Aaron Rodgers/Brian Brohm Dynasty Rankings (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

Here are the QB dynasty rankings by the 4 staff members who ranked them:

Rodgers - 18, 17, 14, 13

Brohm - 22, 24, 36, 26

I'm pretty surprised by the high rankings given to Rodgers, but even more surprised by that very high rankings are also given to Brohm by the same people.

Realistically there's no way that Brohm is a top-30 QB is you believe Rodgers is a top-20 QB. If Rodgers is legit, then Brohm will be sitting on the bench for at a couple years, if not more.

It just seems to me that staff *want* to believe Rodgers is a real franchise QB, but can't convince themselves so they covering their bases by ranking Brohm high.

 

[T Bell]

Here are the QB dynasty rankings by the 4 staff members who ranked them:Rodgers - 18, 17, 14, 13Brohm - 22, 24, 36, 26I'm pretty surprised by the high rankings given to Rodgers, but even more surprised by that very high rankings are also given to Brohm by the same people. Realistically there's no way that Brohm is a top-30 QB is you believe Rodgers is a top-20 QB. If Rodgers is legit, then Brohm will be sitting on the bench for at a couple years, if not more.It just seems to me that staff *want* to believe Rodgers is a real franchise QB, but can't convince themselves so they covering their bases by ranking Brohm high.

It's always been unclear to me who believes that rankings should indicate market value (meaning essentially, in trade) versus predictions of actual on-field performance by the player. The two are very similar, but are definitely not the same. The best example of that dichotomy is what we witnessed with Michael Turner over the last four years. Anyway, Brohm's high rankings would seem to be necessarily explained either by those being rankings of market value, or predictions by people that Rodgers will bust. I don't see another explanation.

 

[Fighting Noles]

I think injury concerns with Rodgers could be the reason....For example, on a PPG basis they may feel that Rodgers is an adequate QB2 but they may also feel that Brohm is a good fit in the west coast O that GB runs and should he get the Opp. (which may be better than some backups due to injury risk) then he would be good on a PPG basis also (& possibly show enough to handle the job long term)....The team has a lot of offensive weapons and I could see the situation being similar to Arizona if Warner was 33 instead of 37. Couldn't some guys have Leinart around 18-20 & Warner low 20s' (26-29) since if either was in there they should put up decent PPG #'s with those WRs' (I'm not arguing whether Leinart will ever "get it", just the situation)....Just my thoughts, since I have them similar since I think Brohm could have more upside than the QBs ranked in the 30s (guys who would just get you pts. at the position but never have a "shot" at being a difference maker for your team IMO)....

 

[bcr8f]

It all has to do with Rodgers and injury and the weapons GB has on offense.

What were the rankings when Priest was coming back from injury and rookie Larry Johnson was backing him up?

 

[snorlax]

Rodgers will succeed if he stays healthy; he is also currently playing on just a 2-year deal and could be a free agent if he doesn't like the money he's getting from the Packers. That being said, I think it's definitely more likely that he stays with the team longterm.

The more likely option is that Brohm would be traded into a likely starting job. It's certainly happened before that a QB drafted by GB was traded to be a starter (e.g. Hasselbeck, Brooks). I think one of the most likely spots might be to Seattle in two years to be the successor to Hasselbeck. I think that would be kind of poetic in a way.

 

[bcr8f]

Rodgers will succeed if he stays healthy; he is also currently playing on just a 2-year deal and could be a free agent if he doesn't like the money he's getting from the Packers. That being said, I think it's definitely more likely that he stays with the team longterm.The more likely option is that Brohm would be traded into a likely starting job. It's certainly happened before that a QB drafted by GB was traded to be a starter (e.g. Hasselbeck, Brooks). I think one of the most likely spots might be to Seattle in two years to be the successor to Hasselbeck. I think that would be kind of poetic in a way.

Don't forget Brunell. He was traded too

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

The situation in GB has to be one premier spots for fantasy quarterbacks. Three young receivers, plus Driver, and young TEs, offer quite a bit of potential production at a low price. If you are in a dynasty startup, and draft Rodgers and Brohm in the spots corresponding to the rankings, you should come out way ahead.

HyperActive III just had its initial dynasty draft. Using the median for both of QB15 and QB25, it is easy to see the bargain in having the Packer QB combo as a fantasy QB2. QB15 went pick 10.01. QB25 was actually Brohm and was drafted at pick 13.09. For a QB2, this pair of young passers is a great value.

