Does Aaron Rodgers = Rob Johnson? (1 Viewer)

[Man in the yellow hat]

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/audiovault/homer.php#

Check out the interview with Panos on the local ESPN affiliate.

Some interesting comments that draw comparisons between Rodgers and Johnson.

Basically states that he's seen this exact same scenario before during his time in Buffalo. He is good friends with Johnson, and used to yell at him to throw the ball instead of holding it. Eventually Johnson ended up injured because of all the hits, and lost his job to Flutie who ended up making the pro bowl with the same oline.

After listening, I didn't feel too good about it. Referring to injuries, Panos says: "There's only so many hits a quarterback to take. It will happen."

Anyway, just thought it was interesting.

I hope Rodgers figures it out before it is too late.

 

[packersfan]

I think Rodgers is much more talented than Johnson was.

That said, his pocket presence is often unbelievably poor. The Packers' line isn't very good but Rodgers does absolutely nothing to help them. It's a lot like what we saw from Roethlisberger last season. That was another case of a team that was weak in terms of pass protection but also saddled with a QB who held the ball far too long and contributed heavily to the sack total problem.

Unfortunately for the Packers, they're not going to the Super Bowl much less winning it to make people forget all about those issues.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

I think Rodgers is much more talented than Johnson was.

I don't know about that. You don't set franchise records without being very talented. Additionally, Rodgers has shown ability in those same areas. Good completion percentage, good pass-to-int ratio. Rob Johnson holds the NFL record for most sacks per passing attempt, earning the nickname "robo-sack" due to his reluctance to throw the ball away. However, Johnson also holds the Buffalo Bills franchise record for completion percentage and pass-to-interception ratio, besting the likes of Jack Kemp and Jim Kelly.

http://www.usclegends.org/rob-johnson.php

 

[QuizGuy66]

"robo-sack"



Didn't realize that his other numbers were that good so maybe the comparison is apt. With that line, he has to learn to let go of the ball, period.

-QG

 

[Bandit]

I think Rodgers is much more talented than Johnson was.

I don't know about that. You don't set franchise records without being very talented. Additionally, Rodgers has shown ability in those same areas. Good completion percentage, good pass-to-int ratio. Rob Johnson holds the NFL record for most sacks per passing attempt, earning the nickname "robo-sack" due to his reluctance to throw the ball away. However, Johnson also holds the Buffalo Bills franchise record for completion percentage and pass-to-interception ratio, besting the likes of Jack Kemp and Jim Kelly.

http://www.usclegends.org/rob-johnson.php

But doesn't it make sense that a quarterback who refuses to throw the ball unless his receiver is wide open would have a high completion percentage and few interceptions?

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Rodgers didn't get sacked all that much in 2008. Not sure why he's holding the ball longer in 2009, especially with the line falling apart in front of him.

He took blame for holding the ball too long in the "come to jesus meeting" this week. We'll see if that changes anything going forward.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I heard them discussing this with Greg Bedard yesterday morning. There are several interesting comparable traits - both being pretty boy stars from California, mobile QB's with strong arms; and more substantively, many people think both are/were overly preoccupied with their QB ratings (high completion percentage, few interceptions, willing to take sacks rather than throw the ball away or take a chance). Bedard suggested that Rodgers is too impressed with his own lofty QB rating and openly wondered if Rodgers would play differently if sacks counted as a negative in the QB rating calculation.

 

[CalBear]

I think Rodgers is much more talented than Johnson was.

I don't know about that. You don't set franchise records without being very talented. Additionally, Rodgers has shown ability in those same areas. Good completion percentage, good pass-to-int ratio. Rob Johnson holds the NFL record for most sacks per passing attempt, earning the nickname "robo-sack" due to his reluctance to throw the ball away. However, Johnson also holds the Buffalo Bills franchise record for completion percentage and pass-to-interception ratio, besting the likes of Jack Kemp and Jim Kelly.

http://www.usclegends.org/rob-johnson.php

Rob Johnson has a career completion percentage of 61.3%, and threw 23 INTs in 28 starts in Buffalo; hardly impressive stats, and in any case not directly comparable to someone like Kelly with 160 starts over an 11-year career. Jack Kemp completed 50% of his passes in a season only twice in his career.

