Whoever is representing FBG in the "Experts" mock... (2 Viewers)

[John Norton]

You don't see the worthiness of the bump? First, there's the abundant criticism he took for those 2 picks and that he represented FBG poorly and now he's sitting at 6-0, most pts scored, and best all-play record. You want to call it as a "Look at Me!!" and I say he has every right to do so. Want to know why? Because if his team was sitting where rotoworld's 1-5 team is, guaranteed someone would have bumped and said "see, you had no idea what you're doing". Secondly, it's very relevant to the bashing of those 2 picks. People bashed those 2 picks by looking at them in a vacuum. Now, after seeing what he was able to do in the middle rounds as a result of those 2 picks (even if they aren't #1 at each spot) allows others to see his very valid strategy heading into this year's draft. I had completely forgotten about this and, while I would have never made those picks, seeing how his team has turned out as a result is very interesting to me because it proves how you can draft outside of the norm like he did and still do well.

Again, its the shifting of the argument I find funny.No one was arguing his overall strategy. No one questioned the totality of the draft.The original thread which it appears you either did not read or do not follow was questioning the specific selection of certain players vs choosing other players who may or may not have been ranked higher by John himself. Most of the first couple of pages are tongue and cheek. To come back now and bump this is very much, Look at Me. And yes, IMO is very unworthy of a bump.peas.

You can't discuss those picks intelligently without looking at the big picture which explains them. Not only in the context of this draft but my overall situation. This is something I tried to express early on but I had a hard time getting past the short sighted who were only concerned with trying to tell us how much smarter they are. I'm not sure how you can't see that point. I bumped the thread for the sake of those who were looking at this whole thing with an open mind and might be interested in how it is playing out. Believe it or not there were a number of them. Those who feel it was directed at them as an "in your face" for their earlier comments can feel free to take it however they wish. I'm not concerned with that.

 

[joffer]

nice draft John

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

I know a guy who took his K and D early so that when other folks were drafting their K and D he grabbed Flacco and Celek

Genius

 

[Wadsworth]

This thread is all over the place. There has certainly been a shift in discussion and I agree with Br33ze that a new thread should be started to discuss this QB/TE early so you can focus on other positions strategy. That's not what this thread was about when it started.

 

[BR33ZE]

This thread is all over the place. There has certainly been a shift in discussion and I agree with Br33ze that a new thread should be started to discuss this QB/TE early so you can focus on other positions strategy. That's not what this thread was about when it started.

But why start a new thread when you can rub it in the guys faces who dared question you early on???

 

[BR33ZE]

You can't discuss those picks intelligently without looking at the big picture which explains them.

Exactly. That's why this thread was garbage to begin with. Why the heck would you bump a garbage thread?

No need to answer... I already know it.

 

[MCguidance]

You can't discuss those picks intelligently without looking at the big picture which explains them.

Exactly. That's why this thread was garbage to begin with. Why the heck would you bump a garbage thread?

No need to answer... I already know it. :X

I'll even serve you up some mashed potatoes and a piece of apple pie, you just need to eat that crow first son.

 

[TheAssassin]

I know a guy who took his K and D early so that when other folks were drafting their K and D he grabbed Flacco and CelekGenius

 

[Abrantes]

There's a couple dozen less-reasonable bumps in the Shark Pool every day. I was actually wondering how this draft had turned out.

 

[ScottNorwood]

Fantasy Football -> It's all luck

 

[Reaper]

jesus Otis christto say that those picks allowed him to take more value later on is ludicrousBenson's ADP during the time period of the draft was 7.01.Let me say it again 7.01Hines Ward's ADP was 7.11Those didn't just magically drop to JN due to some magical QB TE strategy

So, You're saying that if he really wanted those 2 guys he NAILED IT when he grabbed them?Awesome Job Norton Love the thread as well - I think there's some great lessons to be learned.

 

[ScottyFargo]

That draft still sucks

is it possible for a draft to "suck" and wind up 6-0 and leading the league in points at the midpoint of the season?

No, it's not.