Those that take advantage of this bargain this offseason will be ecstatic next. Granted, neither is Brett Favre, but it is difficult to name more than a handful of better situations.

 

[moderated]

The situation in GB has to be one premier spots for fantasy quarterbacks. Three young receivers, plus Driver, and young TEs, offer quite a bit of potential production at a low price. If you are in a dynasty startup, and draft Rodgers and Brohm in the spots corresponding to the rankings, you should come out way ahead. HyperActive III just had its initial dynasty draft. Using the median for both of QB15 and QB25, it is easy to see the bargain in having the Packer QB combo as a fantasy QB2. QB15 went pick 10.01. QB25 was actually Brohm and was drafted at pick 13.09. For a QB2, this pair of young passers is a great value.Those that take advantage of this bargain this offseason will be ecstatic next. Granted, neither is Brett Favre, but it is difficult to name more than a handful of better situations.

lock em both up in a dynasty league and your gonna end up with a solid starter down the road.

 

[Routilla]

Rodgers is gonna be good as I've seen him under center in real game action. Brohm hasn't done anything and may not get a chance in GB unless Rodgers gets hurt. That being said I guess if you have limitless rosters then stashing Brohm is not a bad idea. I couldn't roster him in my league unless I cut a starter/backup that plays.

 

[Kirby]

How about

Anderson 11 11 9 9

Quinn 26 25 29 29

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Go back to Brees/Rivers. This happens all the time and it's not necessarily bad to like two from one team in dynasty. Too much can happen.

The forward thinkers in dynasty are the ones who win championships.

 

[anakin]

Go back to Brees/Rivers. This happens all the time and it's not necessarily bad to like two from one team in dynasty. Too much can happen.The forward thinkers in dynasty are the ones who win championships.

Well stated

 

[sholditch]

Rodgers will succeed if he stays healthy; he is also currently playing on just a 2-year deal and could be a free agent if he doesn't like the money he's getting from the Packers. That being said, I think it's definitely more likely that he stays with the team longterm.The more likely option is that Brohm would be traded into a likely starting job. It's certainly happened before that a QB drafted by GB was traded to be a starter (e.g. Hasselbeck, Brooks). I think one of the most likely spots might be to Seattle in two years to be the successor to Hasselbeck. I think that would be kind of poetic in a way.

Don't forget Brunell. He was traded too

Don't you attribute at least a little of those QB's success to being backups to one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game? I bet the tutelage one receives under a guy who has held a clipboard his entire career doesn't quite match up to Favre.

 

[T Bell]

Rodgers will succeed if he stays healthy; he is also currently playing on just a 2-year deal and could be a free agent if he doesn't like the money he's getting from the Packers. That being said, I think it's definitely more likely that he stays with the team longterm.

The more likely option is that Brohm would be traded into a likely starting job. It's certainly happened before that a QB drafted by GB was traded to be a starter (e.g. Hasselbeck, Brooks). I think one of the most likely spots might be to Seattle in two years to be the successor to Hasselbeck. I think that would be kind of poetic in a way.

Don't forget Brunell. He was traded too

Don't you attribute at least a little of those QB's success to being backups to one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game? I bet the tutelage one receives under a guy who has held a clipboard his entire career doesn't quite match up to Favre.

Yeah, 'cause Brett always was a tremendous mentor. He sure loooooooooooooved to teach, that boy did!

 

[sholditch]

I'm no Packer fan and have no idea, but if you think being able to watch one of the game's greats in action week in, week out, had no effect on the development of Hasselbeck or Brooks, I think you're being just a little delusional. Granted, the words "Brooks" and "development" probably don't belong in the same sentence.

 

[T Bell]

I'm no Packer fan and have no idea, but if you think being able to watch one of the game's greats in action week in, week out, had no effect on the development of Hasselbeck or Brooks, I think you're being just a little delusional. Granted, the words "Brooks" and "development" probably don't belong in the same sentence.

I think the benefits that rookie QB's can get from the sidelines (obviously with good studying and work on their part) is routinely underestimated. Obviously, that diminishes over time and you need to take the field at some point to complete your NFL education as a QB. The problem with Brett is that 1) he rejected, expressly, the notion that he was anyone's mentor, and in interviews I've heard his former understudies say that he was always harsh with them; and 2) Brett was so unconventional in his approach to the way that the position was played that I have my doubts about how much you could learn from him beyond some very basic stuff. To the extent any former Packers understudy benefitted, I'm positive that far more benefit came from playing under Holmgren than from playing under Favre.