 

[Literary Reference]

When he was drafted people compared him to "Kyle Boller with a weaker arm"

so I guess this is a step up

Rob Johnson wasn't good though

 

[TommyGilmore]

Johnson's best season was 18 TDs (pro-rated) and he was sacked once per 8 plays.

Last year Rodgers had 28 TDs and he was sacked once per 18 plays.

/thread

 

[FUBAR]

Basically states that he's seen this exact same scenario before during his time in Buffalo. He is good friends with Johnson, and used to yell at him to throw the ball instead of holding it. Eventually Johnson ended up injured because of all the hits, and lost his job to Flutie who ended up making the pro bowl with the same oline.After listening, I didn't feel too good about it. Referring to injuries, Panos says: "There's only so many hits a quarterback to take. It will happen."

wouldn't this apply more to Big Ben?

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Johnson's best season was 18 TDs (pro-rated) and he was sacked once per 8 plays.Last year Rodgers had 28 TDs and he was sacked once per 18 plays./thread

I watched Rob Johnson play. There's no comparing the two. Rodgers is much, much better. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing though that he takes a little criticism like this.

 

[valhallan]

Johnson's best season was 18 TDs (pro-rated) and he was sacked once per 8 plays.Last year Rodgers had 28 TDs and he was sacked once per 18 plays./thread

Interestingly, Rodgers is being sacked about once per 9 dropbacks this year

 

[Bermuda_Chub]

This is one of those comparisons that looks compelling on paper, filled as it is with savory little cosmetic similarities to make the analyst who cooked it up look oh so clever. However, if you actually watched the two play, all of the costuming fades away and the naked idiocy of the comparison is clear. When the Bills decided to trade a 1st rounder (otherwise known as Fred Taylor) and a 4th for Rob Johnson, any serious observer of the game recognized it as a tremendous blunder that would set the franchise back years. I remember listening a radio interview of Robo by Jim Rome after he signed with the Bills, and even he seemed incredulous at the Bills' largesse. Rodgers, on the other hand, is a franchise quarterback that all but a handful of NFL teams would trade a vat of picks to build their team around. And that would be a smart move.

I'm sick of bloggers and talking heads throwing the word "optics" around like a preposition in an effort to pass themselves off as some pseudoscientist of spin, but I can't help myself in this case: the optics don't match the visuals.

 

[Titus Pullo]

i didn't knew rob johnson was ever a stud qb.

 

[Sweet Love]

I think Rodgers is much more talented than Johnson was. That said, his pocket presence is often unbelievably poor. The Packers' line isn't very good but Rodgers does absolutely nothing to help them. It's a lot like what we saw from Roethlisberger last season. That was another case of a team that was weak in terms of pass protection but also saddled with a QB who held the ball far too long and contributed heavily to the sack total problem.Unfortunately for the Packers, they're not going to the Super Bowl much less winning it to make people forget all about those issues.

One man's "poor pocket presence" is another man's "bravery"...just saying but there are stats out there that are amplified more than what they should be and I believe sacks are one. RBs going for a loss of 4 yards on a broke play are barely mentioned, while "THE SACK", gets a dance, publicity and an official stat...even if the yardage is less than the typical run-for-loss.Richard Todd had one fo the best pocket presences (lol if that is a word) on the planet, unfortunately for us Jets fans, he just took off each time he felt the slightest hint of the rush...I would much rather be "chained" to a QB like Rodgers or Big Ben, who take the sacks than a guy like Todd who runs at the first hint of pressure.

 

[basher]

I understand bashing on Rodgers to get rid of the ball and agree with some of it. At the same time a large portion of his touchdowns have come because of him holding onto the ball too long and waiting for something to happen. An example of this was the most recent packer/viking game ... all three of his touchdown passes (1 to jennings and 2 to Havner) happened because he held onto the ball and let his receivers get open. I think he needs to work on getting rid quicker of the ball especially up until the red zone (he has taken 2 awful safeties this year) but still needs to keep some of that mindset of letting his WRs work.

