge Favre guy at the moment. Maybe it has more to do with the fact of that team being the clear cut favorite all year and dominating most of that season, whereas this team was up and down, until the end. But statwise I guess its definitely in the convo.

Post #5 » by **paulpressey25** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 1:20 am

Favre's three MVP years are hard to beat. And three straight NFC championship game appearances with a 2-1 record.

This was a great year though for A-Rod. If he stays healthy and wins a Super Bowl he'll move into the Starr-Favre pantheon. The nice thing is that you can see he has the skills to be "that guy" for us for the next 5-6 years.

Kerb Hohl · Post #6 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 1:23 am

paulpressey25 wrote:Favre's three MVP years are hard to beat. And three straight NFC championship game appearances with a 2-1 record.

This was a great year though for A-Rod. If he stays healthy and wins a Super Bowl he'll move into the Starr-Favre pantheon. The nice thing is that you can see he has the skills to be "that guy" for us for the next 9-10 years.

Fixed.

Post #7 » by **paulpressey25** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 1:28 am

I think QB's not named Favre tend to get beat up and the play goes down as the years go by and hits keep coming. I think we've got a five year window of MVP caliber ball from A-Rod going forward.

But I think it would be a mistake to plan on a Favre like situation where you get 16-18 high caliber seasons from the guy. Or even 10-12 seasons.

Putting aside how this season ends, I think TT needs to go all-in the next two years with A-Rod. The future is now.

Post #8 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 1:42 am

paulpressey25 wrote:I think QB's not named Favre tend to get beat up and the play goes down as the years go by and hits keep coming. I think we've got a five year window of MVP caliber ball from A-Rod going forward.

But I think it would be a mistake to plan on a Favre like situation where you get 16-18 high caliber seasons from the guy. Or even 10-12 seasons.

Putting aside how this season ends, I think TT needs to go all-in the next two years with A-Rod. The future is now.

Go 'all-in'...how?

The Packers have a young core of guys that should be together for the better part of the next decade. I will be very surprised if there aren't a few Super Bowls this decade.

On the subject of where this performance ranks in Packers history, I agree that playoff wins mean something. But with a trip to the NFC Championship I wouldn't have any problem putting it #1.

His completion percentage is up there with Favre's best, he committed the fewest TOs by far, he's got the best yards per attempt, he easily rushed for more yards, he added five scores on the ground, two more than Favre's best.

Post #9 » by **paulpressey25** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 1:53 am

Don't suit up the youngest team in the NFL again next year. Spend some money. Get some vets on the line if needed even if you overpay.

I can't think of teams where their core of top 7 playmakers hung together more than four or five years before you needed to get a new core. Players like Woodson and Driver are still impact players at an advanced age but won't be beyond another season or two.

Kerb Hohl · Post #10 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 2:01 am

paulpressey25 wrote:Don't suit up the youngest team in the NFL again next year. Spend some money. Get some vets on the line if needed even if you overpay.

I can't think of teams where their core of top 7 playmakers hung together more than four or five years before you needed to get a new core. Players like Woodson and Driver are still impact players at an advanced age but won't be beyond another season or two.

Other than Randy Moss, Ted Thompson has gone out and spent for every possible guy he could get. He didn't deal for Gonzalez probably because he knew he had Finley waiting in the wings.

Look, 95% of successful NFL franchises in the past 2 decades built through the draft and small signings. New England got where it was with modest signings and mostly the draft. It's not like Thompson has actively tried to have the youngest team in football. The team will obviously not get much younger considering we have about 3 holes on the entire roster and most everybody locked up.

Ted is "going for it." You tell me too many other guys Ted could have nabbed in free agency that would have had the impact of Raji and Clay Matthews.

Ted is going for it right now. Maybe in another world trading a 1st round pick for Mike Vrabel or something would have been "going for it" but that would have only appeased all of the boneheads that wanted him fired. Moves like that would lead to a trajectory of 10-6 this year, 8-8, 6-10, etc. We'd be the Bears. A team with a QB in place (maybe Cutler sucks though) and no draft picks or excess money to sign the 1, maybe 2 free agents available in the entire NFL.