Absolutely.yaddayaddayadda

but I don't agree that 6-0 excuses taking a TE with a 2nd round pick

yaddayaddayadda

He hasn't made any trades. He picked up MSW, and some impact IDP's, that's about it. It just seems odd to me that a team is presented that is undefeated, leads the league in scoring and all-play record, and people are going Yeah, okay, but look at that second round pick. Who cares about his 2nd round pick? He's dominating the league about as much as one can in a H2H league, and this is a competitive league.Just eat your crow and move along.

You yadda yadda'd the best part

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It seems to me that there were two possible criticisms of John's early-round picks:

1. He shouldn't have taken a QB and TE so early.

2. If he was going to take a QB and TE so early, it should have been Brees (or Brady) and Witten rather than Rodgers and Gonzo.

Both criticisms seem wrong at this point. John's general draft strategy (taking a QB and TE early) obviously worked out since he's 6-0; and Rodgers and Gonzo have outscored the other suggested QB-TE combinations so far.

 

[cvnpoka]

It seems to me that there were two possible criticisms of John's early-round picks:1. He shouldn't have taken a QB and TE so early.2. If he was going to take a QB and TE so early, it should have been Brees (or Brady) and Witten rather than Rodgers and Gonzo.Both criticisms seem wrong at this point. John's general draft strategy (taking a QB and TE early) obviously worked out since he's 6-0; and Rodgers and Gonzo have outscored the other suggested QB-TE combinations so far.

you would really prefer rodgers over brees thus far and going forward? and manning too? rodgers is an atrocity of a pick. theres really no way to explain around it.

 

[gianmarco]

It seems to me that there were two possible criticisms of John's early-round picks:1. He shouldn't have taken a QB and TE so early.2. If he was going to take a QB and TE so early, it should have been Brees (or Brady) and Witten rather than Rodgers and Gonzo.Both criticisms seem wrong at this point. John's general draft strategy (taking a QB and TE early) obviously worked out since he's 6-0; and Rodgers and Gonzo have outscored the other suggested QB-TE combinations so far.

you would really prefer rodgers over brees thus far and going forward? and manning too? rodgers is an atrocity of a pick. theres really no way to explain around it.

Rodgers is #3 in ppg right now. You and I have different definitions of "atrocity".Manning -- 22.7 ppgBrees -- 21.96 ppgRodgers -- 21.91 ppg

 

[gianmarco]

Also, as for Gonzo:

He's currently on pace to put up 73/854/10 for the year. Those are typical Gonzo #'s (in fact, a little on the low end). That would be a total of 218 pts. Last year, that would have been good enough for #2 TE for the year (behind, uh, Tony Gonzalez). He's currently the #7 TE in ppg behind the likes of guys like Celek and Heath Miller (in addition to Gates, Clark, Winslow, Daniels). I'll go out on a pretty sturdy limb here that I think Gonzalez has a pretty fair shot to keep up that pace (or build on it) and those others ahead of him have an equally good shot to slide back.

In other words, Gonzo is currently performing at top 1-2 TE #'s. The fact that a couple other TEs have so far been putting up exceptional #'s to currently be ranked ahead of him over a short stretch doesn't mean that Gonzo is underperforming. So, his pick in terms of what it was meant to be (i.e., a safe TE that is likely to put up elite #'s) is doing exactly what he set out to do. Let's let the season finish and see if those guys ahead of him can do it over the course of the whole year. I'm not convinced they can. I'm pretty sure Gonzo can keep it up.

 

[smackdaddies]

It seems to me that there were two possible criticisms of John's early-round picks:1. He shouldn't have taken a QB and TE so early.2. If he was going to take a QB and TE so early, it should have been Brees (or Brady) and Witten rather than Rodgers and Gonzo.Both criticisms seem wrong at this point. John's general draft strategy (taking a QB and TE early) obviously worked out since he's 6-0; and Rodgers and Gonzo have outscored the other suggested QB-TE combinations so far.

you would really prefer rodgers over brees thus far and going forward? and manning too? rodgers is an atrocity of a pick. theres really no way to explain around it.

Where as there is a way to explain your comment.

 

[joffer]

rodgers is an atrocity of a pick. theres really no way to explain around it.

over-exaggerate much?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

you would really prefer rodgers over brees thus far and going forward? and manning too? rodgers is an atrocity of a pick. theres really no way to explain around it.