Also, I think him holding the ball is a little indicative of the team play calling. The team clearly wants to attack others vertically and have been forcing the issue all season. Last season they pounded the short passing and slant game and he took significantly less sacks. I guess what I am trying to say is the teams needs to work (from the coaching staff on play calling, the offensive line on pass protection, and rodgers on getting rid of the football) on the protections issues.

 

[fantasysharkctb]

Ppl need to lay off of Rodgers IMO. It's his second year as a full time starter and yes he might hold onto the ball, but before last week he only had two picks thrown.

It's almost like what would you rather have, an INT or a sack. If I am a coach I would much prefer a sack, just from the standpoint of field position.

 

[mdlane]

Also, I think him holding the ball is a little indicative of the team play calling. The team clearly wants to attack others vertically and have been forcing the issue all season. Last season they pounded the short passing and slant game and he took significantly less sacks. I guess what I am trying to say is the teams needs to work (from the coaching staff on play calling, the offensive line on pass protection, and rodgers on getting rid of the football) on the protections issues.

I completely agree with this, and think it was very noticable last week against the Bucs (After reading a bunch of local Packer blogs pile on Rodgers, I went and took a look at the sacks, timing them and watching the WR routes). Rodgers needs a route that he can hit in 2-2.5 secs. I wonder if Finley being out is hurting that short passing game for the Pack? I wonder if the Pack's protection lineup demands fewer receivers, period? Anyway, I really hope it gets fixed because I would hate to see Rodgers get injured - I've watched him since Cal, like him, and damn it, I own him in three leagues.

 

[big0mar]

I'm not sure you can pin all the sacks on Rodgers. The OL is bad, but at the same time the coaches needs to call the right plays, and the WRs need to get open. Just seems to me like the timing is off somewhere in the offense, and thats what leads to the sacks.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Ppl need to lay off of Rodgers IMO. It's his second year as a full time starter and yes he might hold onto the ball, but before last week he only had two picks thrown. It's almost like what would you rather have, an INT or a sack. If I am a coach I would much prefer a sack, just from the standpoint of field position.

I'd want him to occasionally throw the ball away, especially on 1st or 2nd down. He doesn't seem to ever do this. I wonder what his rate is for that?

 

[basher]

Also, I think him holding the ball is a little indicative of the team play calling. The team clearly wants to attack others vertically and have been forcing the issue all season. Last season they pounded the short passing and slant game and he took significantly less sacks. I guess what I am trying to say is the teams needs to work (from the coaching staff on play calling, the offensive line on pass protection, and rodgers on getting rid of the football) on the protections issues.

I completely agree with this, and think it was very noticable last week against the Bucs (After reading a bunch of local Packer blogs pile on Rodgers, I went and took a look at the sacks, timing them and watching the WR routes). Rodgers needs a route that he can hit in 2-2.5 secs. I wonder if Finley being out is hurting that short passing game for the Pack? I wonder if the Pack's protection lineup demands fewer receivers, period? Anyway, I really hope it gets fixed because I would hate to see Rodgers get injured - I've watched him since Cal, like him, and damn it, I own him in three leagues.

You could just tell that the worst thing possible for the Packers last week was to bust two early big passing plays. From that point on they refused to run anything short even though it had moved them along in the first 2 drives.

 

[Socrates11]

Rob Johnson blew goats. He'd give you a good game, usually against a crappy team or one with nothing to play for (Colts right before the playoffs in '99) but for the most part he sucked out loud. All the physical tools but lacking the brain and/or the 'x factor' to put it all together.

Rodgers is much, much better. He has some flaws sure, but I'd take him over Johnson any day of the week.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I'm not sure you can pin all the sacks on Rodgers.

No one has.

