Aaron Rodgers is ridiculous

[RockThatBlue]

That is all.

[Luck is Good]

He is the most physically gifted QB I've ever seen

[Imped]

He's the most perfect quarterback I've ever seen - his mechanics are so good, accuracy is phenomenal, and his photobombing skills are just on point.

 

Aaron, keep being you man.

[Moose Of Woe]

There are great QB's on better teams...
 

...but Rodgers is the best individual player in the league, bar none. He not only makes ridiculous throws, he makes them consistently. Take Rodgers off GB, they're a 4 win team at best. No other QB can do what he does.

 

There are 3 step drop masters who throw to wide open receivers...and then there is Rodgers. AR  can make a throw anywhere, anytime, on the move, across his body, it doesn't matter. He can even scramble. He is nuts.

 

I still have a hard time putting anyone above Marino, but Rodgers is quickly climbing the ladder in my eyes as being the best QB to ever play. I don't care if he never wins another ring.

 

ATL will be a tall order. They have the firepower to keep pace with GB and a better defense. Like Dallas, they're a better overall team than GB is. That being said, GB has Aaron frickin' Rodgers so they always have a chance against everybody in spite of their own defense. Reminds me of someone else...

 

[LockeDown]

he is so good, a Hail Mary is considered a high percentage play.

[Track Guy]

He's terrific no doubt, but he gets somewhat overrated on this forum I think. I imagine it has to do with wanting somebody to be better than Brady.

[Moose Of Woe]

14 minutes ago, Track Guy said:

He's terrific no doubt, but he gets somewhat overrated on this forum I think. I imagine it has to do with wanting somebody to be better than Brady.

Wanting? He is. Has been for, like, 4 years. Better than Peyton and Brees,  too along with everyone else.

 

Overrated? Seriously? Have you actually seen the insane throws he makes regularly to keep GB in games? It's beyond stupid. Put other high level QB's like Ryan or Brady on GB and they'd win, maybe, six games. An average one would have them at 4 or less.

[Jules]

He's good but he is overrated at times. The refs bail him out A LOT and well I was kinda more into him years ago before being into him was cool and now everyone is into him and I am kinda blah now on him.

 

 

 

 

[jvan1973]

Just now, Jules said:

He's good but he is overrated at times. The refs bail him out A LOT and well I was kinda more into him years ago before being into him was cool and now everyone is into him and I am kinda blah now on him.

 

 

 

 

That makes sense,  He is better now than ever before

[Jules]

5 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

That makes sense,  He is better now than ever before

 

I was a Rodgers groupie way back before the other Rodgers groupies developed. Now it just seems dull to me so I find new bands.

[Moose Of Woe]

By the way, he has zero run game to speak of.

 

He's also relatively immune to a poor O-line unless someone comes in unblocked, because he can buy another 6 seconds just by moving around and deliver an accurate pass downfield on the run or just scramble for the first. Other Qb's can do that, of course, but not frequently or consistently. That's what sets him apart.

[Stephen]

rodgers is great. The thing I always liked about him was he does turn it over much. He's like farve with less turnovers

[oldunclemark]

11 minutes ago, Jules said:

 

I was a Rodgers groupie way back before the other Rodgers groupies developed. Now it just seems dull to me so I find new bands.

Hmmmmm

[oldunclemark]

  No matter who gets hurt or how many setbacks they have...you think they have a chance with him.

GB won on the road against the top seed without the NFL leader in TD catches..and half their secondary..

 

..and not that many are surprised they could do it.

Because one guy was there and on his game..

 

He's the new Peyton Manning.......same bar..set at the same height

[Track Guy]

51 minutes ago, Moose Of Woe said:

Overrated? Seriously? Have you actually seen the insane throws he makes regularly to keep GB in games? It's beyond stupid. Put other high level QB's like Ryan or Brady on GB and they'd win, maybe, six games. An average one would have them at 4 or less.

 

What makes you think Green Bay has such a bad supporting cast? Honestly the Packers are better than even a team like the Colts, and we won 8 games. I'm sure Brady would win more than 6 games.

[Moose Of Woe]

19 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

  No matter who gets hurt or how many setbacks they have...you think they have a chance with him.

GB won on the road against the top seed without the NFL leader in TD catches..and half their secondary..

 

..and not that many are surprised they could do it.

Because one guy was there and on his game..

 

He's the new Peyton Manning.......same bar..set at the same height

Even in Peyton's prime I don't think he regularly could do what Rodgers is now with his mobility.

 

Granted Peyton made due with some craptastic Olines after 2006, but it still limited what he could do if the line was junk. Peyton could get rid of the ball quickly and accurately while on the run.

 

With Rodgers it's different. Rodgers can get rid of it quickly and accurately, on the run, BUT he can also buy so much extra time. It allows his guys to get down field for him to deliver an accurate throw . It's insane.

[Moose Of Woe]

5 minutes ago, Track Guy said:

 

What makes you think Green Bay has such a bad supporting cast? Honestly the Packers are better than even a team like the Colts, and we won 8 games. I'm sure Brady would win more than 6 games.