Brees -- 21.96 ppg

Rodgers -- 21.91 ppg

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11006704

 

[Shadows]

Well Done Mate.

Hope u run the table. Good Luck

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

combined average points/game of Rodgers+Gonzalez: 35.45

combined average points/game of Brees+Witten: 33.94

 

[Chi-Mo]

That draft still sucks

is it possible for a draft to "suck" and wind up 6-0 and leading the league in points at the midpoint of the season?

Yes. Just as it's possible for my wife to defeat Phil Ivey in a HU poker game.

 

[maxwelledison]

Some people are just making themselves look silly in here.

Great job so far John and good luck the rest of the way.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

That draft still sucks

is it possible for a draft to "suck" and wind up 6-0 and leading the league in points at the midpoint of the season?

Yes. Just as it's possible for my wife to defeat Phil Ivey in a HU poker game.

what about beating him 6 times in a row?

 

[ScottyFargo]

That draft still sucks

is it possible for a draft to "suck" and wind up 6-0 and leading the league in points at the midpoint of the season?

Yes. Just as it's possible for my wife to defeat Phil Ivey in a HU poker game.

what about beating him 6 times in a row?

Questionable analogy

 

[cvnpoka]

you would really prefer rodgers over brees thus far and going forward? and manning too? rodgers is an atrocity of a pick. theres really no way to explain around it.

Brees -- 21.96 ppg

Rodgers -- 21.91 ppg

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11006704

yet none of you answered my question. which qb would you prefer to have on your team? if someone offered you rodgers for brees straight up would you take it? alternatively, if you had rodgers, would you accept brees for him straight up?the rodgers pick is plain bad on a few levels. first of all, rodgers is a huge dog to outperform, brees, manning and even brady. secondly, even if you do think rodgers will perform comparably, it is very likely he will be there later on. this point esp holds when i remember norton saying he felt rivers was on that same level. one of those guys would almost certianly be there later.

 

[corpcow]

The person who posted that about FBG is a Rotoworld staffer?

I assume so. It's on their website: http://blogs.rotoworld.com/Fantasy_Footbal...ses_surpris.phpAlso, I have nothing against RotoWorld. I use their website all the time for player news in other sports and I don't think I've ever had anything bad to say about them here.

You know what they say about assumptions right? I was the one who started the thread and posted that comment... and I said it was a comment and if you clicked on the link and read it would be painfully obvious that it was a comment by a reader. You're assuming that the comment which is "on their website" is from a staffer because...... ??

Come on Aaron, I know you're smarter than that... let's employ some common sense here. That kind of statement is like referring to a post on this forum and suggesting that "it must be representative of the FBG staff because it's on their website".

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

You know what they say about assumptions right?

I already admitted my mistake. Wasn't paying close enough attention obviously.I really thought I remembered reading it in the blog post rather than as a comment, but I was mistaken.

 

[corpcow]

You know what they say about assumptions right?

I already admitted my mistake. Wasn't paying close enough attention obviously.I really thought I remembered reading it in the blog post rather than as a comment, but I was mistaken.

Fair enough- I missed that.In any case - I'm still an FBG defender until the end. The thing I love most about this site is that it provides information and opinions from a broad set of opinions, and lets us draw our own conclusions. PARTICULARLY in an IDP league, my money is on any FBG staffer or user over a user of ANY other site. I've bene a subsciber here for at least 5-6 years, if not longer. (I had an account on the old system, I think, but I didn't register right away). I've been involved in other FF communities (most notably Fanball) and none hold a CANDLE to FBG.For that reason, I've always been completely conflicted about telling people about FBG - a sentiment that has come up repeatedly in the Shark Pool. My original post was a tongue-in-cheek reaction to that sentiment - and specifically that comment I quoted.

 

[Twilight]

you would really prefer rodgers over brees thus far and going forward? and manning too? rodgers is an atrocity of a pick. theres really no way to explain around it.

Brees -- 21.96 ppg

Rodgers -- 21.91 ppg

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11006704

yet none of you answered my question. which qb would you prefer to have on your team? if someone offered you rodgers for brees straight up would you take it? alternatively, if you had rodgers, would you accept brees for him straight up?the rodgers pick is plain bad on a few levels. first of all, rodgers is a huge dog to outperform, brees, manning and even brady. secondly, even if you do think rodgers will perform comparably, it is very likely he will be there later on. this point esp holds when i remember norton saying he felt rivers was on that same level. one of those guys would almost certianly be there later.