 

[VTjkru]

Ppl need to lay off of Rodgers IMO. It's his second year as a full time starter and yes he might hold onto the ball, but before last week he only had two picks thrown. It's almost like what would you rather have, an INT or a sack. If I am a coach I would much prefer a sack, just from the standpoint of field position.

Good thing that's not the only two options.

 

[None_More_Black]

It's weird that Rodgers does not roll out that much becausese he has decent speed. He stays in the pocket and sometimes has to take sacks because he can't throw it away for fear of an intentional grounding call. Seems like the only times I see him moving is when he is pretty commited to running.

 

[Da Guru]

One thing I do know..Aaron Rodgers is a very good FF QB. That is all that matters to me.

 

[cubbie5150]

One thing I do know..Aaron Rodgers is a very good FF QB. That is all that matters to me.

^^What he said. I don't care about the Packers, so if Rodgers winds up being a mediocre NFL QB, I couldn't care less. Dude is a fantasy stud. Wish I owned him

 

[Pipes]

I understand bashing on Rodgers to get rid of the ball and agree with some of it. At the same time a large portion of his touchdowns have come because of him holding onto the ball too long and waiting for something to happen. An example of this was the most recent packer/viking game ... all three of his touchdown passes (1 to jennings and 2 to Havner) happened because he held onto the ball and let his receivers get open. I think he needs to work on getting rid quicker of the ball especially up until the red zone (he has taken 2 awful safeties this year) but still needs to keep some of that mindset of letting his WRs work.Also, I think him holding the ball is a little indicative of the team play calling. The team clearly wants to attack others vertically and have been forcing the issue all season. Last season they pounded the short passing and slant game and he took significantly less sacks. I guess what I am trying to say is the teams needs to work (from the coaching staff on play calling, the offensive line on pass protection, and rodgers on getting rid of the football) on the protections issues.

 

[Fantaholic]

Intentionally making that comparison would be asinine. Furthermore, I don't believe he is doing that.

 

[valhallan]

How about Aaron Rodgers = Aaron Brooks? That's the last guy McCarthy groomed and he was also known as a guy that put up great fantasy stats but few NFL wins.

 

[Sudoku_in_the_Bathtub]

Leinart's Rob Johnson.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

I'm a believer that when a QB takes a ton of sacks that it's more their fault then the o-lines, although the o-line is obviously very important in giving a QB time.

But when a QB is consistently not getting time they have to be able to adjust and be able to throw the ball away, not being able to do that shows they aren't capable of quick decisions and pre planning.

 

[SofaKings]

I'm a believer that when a QB takes a ton of sacks that it's more their fault then the o-lines, although the o-line is obviously very important in giving a QB time.But when a QB is consistently not getting time they have to be able to adjust and be able to throw the ball away, not being able to do that shows they aren't capable of quick decisions and pre planning.

Hi Beer!

 

[JuniorNB]

i didn't knew rob johnson was ever a stud qb.

Rodgers may be a fantasy stud, but he's an NFL quarterback who inhereted a playoff-team and has about a .500 winning percentage and is 0-1 in making the playoffs (and 0-2 is starting to look very possible).Since this thread happens to be an NFL discussion and not a fantasy one, the use of the word 'stud' is far out of bounds. For Rodgers or Johnson.

 

[parasaurolophus]

The play in the TB game with little time left where rodgers got sacked right on the sideline was hopefully an eye opener for him. Those plays just look ridiculous on film.

If he puts in the time he should be able to correct this. He also needs to understand he can throw plenty of picks and still be adored by fans. Stats are nice, but wins what people remember.

 

[GreenNGold]

The Packers O'line is not that bad (granted, it is not great either, just not nearly as bad as people make it out to be). Over half the sacks are 100% Rodgers fault.

In MMQB this week, Peter King said the Packers O'line is just as good as the Colt's O'line, with the difference being that Peyton Manning has pocket presence and knows when to get rid of the ball.

 

[tdmills]

Ppl need to lay off of Rodgers IMO. It's his second year as a full time starter and yes he might hold onto the ball, but before last week he only had two picks thrown. It's almost like what would you rather have, an INT or a sack. If I am a coach I would much prefer a sack, just from the standpoint of field position.

