Aaron Rodgers' Fast Start (1 Viewer)

[Uncle Humuna]

Bonus question - provide list of those that end up higher on the list.

 

[Mikey16x]

Romo

P. Manning

Brees

Mcnabb

Cutler

Warner

Eli

None of these in really any particular order... but i obviously voted for the 7-9 Range.

 

[Eviloutsider]

1) Brees

2) Manning

3) Romo

4) Cutler

5) McNabb

6) Ben R.

7) Rivers

8) Palmer (still hope)

9) Warner

10) Anderson

11) A. Rodgers

 

[The Man with the Plan]

I think he'll be a top-5 qb at the end of the season. He'll put up great passing stats and get enough on the ground also. The only qbs I'd rather have are Romo, Peyton, Cutler, and maybe Warner.

 

[rckstr]

1- Peyton

2- Romo

3- Brees

4- McNabb

5- Roethlisberger

6- Cultler

7- Eli

8- Warner

9- Rivers

10- Rodgers

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

I think he's going to beat P.Manning and be competitive with the other top fantasy QBs. I voted top 3 although I'm really thinking top 5.

 

[The Dude]

Kudos to his fast start - but the league will catch up to him when they actually have game film (like 2 weeks worth now). I think he'll slow down considerably but still be solid.

 

[bucsbaby]

He looks great so far and I think he has a huge chip on his shoulder. Top 5.

 

[Philo]

Kudos to his fast start - but the league will catch up to him when they actually have game film (like 2 weeks worth now). I think he'll slow down considerably but still be solid.

I've been saying this for years, it seems to be a lot of backup QBs can get on a rush once they have a couple years experience on offense but there's no history for the defenses to figure out what looks give him trouble. Like when Billy Volek lit up the league for his first 3 games, then suddenly disappeared. Romo's first few games were unbelievable, then he stopped suddenly and it took a while for him to get back into form. Kelly Holcomb, Josh McCown all had 2-3 huge first games, then disappeared. The defense not knowing what looks will give him a hard time evens up the balance between an offense that is probably running simpler plays and a defense that isn't as fully prepared to face a mystery starter than they are a guy they have a season's worth of tape on. I remember the concept from Moneyball, actually, talking about new hitters in MLB who the opposing team doesn't know where to pitch to them. Until they play a week or so and see sliders, curveballs, and fastballs low and in, they can be pretty good hitters because they'll see a higher percentage of pitches in their favorite zone. Once the zone is figured out, the percentage goes down and so does their average. I'd figure the crash is more likely in someone like Cassell than Rodgers, but, I also don't see Rodgers continuing this level of production every week all season, he's gonna hit a rough patch when the first defensive adjustment comes, and then we'll see how long it takes him to adjust back.

 

[-baller]

I like rodgers now as much as I did preseason, but before we go all nuts projecting off his 'fast start' let's bear in mind he doesn't play detroit every week.

and enough w/the chips on the shoulders, plz --- I heard enough of that last year to last me the rest of my life.

 

[meanjoegreen]

I think he looks great so far, but I don't know how he will do all season long. He has a great surrounding cast, and I see him as a top 10 this year.

 

[CaptainHook]

Kudos to his fast start - but the league will catch up to him when they actually have game film (like 2 weeks worth now). I think he'll slow down considerably but still be solid.

I've been saying this for years, it seems to be a lot of backup QBs can get on a rush once they have a couple years experience on offense but there's no history for the defenses to figure out what looks give him trouble. Like when Billy Volek lit up the league for his first 3 games, then suddenly disappeared. Romo's first few games were unbelievable, then he stopped suddenly and it took a while for him to get back into form. Kelly Holcomb, Josh McCown all had 2-3 huge first games, then disappeared. The defense not knowing what looks will give him a hard time evens up the balance between an offense that is probably running simpler plays and a defense that isn't as fully prepared to face a mystery starter than they are a guy they have a season's worth of tape on. I remember the concept from Moneyball, actually, talking about new hitters in MLB who the opposing team doesn't know where to pitch to them. Until they play a week or so and see sliders, curveballs, and fastballs low and in, they can be pretty good hitters because they'll see a higher percentage of pitches in their favorite zone. Once the zone is figured out, the percentage goes down and so does their average.