Any slight advantage at this point of the season Brees has is now matched by playoff schedule he might be sitting through if NO continues domination. And that domination has also resulted in 2 sub-10 pt games for Brees. Rodgers's worst so far is 14, and he definitely won't be sitting because their division was won early. And if I was offered one for the other, I wouldn't take either trade. Both are fine QBs, and picking between them is just as opinion based as it was pre-season.And this was a conversation we had 4 pages ago as well on whether Rodgers and Gonzo would be there at 4.12/5.01. Rodgers ADP said no. Gonzo's ADP was right there. If Norton wanted either on his squad, especially picking with experts, you have to be proactive relative to ADPs. He was, and it has worked out very well for him. Calling the picks "atrocities" shows more ignorance than intelligence.

 

[cvnpoka]

And if I was offered one for the other, I wouldn't take either trade. Both are fine QBs, and picking between them is just as opinion based as it was pre-season.

this is simply not a logical position.

 

[Das Boot]

Congrats John on your great draft from the #1 slot.

 

[Das Boot]

Being the top scoring team in the league is obviously good, but how much of the 6-0 record is due to having the easiest schedule so far? He has the least amount of points scored against him.

I guess the old adage is defense wins championships. Good job so far!

well, it looks like John's definitely had some good luck and won some close games, but he also has the best all-play record at 45-21.http://football3.myfantasyleague.com/2009/...45898&O=101

If this was a fight, the ref would be stepping in to stop it right about now.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Some people are just making themselves look silly in here.

unfortunately, a lot of them are staff

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

you would really prefer rodgers over brees thus far and going forward? and manning too? rodgers is an atrocity of a pick. theres really no way to explain around it.

Brees -- 21.96 ppg

Rodgers -- 21.91 ppg

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11006704

yet none of you answered my question. which qb would you prefer to have on your team? if someone offered you rodgers for brees straight up would you take it? alternatively, if you had rodgers, would you accept brees for him straight up?the rodgers pick is plain bad on a few levels. first of all, rodgers is a huge dog to outperform, brees, manning and even brady. secondly, even if you do think rodgers will perform comparably, it is very likely he will be there later on. this point esp holds when i remember norton saying he felt rivers was on that same level. one of those guys would almost certianly be there later.

Any slight advantage at this point of the season Brees has is now matched by playoff schedule he might be sitting through if NO continues domination. And that domination has also resulted in 2 sub-10 pt games for Brees. Rodgers's worst so far is 14, and he definitely won't be sitting because their division was won early. And if I was offered one for the other, I wouldn't take either trade. Both are fine QBs, and picking between them is just as opinion based as it was pre-season.And this was a conversation we had 4 pages ago as well on whether Rodgers and Gonzo would be there at 4.12/5.01. Rodgers ADP said no. Gonzo's ADP was right there. If Norton wanted either on his squad, especially picking with experts, you have to be proactive relative to ADPs. He was, and it has worked out very well for him. Calling the picks "atrocities" shows more ignorance than intelligence.

I was at the Buffalo game, and those winds were crazy. Nobody could throw very well in those conditions.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Being the top scoring team in the league is obviously good, but how much of the 6-0 record is due to having the easiest schedule so far? He has the least amount of points scored against him.

I guess the old adage is defense wins championships. Good job so far!

well, it looks like John's definitely had some good luck and won some close games, but he also has the best all-play record at 45-21.http://football3.myfantasyleague.com/2009/...45898&O=101

yes, beacuse Rodgers, Gonzo, Royal and Edwards are tearin' it up

Those 4 guys' numbers speak for themselves. Congrats on managing the rest of the draft and starting lineups so well, but really, those 4 picks are turds and the numbers support that.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

yes, beacuse Rodgers, Gonzo, Royal and Edwards are tearin' it upThose 4 guys' numbers speak for themselves. Congrats on managing the rest of the draft and starting lineups so well, but really, those 4 picks are turds and the numbers support that.

what do you have against Rodgers? He's QB3 and within a point per game of Brees and outscoring Brady thus far.I didn't like the Rodgers/Gonzo picks when they were made either, but they obviously aren't hurting his team too much and are not doing nearly as bad as you are implying.Doubt anyone expected Royal/Edwards to be where they are right now. Some bad luck there. I imagine Royal is killing a lot of teams this year, but yet John is still undefeated. Sounds like the sign of a strong overall draft.

