Driver and Cobb by themselves are better than anything Bradford has had to work with.
The rest make this easy.
Frankly, I don't see the point of this thread.
I agree about Cobb but am not sure about Driver. Would he really have done anything significant without Favre and Rodgers throwing him the ball? I am not so sure. Cobb seems to be more dynamic on film, but again with Rodgers throwing him the ball it's hard to say with certainty.
I think it becomes easier to make these comparisons when WRs switch teams, or teams switch QBs. Like in the case of Jennings.
And I personally feel that if you took Bradford's weapons over the years and transported them to Green Bay that they would look a whole lot better than they did in St Louis. A lot of that feeling is based upon my feeling that Rodgers is a superior QB talent and a lot of that feeling is because I believe the GB coaching staff is better than what St. Louis has had.
how old is jennings now? has he had some injuries lately?
would this be a little less ambiguous for you if you remind yourself of how good jennings was when he was younger and healthier? that helped favre break records? THAT GUY. rodgers had him when he was younger and healthier, before... before... before... oh yeah, the immortal trio of ponder/cassell/freeman.*
* which reminds me, which QB situation do you like better, rodgers or the immortal MIN triumvirate?
maybe, jennings numbers might suffer going from one situation to the other. ya think (and factor in he is older and has been injured recently, relative to when rodgers first had him in his arsenal)?
not only is it not credible, its bizarre to suggest any lowered numbers he might have are in any way, shape or form suggestive of the premis, whatever was good about jennings was entirely due to rodgers.
Jennings is 30 and has had no major injuries this season. Are you actually suggesting that Jennings made Rodgers and not the other way around?
The suggestion that Jennings may not have been particularly special but a product of a WR friendly system and two hall of fame caliber QBs is entirely credible and seems to be holding up.
The notion that Rodgers is somehow a product of his fantastic WRs and putting Bradford in GB would turn him into Rodgers is the point you are driving at with this poll, isn't it? And I think that is a highly suspect premise.
Cobb is the only weapon that Rodgers has that I think would be able to go into any system and be highly productive. Nelson, Finley & J.Jones (and Driver in years past) seem just as likely to be JAGs as special weapons.
I asked you in the other thread about where you see Bradford's upside. What is the point you are trying to make about him? You also act as if I am diminishing the guy, which is not the case.
In your opinion is Jennings at his physical peak or prime? Or more likely a few years ago. If the latter, than factor THAT into the poll. Whatever years Rodgers overlapped with Jennings as a starter in his first, second, third seasons, etc., that would be the age Jennings was for that given season. When I said not lately, I wasn't implying a few days ago. But recently. Not a long time ago. He missed 8 games. Last year. Before that, 3 missed games in 2011.
Focus on the sequence. I didn't blow into the thread and rapid fire staccato post after post (trying to hard too convince the thread that STL WRs were better than GB when the poll is a route and should tell you something about the extreme outlier position you are taking) about how if Jennings doesn't do well in MIN it is meaningful and that maybe he isn't that good.
NEXT in the exchange sequence, i responded that I disagreed if you meant "...whatever was good about jennings was entirely due to rodgers."
Notice that I'm not saying the complete opposite, which you seemed to be confused about, and distorted my position with this...
"Are you actually suggesting that Jennings made Rodgers and not the other way around?"
Do you understand the difference. Try and wrap your mind around the possibility that maybe Rodgers is great, and Jennings was very good. They don't have to be mutually exclusive in some kind of zero sum game. The better Rodgers is doesn't have to mean the worse Jennings is. The better Jennings is doesn't have to mean the worse Rodgers is.

But I know you know this, just not sure why we have to clarify something that is so basic and elemental. Sometimes, trying to refute points leads to logic puzzle kind of exchanges that are unhinged from reality. Intuitively, if QB X slams the ball into the ground 10 times, that doesn't make Jennings bad.
Another point of yours below. If it isn't too much to ask, I have to say that I'm not really comfortable with you interpreting my meaning of the poll for the rest of the board. If I'm not sure what you mean, I'll do my best to ask you what you mean. I won't tell the rest of the board what you mean for you. Mainly because you got it wrong. I think you got the premise of the poll wrong. I think you got Jennings wrong. Wherever I look in the thread, I see wrong. I already explained elsewhere in the thread the point of the poll. I wanted to find out how left field and surreal is the premise that Bradford had the "advantage" of superior receiving talent to Rodgers. As it turns out, very. I also said there were several levels of intention with the poll. Some, from the "axiom" that of course Bradford had better weapons than Rodgers, might draw conclusions that they wouldn't otherwise if they thought that premise was heinously flawed (I'm doing my best to be generous and sympathetic there).
"The notion that Rodgers is somehow a product of his fantastic WRs and putting Bradford in GB would turn him into Rodgers is the point you are driving at with this poll, isn't it? And I think that is a highly suspect premise."
Lastly. I answered it there. Confusion arises and a lot of potential mischief is created when we don't make a distinction between whether we are talking about real football or fantasy. I actually said it in the very first post of that thread. But it still gets forgotten a lot (if by myself sometimes, i take responsibility for that). He was pacing for around top 12. I think he can be better than Trent Dilfer or Jason Campbell. Maybe if they add Jake Matthews and Sammy Watkins/Mike Evans, that could help him and he could do better? But that is the point. He could have upside. Many have written him off. IMO, it would be unfortunate if people wrote him off because he didn't do better with "WRs that were even better than Rodgers had in GB".
"I asked you in the other thread about where you see Bradford's upside. What is the point you are trying to make about him? You also act as if I am diminishing the guy, which is not the case."
I'm not trying to act like anything. I'm not attributing motives to you, or speaking for you to the thread. I've asked you to please not do it, and I will try to do the same. I think you mean what you say. I don't think you are posting out of an agenda. But it doesn't matter. I think you are mistaken is all that matter. Intent or motives don't enter into it. I'm just responding to your observations and questions, as you are to mine. I really do think GB had better WRs than STL. Pretty much everybody agrees with what seems like a point so obvious, some questioned why it was even necessary? So that ought to tell you all you need to know that I don't have an agenda. Diminishing? There have been some counterintuitive posts in here by you. Look at the poll, you will have to admit you have the extreme outlier position, not me. Maybe if there weren't multiple counterintuitive posts (like if Jennings doesn't set the world on fire with Ponder, it in some way means he isn't really that good), I wouldn't need to respond to multiple counterintuitive posts... and than you wouldn't think that i think you are diminishing the guy. I also think sometimes you respond to what you think I mean, when there was a more straightforward, face value meaning. Like saying I disagree that EVERYTHING that was good about Jennings is attributable to Rodgers. Than you comeback with I must have meant that Everything that was good about Rodgers came from Jennings (or the other WRs). Come on? I'm not saying Rodgers is bad, obviously. But if if some people build a house of generalizations and judgements on a cracked and broken foundation, it might fall down. IMO it is worth pointing out.