I'd figure the crash is more likely in someone like Cassell than Rodgers, but, I also don't see Rodgers continuing this level of production every week all season, he's gonna hit a rough patch when the first defensive adjustment comes, and then we'll see how long it takes him to adjust back.

I'm not buying it:

(http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/rookie-quarterback-research) "Going back to 1995, I looked at the performance of rookie quarterbacks in their first ten starts (although the sample honestly loses its relevance past start ten or so because of sample size issues), as well as the performance of all non-rookie quarterbacks in their first twenty starts."

The fact is the only memorable young QBs are the ones who get off to lightning starts. A lot of the time that's simply going to be luck.

In this case Rodgers certainly looks like the real deal.

Edit: dunno why the image doesn't work oh well.

 

[Philo]

Kudos to his fast start - but the league will catch up to him when they actually have game film (like 2 weeks worth now). I think he'll slow down considerably but still be solid.

I've been saying this for years, it seems to be a lot of backup QBs can get on a rush once they have a couple years experience on offense but there's no history for the defenses to figure out what looks give him trouble. Like when Billy Volek lit up the league for his first 3 games, then suddenly disappeared. Romo's first few games were unbelievable, then he stopped suddenly and it took a while for him to get back into form. Kelly Holcomb, Josh McCown all had 2-3 huge first games, then disappeared. The defense not knowing what looks will give him a hard time evens up the balance between an offense that is probably running simpler plays and a defense that isn't as fully prepared to face a mystery starter than they are a guy they have a season's worth of tape on. I remember the concept from Moneyball, actually, talking about new hitters in MLB who the opposing team doesn't know where to pitch to them. Until they play a week or so and see sliders, curveballs, and fastballs low and in, they can be pretty good hitters because they'll see a higher percentage of pitches in their favorite zone. Once the zone is figured out, the percentage goes down and so does their average.

I'd figure the crash is more likely in someone like Cassell than Rodgers, but, I also don't see Rodgers continuing this level of production every week all season, he's gonna hit a rough patch when the first defensive adjustment comes, and then we'll see how long it takes him to adjust back.

I'm not buying it:

(http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/rookie-quarterback-research) "Going back to 1995, I looked at the performance of rookie quarterbacks in their first ten starts (although the sample honestly loses its relevance past start ten or so because of sample size issues), as well as the performance of all non-rookie quarterbacks in their first twenty starts."

The fact is the only memorable young QBs are the ones who get off to lightning starts. A lot of the time that's simply going to be luck.

In this case Rodgers certainly looks like the real deal.

Edit: dunno why the image doesn't work oh well.

Interesting take. It's obviously not a hard-and-fast rule, just a thought that exuberance over an emerging star needs to be tempered. Even the author can't fully refute it: "I don't think there's enough statistical evidence to either confirm the Derek Anderson Principle or shoot it down; personally, I think that the effect of defenses learning a quarterback's tendencies would be counterbalanced by the quarterback's growing level of comfort and timing with the offense, but MJD also has a point. "

 

[deep vacuum]

Kudos to his fast start - but the league will catch up to him when they actually have game film (like 2 weeks worth now). I think he'll slow down considerably but still be solid.

He'll slow down some but it will be when Green Bay really starts to running the ball more due to the bad weather conditions.

 

[deep vacuum]

I think he looks great so far, but I don't know how he will do all season long. He has a great surrounding cast, and I see him as a top 10 this year.

He's well prepared. Had several years to learn the pro game and really learn what it takes to be a qb in the NFL. The productions loss will come because of his great surrounding cast. He won't have to win many games by himself. There will be some games where just managing the game well will take the other team out of what they want to do.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

Bump for 1 more week of data . . .

 

[Philo]

Rodgers ended up with a good stat line before going out with an injury. But he easily could have had 2 more INTs in the first half. If not for the TB D giving up some big plays, could have been a much worse day for him. So, has TB figured something out against Rodgers that other teams could use, or, is this week a fluke?