 

[cvnpoka]

but we were not discussing or criticizing his overall draft. just those 2 particular picks. why shift the goal posts?

 

[Twilight]

but we were not discussing or criticizing his overall draft. just those 2 particular picks. why shift the goal posts?

Because, once again, those 2 picks were the foundation of his later draft. Talking about those 2 picks in a vacuum is meaningless.

 

[ScottyFargo]

but we were not discussing or criticizing his overall draft. just those 2 particular picks. why shift the goal posts?

Because, once again, those 2 picks were the foundation of his later draft. Talking about those 2 picks in a vacuum is meaningless.

But were they really? Other people have already commented that he could have gotten Benson / his super Waiver pickups like MSW without taking a TE in the second, because that's actually what most people try to do. Braylon / Royal on the turn after that runs counter to that idea as those too were wasted picked for their ADP that didn't exactly establish a bedrock for the rest of his draft to be run on. The rest of his draft, obviously, was pretty good. I don't think that's because of who he drafted early, but instead it's more about who he drafted late.

 

[cvnpoka]

but we were not discussing or criticizing his overall draft. just those 2 particular picks. why shift the goal posts?

Because, once again, those 2 picks were the foundation of his later draft. Talking about those 2 picks in a vacuum is meaningless.

no they actually can be discussed in a vacuum. brees, manning, brady are easily better picks.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

but we were not discussing or criticizing his overall draft. just those 2 particular picks. why shift the goal posts?

Because, once again, those 2 picks were the foundation of his later draft. Talking about those 2 picks in a vacuum is meaningless.

no they actually can be discussed in a vacuum. brees, manning, brady are easily better picks.

so it's better to draft a player who scores less points?

 

[Twilight]

but we were not discussing or criticizing his overall draft. just those 2 particular picks. why shift the goal posts?

Because, once again, those 2 picks were the foundation of his later draft. Talking about those 2 picks in a vacuum is meaningless.

no they actually can be discussed in a vacuum. brees, manning, brady are easily better picks.

so it's better to draft a player who scores less points?

Or who would contribute to a loss (John would lose week 4 if he had Brees instead of Rodgers).

 

[corpcow]

but we were not discussing or criticizing his overall draft. just those 2 particular picks. why shift the goal posts?

Because, once again, those 2 picks were the foundation of his later draft. Talking about those 2 picks in a vacuum is meaningless.

But were they really? Other people have already commented that he could have gotten Benson / his super Waiver pickups like MSW without taking a TE in the second, because that's actually what most people try to do. Braylon / Royal on the turn after that runs counter to that idea as those too were wasted picked for their ADP that didn't exactly establish a bedrock for the rest of his draft to be run on. The rest of his draft, obviously, was pretty good. I don't think that's because of who he drafted early, but instead it's more about who he drafted late.

Exactly. John's team is not winning because of Gonzo or Rodgers - he's winning because many of his later picks panned out. So, clearly, he had a good draft, especially on the defensive side of the ball.At the same time, it's very silly to point to his current record as justification for any of his early picks because none have really factored in to his success. I haven't done all the math - but it's likely he would still be undefeated if he took ADP over MJD or if he took Manning, Brees or Brady over Rodgers. Hell, he would still be undefeated if he took Owen Daniels over Gonzo (which I can't imagine anyone would consider).

I mean.. if you want to go this route... Ray Rice is #2 overall but was drafted at 6.10. Schaub is #3 / 7.04. Big Ben is #4 but was drafted in the 14th round. Steve Smith is WR1 and #7 overall but drafted at 15.05. How good would John's team have been if he drafted Ray Rice and Steve Smith instead of Braylon and Royal? And how many people could he have picked at 3.01 instead of Rodgers and picked up Ben 11 rounds later?

Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[Das Boot]

Hindsight is always 20/20.

