Originally posted by darkknight49:
Originally posted by jeepzilla:
Originally posted by NickSh49:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by DaNiners:
Actually Memphis, the guys right. Had we picked Rodgers we would probably be in the playoffs right now (just like GB will). Statistically, GB has a worse OL and their D is no more consistent. Big difference is at QB (admittedly a better receiving core, but ours is not bad)...Smith is no Rodgers by any measure. It is a stupid, dumb, putrid argument for anyone here to make.
Right now, Smith is better than maybe a third of QB's out there and that is not saying much since most of those QB's (and their QB's) suck. We better hope AS gets a hell of a lot better, or he and Sing will be MIA by midseason and the Davis experiment will officially begin.
Your big assumption is that if Rogers had been drafted by us, he'd playing like he is at Green Bay, which is NOT a given.
Considering Green Bay has one of the best WR corps in the league, it is definitely NOT a given.
Driver, Jennings, Jones, Nelson, Finley, Lee... that's just a bad ass group of players.
Don't you think a good QB makes a receiver "better"? Just asking.... Kind of like Indy's no name receivers.
Indy is a special case because Peyton is basically an on field coach, and apparently very good at it. It can work both ways, but Indy has some good WRs and Peyton makes them look really good. When Peyton has an offday, the receivers still can make plays.
When Alex has an offday, his receivers don't pick up the slack, as evidenced by VD's lack of effort on that first INT and Walker's fumble. Those two wins against AZ and CHI, the D made up for smith's bad day, not his receivers. Plus, Indys OL is very, very good.
Geez, more excuses. Anyway, your point is the same as other people have used against Joe Montana, undeniably the greatest QB ever. BUT Joe had a better team, Joe had better talent, Joe was in same system, blah, blah, blah. He also made decisions quickly, he also was very accurate, and he also understood when to take his shot and when to dump it off. In fact, your argument would essentially eliminate any comparison amongst QB's. I mean, Tom Brady has had the same system, same coach, a strong OL, strong D, blah, blah, blah. Now, is Tom Brady better than AS? Of course he is. Stupid argument, right? Well, so is comparing AS to AR at this point. It is a one-sided argument. AR is better because when you WATCH him play HE LOOKS much better, he THROWS much better, he makes BETTER DECISIONS, he is much more ACCURATE, and he has better pocket AWARENESS.
AR 2008 Stats
4038 yds passing
Sacked 34 times
Total Defense: 20th
Actually, you know who AS reminds me of? Kevin Riley of Cal. In one game Riley will drive Cal down the field in four plays and look great. The next two possessions, he will throw an interception and three passes over his receivers heads. I have watched every AS game since he began, and a better comparison is Riley and not Rodgers of Cal.
As far as your argument about our D. Well, GB's defense sucked last year too, and AR threw for 4000 yds. Does he have better receivers? Sure, but Vernon and Crabtree (despite the drops) are no slouches. Moreover, I don't care who your receivers are, throwing for 4000 yds in your first year is Marinoesque (but I guess he wasn't better than AS either).
In football as in other sports you either make plays or you make excuses. Aaron Rodgers makes plays and AS makes excuses (well, Sing makes them for him). I don't care if you have to sit behind Montana, when your time comes you have to go out there and perform. Rodgers has consistently done that, and AS has not.
You clowns want to keep making excuses, go ahead, but the NFL does not accept excuses very long. Either Smith will be light years better next year, or he will be riding the bench by the fifth game. Truthfully, I could give a sh*t who our QB is, just give me a QB who makes good decisions, is accurate and doesn't give the other team the ball at our 40. Right now, that is not AS.