That defense is average at best. Not at all playoff let alone championship caliber.

Special teams are ok, that kicker, as he proved tonight, is solid.

Zero run game to speak of. Poor pass blocking/overall offensive line. Good (not great) receivers and TE's.

 

That's not a well rounded team. They're better than the Colts, yes, but that's not a high bar. They're better than us but still far from a complete team. The Colt defense, offensive line, coaching staff and overall* weapons are all worse than GB's. We're a hot mess.

 

*Ty Hilton and Luck are solid, obviously. But aside from them...

 

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, Moose Of Woe said:

Even in Peyton's prime I don't think he regularly could do what Rodgers is now with his mobility.

 

Granted Peyton made due with some craptastic Olines after 2006, but it still limited what he could do if the line was junk. Peyton could get rid of the ball quickly and accurately, whileon the run.

 

With Rodgers it's different. Rodgers can get rid of it quickly and accurately, on the run, BUT he can also buy so much extra time. It allows his guys to get down field for him to deliver an accurate throw . It's insane.

Peyton used his mind to get the advantage.  He never had the physical tools that Rodgers does.   The guy is a freak.  He is better on the run than in the pocket

[Track Guy]

1 minute ago, Moose Of Woe said:

That defense is average at best.

Special teams are ok, that kicker, as he proved tonight, is solid.

Zero run game to speak of. Poor pass blocking/overall offensive line. Good (not great) receivers and TE's.

 

That's not a well rounded team. They're better than the Colts, yes, but that's not a high bar. They're far from a complete team. The Colt defense, offensive line, coaching staff and overall* weapons are all worse than GB's. We're a hot mess.

 

*Ty Hilton and luck aresolid, obviously. But aside from them...

 

 

Fair enough - comparing them to the other teams who've made it this far I guess they're not as good. I think PFF did grade the Packers O-line pretty highly, but perhaps they're overrating them a bit. No doubt Rogers is playing some excellent football. 

[RockThatBlue]

That Rodgers throw before the game winning FG was one of the best passes I've ever seen, an incredible catch too.

[Tsarquise]

3 minutes ago, Moose Of Woe said:

That defense is average at best. Not at all playoff let alone championship caliber.

Special teams are ok, that kicker, as he proved tonight, is solid.

Zero run game to speak of. Poor pass blocking/overall offensive line. Good (not great) receivers and TE's.

 

That's not a well rounded team. They're better than the Colts, yes, but that's not a high bar. They're better than us but still far from a complete team. The Colt defense, offensive line, coaching staff and overall* weapons are all worse than GB's. We're a hot mess.

 

*Ty Hilton and Luck are solid, obviously. But aside from them...

 

Colts 2-0 against the Packers in the Luck era. 

[Moose Of Woe]

3 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

Colts 2-0 against the Packers in the Luck era. 

They also didn't make the playoffs in the worst division in football.

 

One matchup does not a team make. Luck is Rodgers lite in that you always have a chance to win with him, regardless of how much the rest of your team sucks.

 

The difference is GB is a bit better overall, and Rodgers is leagues better than Luck. Luck happened to lead Indy through those two nights. If I were a betting man, I'd still take the Packers every time unless something major happens in Indy.

[Tsarquise]

Is Rodgers really all that great in the pocket? It seems like he just runs around and waits for someone to get open. While it's entertaining, im not sure that makes the GOAT.

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, Moose Of Woe said:

They also didn't make the playoffs in the worst division in football.

 

One matchup does not a team make. Luck is Rodgers lite in that you always have a chance to win with him, regardless of how much the rest of your team sucks.

 

The difference is GB is a bit better overall, and Rodgers is leagues better than Luck.

The afc south isn't the worst division in the nfl

[Moose Of Woe]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

The afc south isn't the worst division in the nfl

NFC West? Maybe?

 

 

[Tsarquise]

3 minutes ago, Moose Of Woe said:

They also didn't make the playoffs in the worst division in football.

 

One matchup does not a team make. Luck is Rodgers lite in that you always have a chance to win with him, regardless of how much the rest of your team sucks.

 

The difference is GB is a bit better overall, and Rodgers is leagues better than Luck. Luck happened to lead Indy through those two nights. If I were a betting man, I'd still take the Packers every time unless something major happens in Indy.

The Packers division is not a good division. The Colts beat all of them, with the exception of the Lions; a game which they probably should have won

 

I think you're giving toouch credit to that whole team, including Rodgers. 

[Jules]

11 minutes ago, Moose Of Woe said:

Even in Peyton's prime I don't think he regularly could do what Rodgers is now with his mobility.

 

Granted Peyton made due with some craptastic Olines after 2006, but it still limited what he could do if the line was junk. Peyton could get rid of the ball quickly and accurately while on the run.

 

With Rodgers it's different. Rodgers can get rid of it quickly and accurately, on the run, BUT he can also buy so much extra time. It allows his guys to get down field for him to deliver an accurate throw . It's insane.

 

Peyton was way better then Rodgers (in his prime) and here I am defending Peyton.