His second year starting full time. Its his 5th season in the league.

 

[Pipes]

The Packers O'line is not that bad (granted, it is not great either, just not nearly as bad as people make it out to be). Over half the sacks are 100% Rodgers fault.

In MMQB this week, Peter King said the Packers O'line is just as good as the Colt's O'line, with the difference being that Peyton Manning has pocket presence and knows when to get rid of the ball.

Peter King's on crack if he believes this. The Packers line is terrible...It's been below average ever since Rivera and Wahle left. I don't blame Thompson for that since he was up against the wall cap wise back then but he's failed miserably trying to replace them and now his tackles are over the hill as well.Yeah Rodgers does hold onto the ball too long but that didn't seem to be a problem last year. Plus Rodgers has made some plays by holding on and moving around in the pocket. He'd have terrible numbers if he threw the ball away every time he was under duress.

I still think McCarthy is to blame for a large part of this. What happened to the slants, screens (both to RB and WR) and the shorter passes to the TE's? They spend way too much time taking shots down field instead of putting together methodical drives.

 

[identikit]

The Packers O'line is not that bad (granted, it is not great either, just not nearly as bad as people make it out to be). Over half the sacks are 100% Rodgers fault. In MMQB this week, Peter King said the Packers O'line is just as good as the Colt's O'line, with the difference being that Peyton Manning has pocket presence and knows when to get rid of the ball.

I know King gets a lot of inside info in his travels, but the more I read of him the more I realize he really doesn't know football all that well.

 

[basher]

The Packers O'line is not that bad (granted, it is not great either, just not nearly as bad as people make it out to be). Over half the sacks are 100% Rodgers fault. In MMQB this week, Peter King said the Packers O'line is just as good as the Colt's O'line, with the difference being that Peyton Manning has pocket presence and knows when to get rid of the ball.

I know King gets a lot of inside info in his travels, but the more I read of him the more I realize he really doesn't know football all that well.

King has become a player/agent puppet similar to Len P had become after some time. He knows some football but the line isn't good ... they do not have a Tackle on the roster who can stop an edge rusher (and to be honest one of the biggest mistakes of this regime is Ted Thompson's belief that he could draft a bunch of college guards and undersized tackles and hope one would hit.)

 

[Tex Goldstein]

I understand bashing on Rodgers to get rid of the ball and agree with some of it. At the same time a large portion of his touchdowns have come because of him holding onto the ball too long and waiting for something to happen. An example of this was the most recent packer/viking game ... all three of his touchdown passes (1 to jennings and 2 to Havner) happened because he held onto the ball and let his receivers get open. I think he needs to work on getting rid quicker of the ball especially up until the red zone (he has taken 2 awful safeties this year) but still needs to keep some of that mindset of letting his WRs work.Also, I think him holding the ball is a little indicative of the team play calling. The team clearly wants to attack others vertically and have been forcing the issue all season. Last season they pounded the short passing and slant game and he took significantly less sacks. I guess what I am trying to say is the teams needs to work (from the coaching staff on play calling, the offensive line on pass protection, and rodgers on getting rid of the football) on the protections issues.

yup I'm with ya here. rodgers is a great qb, and wants to make a big play on every play - but that isn't entirely healthy at the NFL level. Driver and Jennings can take a short pass and create a big gainer - y not cut donw on the sacks and keep Rodgers healthy? Def a complex issue with multiple item s to addressThe OL has been really awful thisyear though. Time to invest some high picks in OT's, IMO.

 

[GreenNGold]

The Packers O'line is not that bad (granted, it is not great either, just not nearly as bad as people make it out to be). Over half the sacks are 100% Rodgers fault. In MMQB this week, Peter King said the Packers O'line is just as good as the Colt's O'line, with the difference being that Peyton Manning has pocket presence and knows when to get rid of the ball.

I know King gets a lot of inside info in his travels, but the more I read of him the more I realize he really doesn't know football all that well.

