So......

[inthecards21]

So, the Jags success has nothing to do with Garrard's 65% completion %, 93.2 QB rating (almost as good as Rodgers.) David Garrard also has a bad line, crap WRs, and was sacked just as much as Aaron Rodgers.

I'm still not sold - I say Garrard is just as good, maybe better than Aaron Rodgers.

Prove me wrong.

Teams prepare for Rodgers chucking the ball all game, while Teams prepare for MJD and the Jags running attack. so even with the whole defense focusing on him, Rodegrs still has better stats than garrard

 

[strahanfan92]

lol

 

[Primetime]

On my way to work. I'll be back around 1AM EST to see what's up.

 

[Nukleopatra]

Teams prepare for Rodgers chucking the ball all game, while Teams prepare for MJD and the Jags running attack. so even with the whole defense focusing on him, Rodegrs still has better stats than garrard

Empty stats don't really count for much, just look at Kyle Orton. He's putting up MVP stats, but would any of us take that hack as our starter? I wouldn't.

Also, Strahan, that top 10 wasn't a real list, other than Sam Bradford being listed. I was just trolling. I wouldn't put Aaron Rodgers that high on my list - he's probably 8th on my actual list, if that. Aaron Rodgers, for me, is about potential. That's all he has right now. I don't give a fuck what anyone says, he's not all that much better than David Garrard, who Prime laughed at.

Aaron Rodgers is like Matt Schaub, we'll base everything on what he can and might eventually do - but if we're going by right now, they haven't done jack or shit. The funniest part is - If Aaron Rodgers finishes second in his division behind Jay Cutler, people will consider that a bigger accomplishment than if David Garrard leads his team to a division title over the Colts.

 

[Nukleopatra]

On my way to work. I'll be back around 1AM EST to see what's up.

Is Aaron Rodgers becoming a better NFL quarterback at 1am?

 

[Colonel Angus]

Give it up already Nuk. Save a little face and just walk away. You still have my respect at this point.

 

[inthecards21]

Aaron Rodgers is like Matt Schaub, we'll base everything on what he can and might eventually do - but if we're going by right now, they haven't done jack or shit. The funniest part is - If Aaron Rodgers finishes second in his division behind Jay Cutler, people will consider that a bigger accomplishment than if David Garrard leads his team to a division title over the Colts.

This is what you always do with bradford, also aaron rodgers has much better accuracy and arm strength than garrard

 

[Nukleopatra]

This is what you always do with bradford, also aaron rodgers has much better accuracy and arm strength than garrard

That's what you do with rookie players.

When Aaron Rodgers pop his cherry and finally wins a playoff game, I'll consider him on the same level as David Garrard. Until then, it'll always be about what Rodgers doesn't have - great players do great things with less.

Aaron Rodgers isn't a great player.

 

[Colonel Angus]

And Rodgers has a lot right now?? He has a solid #1 in Jennings (who dropped a sure-fire TD today) and a 36 yr old diminishing Donald Driver AND NO RUNNING GAME.

 

[Nukleopatra]

And Rodgers has a lot right now?? He has a solid #1 in Jennings (who dropped a sure-fire TD today) and a 36 yr old diminishing Donald Driver AND NO RUNNING GAME.

Kurt Warner lead Arizona to the superbowl with one of the worst defenses in the NFL, and yes, the 32nd rank rushing attack. Kurt Warner is an example of ''greatness,'' something Aaron Rodgers isn't close to being. Aaron Rodgers, again, is far more comparable to David Garrard.

Again, this isn't about Sam Bradford, or even Kurt Warner. It's not even about trolling right now - before I vanish for weeks again, I want one good reason why Aaron Rodgers is so much better than David Garrard, that caused Prime to not only bold Garrards name, but laugh afterwards.

Now, give me one good reason, or just shut the fuck up. You guys were already trolled, might as well just finish this up on a serious note. David Garrard is just as good, if not better than Aaron Rodgers.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Colonel Angus]

I by no means wish to compare Rodgers to Warner. I thought we were comparing to Gerrard.

I honestly think if Rodgers had MJD in his backfield right now Rodgers would be regarded as a much better QB. I see Gerrard as a game manager and not much of a game changer. He takes what he can but you rarely see "wow" throws out of him. Rodgers on the other hand has a better skill set than Gerrard and has to carry the offense week in and week out instead of being a game manager like Gerrard.

Rodgers has yet to crumble and have a terrible game despite having to be the offense. Compare to guys like Cutler and Orton who are called on to do pretty much the same job that have good games some weeks but also have TERRIBLE weeks from time to time. Rodgers doesn't have terrible weeks.