 

[Todem]

I love Brohms long term dynasty prospects. I am in the camp that see's this as his job as early as this year if Rodgers proves frail. If not and Rodgers is a success then I would be stashing Brohm on your roster. He has both an NFL arm and head and has great size for a QB. I expect him to be a success. I think GB's system is a perfect fit for him as well.

 

[cstu]

Go back to Brees/Rivers. This happens all the time and it's not necessarily bad to like two from one team in dynasty. Too much can happen.The forward thinkers in dynasty are the ones who win championships.

Brees wasn't highly ranked in dynasty until after he had a Pro Bowl season. It was a much different situation than GB today with a 1st year starter (from a college program well-known for producing QB busts) and a rookie QB drafted in the 2nd round who is a former possible #1 pick.Rodgers is completely unproven and ranked high based on the talent around him. If injuries and losing his job are reasons for ranking Brohm so highly, why is he ranked higher than a lot of good proven QB's (especially Rivers)? In regards to the Anderson/Quinn rankings, I understand Anderson's ranking because he proved that he can produce top QB numbers. Rodgers has one game with meaningful playing time (a loss) and 1 career TD.If you're a believer in Brohm then I think it's poor drafting to take Rodgers/Brohm simply because you think you'll get one good QB out of them (not to mention that you'll be forced to take Brohm higher in order to secure him if you've already drafted Rodgers).

 

[sholditch]

I'm no Packer fan and have no idea, but if you think being able to watch one of the game's greats in action week in, week out, had no effect on the development of Hasselbeck or Brooks, I think you're being just a little delusional. Granted, the words "Brooks" and "development" probably don't belong in the same sentence.

I think the benefits that rookie QB's can get from the sidelines (obviously with good studying and work on their part) is routinely underestimated. Obviously, that diminishes over time and you need to take the field at some point to complete your NFL education as a QB. The problem with Brett is that 1) he rejected, expressly, the notion that he was anyone's mentor, and in interviews I've heard his former understudies say that he was always harsh with them; and 2) Brett was so unconventional in his approach to the way that the position was played that I have my doubts about how much you could learn from him beyond some very basic stuff. To the extent any former Packers understudy benefitted, I'm positive that far more benefit came from playing under Holmgren than from playing under Favre.

Well, since both are now gone, I think we can put to rest the notion that GB is an above-average spot to cut your teeth as a QB.

 

[T Bell]

I'm no Packer fan and have no idea, but if you think being able to watch one of the game's greats in action week in, week out, had no effect on the development of Hasselbeck or Brooks, I think you're being just a little delusional. Granted, the words "Brooks" and "development" probably don't belong in the same sentence.

I think the benefits that rookie QB's can get from the sidelines (obviously with good studying and work on their part) is routinely underestimated. Obviously, that diminishes over time and you need to take the field at some point to complete your NFL education as a QB. The problem with Brett is that 1) he rejected, expressly, the notion that he was anyone's mentor, and in interviews I've heard his former understudies say that he was always harsh with them; and 2) Brett was so unconventional in his approach to the way that the position was played that I have my doubts about how much you could learn from him beyond some very basic stuff. To the extent any former Packers understudy benefitted, I'm positive that far more benefit came from playing under Holmgren than from playing under Favre.

Well, since both are now gone, I think we can put to rest the notion that GB is an above-average spot to cut your teeth as a QB.

We certainly are in a new era. And I do love the situation that Green Bay's QB is in with that system and those WR's.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Here are the QB dynasty rankings by the 4 staff members who ranked them:Rodgers - 18, 17, 14, 13Brohm - 22, 24, 36, 26I'm pretty surprised by the high rankings given to Rodgers, but even more surprised by that very high rankings are also given to Brohm by the same people. Realistically there's no way that Brohm is a top-30 QB is you believe Rodgers is a top-20 QB. If Rodgers is legit, then Brohm will be sitting on the bench for at a couple years, if not more.It just seems to me that staff *want* to believe Rodgers is a real franchise QB, but can't convince themselves so they covering their bases by ranking Brohm high.