I agree that Peter King does not really know football, but felt this was one of the few good points he has made. You only need to read his political views to realize he isn't that smart. However, i felt he did make a good point here. Put Peyton, Brady, or even Favre behind the current GB line and no one will be complaining about our line anymore. Rodgers is a good QB, but he has room to improve. He makes our O'line look a lot worse than it actually is. Rodgers almost always has >4 seconds to throw the ball, usually more.

 

[Mark Wimer]

Johnson for his career:

494/806 for 5795 yards, 30 TDs and 23 interceptions (61.3 completion percentage). 29 games 12-17 record as starter.

Rodgers to date:

540/855 for 6622 yards, 45 TDs and 19 intercetions (63.3 %) 24 starts 10-14 record:

15 more TDs in lesser # of starts (~ 20% less starts); 4 less interceptions; 10-14 record as the Packers' QB - Rodgers is clearly the superior talent in this 2 person pool. He has "IT" - Johnson never had "IT".

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Johnson for his career: 494/806 for 5795 yards, 30 TDs and 23 interceptions (61.3 completion percentage). 29 games 12-17 record as starter.Rodgers to date:540/855 for 6622 yards, 45 TDs and 19 intercetions (63.3 %) 24 starts 10-14 record: 15 more TDs in lesser # of starts (~ 20% less starts); 4 less interceptions; 10-14 record as the Packers' QB - Rodgers is clearly the superior talent in this 2 person pool. He has "IT" - Johnson never had "IT".

Thank you. This is a ridiculous comparison. Anybody that watched both of these QBs play would tell you the same thing. Rodgers>>>>>>>Johnson. Don't get me wrong, Rodgers has a lot to learn, and he truly does need to get the ball out on time to the receivers going forward. To me, it seems like a good bet he'll figure that out.

 

[Pipes]

The Packers O'line is not that bad (granted, it is not great either, just not nearly as bad as people make it out to be). Over half the sacks are 100% Rodgers fault.

In MMQB this week, Peter King said the Packers O'line is just as good as the Colt's O'line, with the difference being that Peyton Manning has pocket presence and knows when to get rid of the ball.

I know King gets a lot of inside info in his travels, but the more I read of him the more I realize he really doesn't know football all that well.

I agree that Peter King does not really know football, but felt this was one of the few good points he has made. You only need to read his political views to realize he isn't that smart. However, i felt he did make a good point here. Put Peyton, Brady, or even Favre behind the current GB line and no one will be complaining about our line anymore. Rodgers is a good QB, but he has room to improve. He makes our O'line look a lot worse than it actually is. Rodgers almost always has >4 seconds to throw the ball, usually more.

I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing this at all. In both Viking games Rodgers was running for his life the entire game while Favre barely had a finger laid on him. I can think of a couple of plays where Rodgers had more than a few seconds to make a play and he got sacked, yeah those are his fault. But it's not almost always has 4 seconds...I'm not sure how you can say that.Of course Peyton, Brady and Favre would make the offensive line better...those guys are the best in the business with 30 plus years of starting experience. Rodgers doesn't have that yet so he's got time to learn.

Seriously look at the starting line of Clifton, Colledge, Wells, Sitton and Barbre. How many of these guys would be starting on other NFL teams? Clifton was very good at one time but his body is breaking down he would maybe be a starting LT on a couple of teams but that's it. Colledge...no chance, maybe the worst guard in the league. Wells is a decent center but still below average he's probably better than 8-10 current starting centers. Sitton is a decent guard and I like him, he's going to be good but he's still a 1st year starter and he's learning on the job. Barbre...no chance. So 2 of GB's 5 starting OL would not be starting on any other NFL team and the rest could maybe start on teams with below average offensive lines. Sorry but the talent just isn't there.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Johnson for his career: 494/806 for 5795 yards, 30 TDs and 23 interceptions (61.3 completion percentage). 29 games 12-17 record as starter.Rodgers to date:540/855 for 6622 yards, 45 TDs and 19 intercetions (63.3 %) 24 starts 10-14 record: 15 more TDs in lesser # of starts (~ 20% less starts); 4 less interceptions; 10-14 record as the Packers' QB - Rodgers is clearly the superior talent in this 2 person pool. He has "IT" - Johnson never had "IT".