Newz · Post #11 » by **Newz** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 2:56 am

Free agency in the NFL = Ridiculously overrated.

Post #12 » by **MickeyDavis** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 3:10 am

Overrated but still essential to fill in a missing piece or two.

Kerb Hohl · Post #13 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 3:15 am

MickeyDavis wrote:Overrated but still essential to fill in a missing piece or two.

You find a free agent that will help us next year (or any team in the NFL) that will actually become a free agent, you let me know.

There is literally no one out there this coming year and while contributors are normally signed it is way too dangerous. So many contributors are unknown signings such as Chillar or a completely unexpected one like Woodson who wasn't expected to return to this form. And for every big-name signing that has paid off there are probably 4 or 5 that have burdened a franchise.

Post #14 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 3:42 am

1 - This year's FA class will be the worst of all time
2 - No one wants to come to GB (read that Woodson article)
3 - If an impact player does hit the open market, and I"m not sure that one exists, he'll have to want to come here AND play a position of need.

So you find me a CB or LT that's set to hit the open market.

Kerb Hohl · Post #15 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 3:46 am

The one thing we MIGHT be able to fill via FA is RB. And by that I mean a change of pace back.

In that group of free agents we have:
Sproles (probably will not hit FA)
Leon Washington (coming off a broken leg)
Jerious Norwood (coming off an injury-plagued season)

There are a few guys we could hit in the draft but if that doesn't work I'd take a shot on one of the bottom 2 guys that actually hit free agency.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #16 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 3:52 am

GrendonJennings wrote:The one thing we MIGHT be able to fill via FA is RB. And by that I mean a change of pace back.

In that group of free agents we have:
Sproles (probably will not hit FA)
Leon Washington (coming off a broken leg)
Jerious Norwood (coming off an injury-plagued season)

There are a few guys we could hit in the draft but if that doesn't work I'd take a shot on one of the bottom 2 guys that actually hit free agency.

I'd also like to bring in one of the bottom 2 guys. I've always been a fan of Norwood, he just seems to get hurt too often. We could probably sign these guys cheap enough that if they disappointed in camp we could easily cut them.

MadCityBucky · Post #17 » by **MadCityBucky** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 3:54 am

I'd like to sign those backs but I think other teams will bid high enough that TT will lose interest. I'd look to the draft for a explosive HB/KR. Only in the third round or later though. Top priority should be resigning players.

Back on topic, this was a fantastic regular season for Aaron. Hopefully a Superbowl is coming sooner rather than later

I think the broadcasters also mentioned that the Packers are the first team with a QB with 4000+ yards, 1200 yard rusher and 2 1000 yard receivers

Kerb Hohl · Post #18 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 4:01 am

MadCityBucky wrote:
I think the broadcasters also mentioned that the Packers are the first team with a QB with 4000+ yards, 1200 yard rusher and 2 1000 yard receivers

It was the first time it happened 2 years in a row.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #19 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 6:17 pm

Brent's first 2 MVP years and Rodgers first two years as a starter...

Player Years W-L Pct. Yards TD Int. Sacks Rush Yds-TD Rating
Favre 1995-96 24-8 .750 8,312 77 26 73 317-5 97.7
Rodgers 2008-09 17-15 .531 8,237 58 20 84 523-9 98.5

From Peter King's article...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/01/03/mmqb/3.html

Newz · Post #20 » by **Newz** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 6:19 pm

PackBuckGophZag wrote:Player Years W-L Pct. Yards TD Int. Sacks Rush Yds-TD Rating
Favre 1995-96 24-8 .750 8,312 77 26 73 317-5 97.7
Rodgers 2008-09 17-15 .531 8,237 58 20 84 523-9 98.5

That's a big difference in TDs (and wins), wow. 77 TDs in two years is pretty crazy.