I have Rodgers the lowest (18) and Brohm the highest (22). I expect Rodgers to start this year and probably put up top 10 numbers while healthy, that's a huge part of his ranking at 18. The combination of Rodgers propensity to get hurt and the Pack taking Brohm once they were staring down the barrel of Rodgers as the starter provides the foundation of Brohm's ranking. Borb brings up the Brees/Rivers situation - very astute. Just like that situation, Rodgers doing great sets up the transition to Brohm just as much as him failing, because of the money he will fetch on the open market. As long as Brohm develops well, he should take over in 2010, and have quite the set of weapons, in an offense that is ideal for his skills. If Rodgers continues to get hurt every time he sees the field, it may happen sooner. I expect the dynasty rankings of these two to flip as we get closer to 2010, and if Rodgers misses significant time, it could happen this year.

 

[anakin]

The GB way of developing QBs never did fall on the feet of Farve. Holmgren and Mariucci (sp?) were also very good with the QBs and should be mentioned with Brunell, Hass, Warner, and Brooks for the time that they had them. I own Rodgers and Brohm in one of my dynasty leagues and I have the same attitude that one will excell. If I'm lucky they both will for different teams, but I'd rather hedge my bets. There will never be another Farve and that is a good thing just the same as there will never be another Bradshaw or Marino. Great QBs all in their own unique ways!

 

[sho nuff]

The GB way of developing QBs never did fall on the feet of Farve. Holmgren and Mariucci (sp?) were also very good with the QBs and should be mentioned with Brunell, Hass, Warner, and Brooks for the time that they had them. I own Rodgers and Brohm in one of my dynasty leagues and I have the same attitude that one will excell. If I'm lucky they both will for different teams, but I'd rather hedge my bets. There will never be another Farve and that is a good thing just the same as there will never be another Bradshaw or Marino. Great QBs all in their own unique ways!

Holmgren and Mooch...and also McCarthy.And despite the one interview quote about it not being Favre's job to train the new QB...if you read what Rodgers said the past few years...Favre was always answering his questions and helping him along the way. While there was a distant relationship (partly due to the huge age difference)...it was a working relationship. They did not hang out...but practice time and meeting time he helped Rodgers alot.

 

[Bruce Leroy]

The GB way of developing QBs never did fall on the feet of Farve. Holmgren and Mariucci (sp?) were also very good with the QBs and should be mentioned with Brunell, Hass, Warner, and Brooks for the time that they had them. I own Rodgers and Brohm in one of my dynasty leagues and I have the same attitude that one will excell. If I'm lucky they both will for different teams, but I'd rather hedge my bets. There will never be another Farve and that is a good thing just the same as there will never be another Bradshaw or Marino. Great QBs all in their own unique ways!

Holmgren and Mooch...and also McCarthy.And despite the one interview quote about it not being Favre's job to train the new QB...if you read what Rodgers said the past few years...Favre was always answering his questions and helping him along the way. While there was a distant relationship (partly due to the huge age difference)...it was a working relationship. They did not hang out...but practice time and meeting time he helped Rodgers alot.

I agree Sho'nuff.You just may find your way to the Golden Glow yet.

 

[anakin]

Wow a Last Dragon reference, where is Vanity when you need her?

 

[sho nuff]

I'm no Packer fan and have no idea, but if you think being able to watch one of the game's greats in action week in, week out, had no effect on the development of Hasselbeck or Brooks, I think you're being just a little delusional. Granted, the words "Brooks" and "development" probably don't belong in the same sentence.

I think the benefits that rookie QB's can get from the sidelines (obviously with good studying and work on their part) is routinely underestimated. Obviously, that diminishes over time and you need to take the field at some point to complete your NFL education as a QB. The problem with Brett is that 1) he rejected, expressly, the notion that he was anyone's mentor, and in interviews I've heard his former understudies say that he was always harsh with them; and 2) Brett was so unconventional in his approach to the way that the position was played that I have my doubts about how much you could learn from him beyond some very basic stuff. To the extent any former Packers understudy benefitted, I'm positive that far more benefit came from playing under Holmgren than from playing under Favre.

1) Harsh with them to start out but always warmed up to them...did you see the NFL Network special with Hasselbeck, Brunell, Detmer, and Pederson? Also, ready beyond the one quote about him not being a mentor and read up on what Rodgers has said about Favre helping him out...you might actually learn that the one interview did not tell the whole story about what really went on and got completely overblown.2) You would not learn footwork...but you would learn plenty about how to play and lead.As for Holmgren...possibly...or Mariucci...or current Packer head coach Mike McCarthy who was also a QB coach in GB, who may have just learned something from another player he "coached" while in KC (Montana), and who helped Aaron Brooks to his best years as a pro. I think the guy is pretty good with QBs.