His drafting foresight hasn't worked out too badly so far either.

 

[gianmarco]

but we were not discussing or criticizing his overall draft. just those 2 particular picks. why shift the goal posts?

Because, once again, those 2 picks were the foundation of his later draft. Talking about those 2 picks in a vacuum is meaningless.

But were they really? Other people have already commented that he could have gotten Benson / his super Waiver pickups like MSW without taking a TE in the second, because that's actually what most people try to do. Braylon / Royal on the turn after that runs counter to that idea as those too were wasted picked for their ADP that didn't exactly establish a bedrock for the rest of his draft to be run on. The rest of his draft, obviously, was pretty good. I don't think that's because of who he drafted early, but instead it's more about who he drafted late.

Exactly. John's team is not winning because of Gonzo or Rodgers - he's winning because many of his later picks panned out. So, clearly, he had a good draft, especially on the defensive side of the ball.At the same time, it's very silly to point to his current record as justification for any of his early picks because none have really factored in to his success. I haven't done all the math - but it's likely he would still be undefeated if he took ADP over MJD or if he took Manning, Brees or Brady over Rodgers. Hell, he would still be undefeated if he took Owen Daniels over Gonzo (which I can't imagine anyone would consider).

I mean.. if you want to go this route... Ray Rice is #2 overall but was drafted at 6.10. Schaub is #3 / 7.04. Big Ben is #4 but was drafted in the 14th round. Steve Smith is WR1 and #7 overall but drafted at 15.05. How good would John's team have been if he drafted Ray Rice and Steve Smith instead of Braylon and Royal? And how many people could he have picked at 3.01 instead of Rodgers and picked up Ben 11 rounds later?

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Still missing the point. In his mind, at the time, taking Rodgers and Gonzo where he did allowed him to stock him in all of those middle rounds and not have to worry about a backup QB or TE. He may not have felt as comfortable with Brady. Sure, he could have waited a couple of rounds and gotten Rivers, but then he may have felt he needed a backup sooner. Again, he made a conscious decision to take Rodgers over all those guys and it had to do with him thinking he'd put up great #'s and feeling confident on waiting for a backup. Just because everyone else thinks Brees/Brady/Manning are better picks there doesn't make them so (both at the time and in hindsight). He's allowed to think Rodgers is the best QB for his team. Being on the bookends, he's also allowed to think that he doesn't make it back and thus wanted to ensure that he got him. Gonzo is a tougher sell, but at this point, Gonzo's #'s are on pace to be a top 2-3 TE for most years. Sure, there are a couple TE's outperforming him thus far, but that's only after 5-6 games. They may or may not be there at year's end. Gonzo has the proven track record and he's putting up the #'s John expected when he took him that high. Solid, elite #'s without worry due to his past. It's a COMPLETELY different draft if he has to worry about taking a backup QB. Even if not until after he drafts Benson, it still affects the positions he goes for, especially in an IDP league. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

 

[cvnpoka]

this thread is funny. its like a weird variant of results oriented thinking.

its like selective results oriented thinking. this forum has reached another level of fallacy. impressive. i will stick around.

 

[MCguidance]

At some point everyone in here needs to just step back and calm down. You're arguing two different things and it's counter productive and worthless.

 

[gianmarco]

this thread is funny. its like a weird variant of results oriented thinking.its like selective results oriented thinking. this forum has reached another level of fallacy. impressive. i will stick around.

It's almost as funny as the "lemming draft method" where everyone just falls into line and selects the next guy that is supposed to be taken. It's also funny when you consider that you have to factor many things into account when drafting on the bookends, knowing that 22 picks will take place before you go again. Again, everyone is saying that if he was going to take a QB that early, he should have taken Brees or Brady or Manning. Why is that? Because that's what most people thought? Because it's illegal to take Rodgers as the #1 QB? Because it's wrong for him to predict him to be elite and prefer him over those guys? And again, for the record, Rodgers is currently #3 in ppg. So it seems he was dead on in his evaluation. If he felt strongly enough about Rodgers to take him over every other QB in the draft, then it also stands to reason that he didn't want to wait until 4.12 to see if he'd make it back.

 

[cvnpoka]

yes, it seems very wrong to project rodgers to be the best qb. that is my main issue.