 

[Nukleopatra]

I by no means wish to compare Rodgers to Warner. I thought we were comparing to Gerrard.

I honestly think if Rodgers had MJD in his backfield right now Rodgers would be regarded as a much better QB..

Perhaps - I guess it's unfair to ask you to explain Prime's stupidity. I mean, if I had the choice between the two, I'd take Rodgers, due to potential alone. However, I am baffled by Prime bolding Garrard's name and laughing at him, as if Aaron Rodgers is so much better than Garrard, that it's completely off the wall to even compare the two.

Coming into this week...

Aaron Rodgers - 65%, 23 TDs, 98 QB rating.
David Garrard - 65%, 20 TDs (Threw 3 more today.), 93 QB rating.

Career records...

Aaron Rodgers - 25-20, 0 playoff wins.
David Garrard - 39-36, 1 playoff win.

Neither guy all that impressive when it comes to victories. Maybe 98% of you would take Aaron Rodgers, as would I, but to laugh at the comparison, is ridiculous. I realize the cool thing to do with sports is to go by big names, and potential, and completely ignore what's important (winning,) but Aaron Rodgers is not a great NFL quarterback yet. Could he be? Of course. Do I expect him to be? As soon as he works on his pocket awareness, which is below average, and starts getting the ball out on time. Is he better than David Garrard, RIGHT NOW? I don't believe so. I did pick GB to get to the superbowl this season, so we'll see how it all comes down.

See you guys in a week or so....

 

[ram29jackson]

True enough... but I see jackasses listing Aaron Rodgers as high as #5. The guy was 17-15, 0 playoff wins, coming into 2010, and can't stop getting concussions. I'm just trying to figure out how a guy like that is top 5 material. Aaron Rodgers is barely a top 10 NFL quarterback right now.

I know why he's listed so high - his shoot out loss to hall of famer, Kurt Warner. It's pretty fucking sad when Kurt Warner has to carry both Arizona and Aaron Rodgers career on his shoulders.

thats what the pass friendly rules have brought. Guys with big numbers who may not be that good or consistant. But its hard to tell when everyone throws 3000 yards or better.

I am a Packer and Ram fan so its kind bitter sweet all around...but anything to see if the Vikings can still stay in the hunt is cool with me at this point haha

and I already have said that the Pack didnt appear that solid like when the Bears made it to the Superbowl. I was like..."how the heck did they get that far?"

 

[ram29jackson]

Kurt Warner lead Arizona to the superbowl with one of the worst defenses in the NFL, and yes, the 32nd rank rushing attack. Kurt Warner is an example of ''greatness,'' something Aaron Rodgers isn't close to being. Aaron Rodgers, again, is far more comparable to David Garrard.

Again, this isn't about Sam Bradford, or even Kurt Warner. It's not even about trolling right now - before I vanish for weeks again, I want one good reason why Aaron Rodgers is so much better than David Garrard, that caused Prime to not only bold Garrards name, but laugh afterwards.

Now, give me one good reason, or just shut the fuck up. You guys were already trolled, might as well just finish this up on a serious note. David Garrard is just as good, if not better than Aaron Rodgers.

Prove me wrong.

slightly unfair comparison. Warner came in to the league a man, completely battle tested and learned quick passes in the Arena League. Aaron just had a heck of a lot of film time and is relatively young

 

[FirstTimer]

People are still responding to threads Nuk starts about QB's?

 

[NAHSTE]

True enough... but I see jackasses listing Aaron Rodgers as high as #5. The guy was 17-15, 0 playoff wins, coming into 2010, and can't stop getting concussions. I'm just trying to figure out how a guy like that is top 5 material. Aaron Rodgers is barely a top 10 NFL quarterback right now..

:yep:

End this thread. And I don't mean close it, I just mean everyone should stop posting in it.

 

[Nukleopatra]

People are still responding to threads Nuk starts about QB's?

lulz.

 

[Nukleopatra]

:yep:




End this thread. And I don't mean close it, I just mean everyone should stop posting in it.

Pfft.

Fake. Aaron Rodgers that high is laughable, but no one called me on it, which isn't surprising, since it's VSN. Also notice how there's no black QBs, when Mike Vick is clearly better than Aarron Rodgers.

 

[packersfan4eva]

Aaron Rodgers...overrated? Of all things to call him, that's not one of them.

 

[packersfan4eva]

Mike Vick is clearly better than Aarron Rodgers.

Duh