 

Peyton was like a young Dan Marino clone in his prime and was surgical out there on the field to the point it was near obnoxious. Rodgers runs around at times and makes this one big azzz crazy throw at the end of the game and everyone goes OH MY GAWD.

[Moose Of Woe]

2 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

Is Rodgers really all that great in the pocket? It seems like he just runs around and waits for someone to get open. While it's entertaining, im not sure that makes the GOAT.

Running for your life, throwing across your body, and not having time to even plant your feet does.

[Moose Of Woe]

2 minutes ago, Jules said:

 

Peyton was way better then Rodgers (in his prime) and here I am defending Peyton.

 

Peyton was like a young Dan Marino clone in his prime and was surgical out there on the field to the point it was near obnoxious. Rodgers runs around at times and makes this one big azzz crazy throw at the end of the game and everyone goes OH MY GAWD.

...one throw?

 

He does those things regularly. That's the entire point.

[Colts_Fan12]

Still not better then Peyton but no one is so oh well lol but he is better then Brady 

[Moose Of Woe]

4 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

The Packers division is not a good division. The Colts beat all of them, with the exception of the Lions; a game which they probably should have won

 

I think you're giving toouch credit to that whole team, including Rodgers. 

I didn't say the Pack had a good division. I didn't say the Pack are even a good team. I'm saying Rodgers is that damn good. He had a bad start to the season and we saw what the rest of the team did when he wasn't pulling the cart. He snapped out of it and lo and behold...

[jvan1973]

2 minutes ago, Jules said:

 

Peyton was way better then Rodgers (in his prime) and here I am defending Peyton.

 

Peyton was like a young Dan Marino clone in his prime and was surgical out there on the field to the point it was near obnoxious. Rodgers runs around at times and makes this one big azzz crazy throw at the end of the game and everyone goes OH MY GAWD.

I agree manning was overall better.  The rest of your post sounds like someone that doesn't actually watch the games

[Tsarquise]

2 minutes ago, Jules said:

 

Peyton was way better then Rodgers (in his prime) and here I am defending Peyton.

 

Peyton was like a young Dan Marino clone in his prime and was surgical out there on the field to the point it was near obnoxious. Rodgers runs around at times and makes this one big azzz crazy throw at the end of the game and everyone goes OH MY GAWD.

This, so much!!! He runs around, buys time and throws a hail marry. Mind blowwwwwnnnnn!!!!

[Moose Of Woe]

Just now, Tsarquise said:

This, so much!!! He runs around, buys time and throws a hail marry. Mind blowwwwwnnnnn!!!!

Sometimes they're hail mary's at the end of games, yes. Which is about 90% luck, but he also buys the time needed and throws off his heels to even get in there for a chance in the first place.

 

For the other 99/100 situations that are not hail marys at the end of games, he buys time for an accurate pass downfield for a big gain.

[Jules]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

I agree manning was overall better.  The rest of your post sounds like someone that doesn't actually watch the games

 

I apologize jvan, I will try harder. I work and have a life on the side, I watch as much as I can every week so I can keep up with the smart people here.

[Tsarquise]

1 minute ago, Moose Of Woe said:

Sometimes they're hail mary's at the end of games, yes. Which is about 90% luck, but he also buys the time needed and throws off his heels to even get in there for a chance in the first place.

 

For the other 99/100 situations that are not hail marys at the end of games, he buys time for an accurate pass downfield for a big gain.

Lol yeah, I know they aren't all hail Marys. Just saying his game consists of him running around until someone gets open. I just don't think he is the GOAT.

 

Great QB.

 

Not the greatest.

 

Peyton was better.

 

Luck can be better.

[Tsarquise]

8 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

I agree manning was overall better.  The rest of your post sounds like someone that doesn't actually watch the games

How come you're so condescending? 

[Moose Of Woe]

7 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

Lol yeah, I know they aren't all hail Marys. Just saying his game consists of him running around until someone gets open. I just don't think he is the GOAT.

 

Great QB.

 

Not the greatest.

 

Peyton was better.

 

Luck can be better.

I don't think he's the goat either. I think he's getting there, and might be by the end of things if he can play at this level or better for another 5+ years. I think he's the best QB playing right now by a fair margin even as great as Ryan and Brady have been.

 

 

Right now, I'd put Marino and Peyton above him among a few others.

Luck can be better.....he makes some god awful head scratching decisions sometimes...but often it's in desperation mode when we're behind so I look past it. I also know the defense is going to blow any lead we have so I don't mind him taking chances. However, right now, Rodgers is way ahead of him. That's no slight on Luck.

[jvan1973]

Just now, Tsarquise said:

How come you're so condescending? 

Did you read the post I responded to?  Did any of it seem like it was based in reality?   "Rodgers has one good throw. OMG,    HE IS A GAWD"

[oldunclemark]

24 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

Colts 2-0 against the Packers in the Luck era. 

Luck could be Rodgers with a better O-line...

..The only QB in the NFL I'd trade Luck for tis Aaron Rodgers..

 

...But the Colts could do what GB does with a better O-line and some defensive playmakers