Thank you. This is a ridiculous comparison. Anybody that watched both of these QBs play would tell you the same thing. Rodgers>>>>>>>Johnson. Don't get me wrong, Rodgers has a lot to learn, and he truly does need to get the ball out on time to the receivers going forward. To me, it seems like a good bet he'll figure that out.

I don't think Panos was remotely suggesting that Rodgers is comparable in skill to Johnson or that he is not a better QB overall compared to Johnson, although I can see where the confusion comes from based on what was said in this thread. The point he made is simply that there are similarities in their conservative style of play (avoiding INT's, high completion % and propensity to take sacks) and that, in Johnson's case that meant two things: 1) he took too many hits and it affected his career; and 2) when Flutie took over, he was able to forge a pro-bowl season playing behind the same line due largely to his experience and understanding that he needed to get the ball out quickly. The message I took from all this is that Rodgers needs to adjust his playing style in order for this team to succeed and for him to have a long successfull career - I think a fairly obvious and non-controversial point.Combined with the coincidental similarities in their personal backgrounds, it made for a worthwhile use of 10 minutes of am radio sports talk morning drive airtime. As noted, Bedard build on Panos' comments by more or less suggesting that Rodgers favors his personal rating at the expense of the team - by wondering out loud whether Rodgers would have taken less sacks if they counted as a negative in the QB rating stat. As usual, I think Bedard takes things too far in his endless efforts to create a story or stir the pot making something out of nothing.I think Rodgers will be fine eventually. One thing that is sometimes overlooked is the enormous pressure he has been under the past two seasons. I was at his first game on Monday night against the Vikings last year and his first game this year against the Bears - both were playoff-like games, an extraordinary atmosphere for a week 1 NFL game in both cases - and all eyes were on Rodgers. His entire short career as a starter has been extraordinary. Following in Favre's position is a tremendous burden and I think generally he has handled it very well, and can understand why he maybe plays a bit safe at times and wants to avoid the killer INT at all costs.

 

[sho nuff]

How about Aaron Rodgers = Aaron Brooks? That's the last guy McCarthy groomed and he was also known as a guy that put up great fantasy stats but few NFL wins.

I guess...I believe Brooks was about a .500 QB with McCarthy...before and after him...3-2...then 3-10...then 0-8.

 

[sho nuff]

The Packers O'line is not that bad (granted, it is not great either, just not nearly as bad as people make it out to be). Over half the sacks are 100% Rodgers fault. In MMQB this week, Peter King said the Packers O'line is just as good as the Colt's O'line, with the difference being that Peyton Manning has pocket presence and knows when to get rid of the ball.

BS...this line is not good.Over half the sacks...Id say its well under half that are 100% his fault.

 

[sho nuff]

The Packers O'line is not that bad (granted, it is not great either, just not nearly as bad as people make it out to be). Over half the sacks are 100% Rodgers fault. In MMQB this week, Peter King said the Packers O'line is just as good as the Colt's O'line, with the difference being that Peyton Manning has pocket presence and knows when to get rid of the ball.

I know King gets a lot of inside info in his travels, but the more I read of him the more I realize he really doesn't know football all that well.

I agree that Peter King does not really know football, but felt this was one of the few good points he has made. You only need to read his political views to realize he isn't that smart. However, i felt he did make a good point here. Put Peyton, Brady, or even Favre behind the current GB line and no one will be complaining about our line anymore. Rodgers is a good QB, but he has room to improve. He makes our O'line look a lot worse than it actually is. Rodgers almost always has >4 seconds to throw the ball, usually more.

I suggest you find some tape of Allen Barbre and Daryn Colledge from this year...then say nobody would be complaining about the line.He almost always has > 4 seconds? I don't think you have been watching closely enough if you believe this.