There are 245 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

When will people finally admit Aaron Rodgers has incredible talent around him?

Originally posted by niner4life21:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Haven't seen anybody show me 6 or more Susweel. Do you know of an example?

Why the f**k does it have to be 6 TDs?!?!?!

Is 4 TDs and 480+ yards not enough? Or does it have to be the exact same stats as Flynn? Holy s**t dude, you're impossible to argue with.

Well Flynn had 6. Which was an all time mark. 4 is a really impressive day. But not in the same category. Show me 6....
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Well Flynn had 6. Which was an all time mark. 4 is a really impressive day. But not in the same category. Show me 6....

[ Edited by NineFourNiner on Jan 5, 2012 at 1:58 PM ]
You can't come up with an example. That's the problem. And the one that did JUST HAPPENED TO BE GREEN BAY by "random chance"...
[ Edited by SanDiego49er on Jan 4, 2012 at 11:30 PM ]

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Hmmmm... So it only happened 7 times ever in modern history. And IT JUST SO HAPPENED IT WAS ON GREEN BAY.....

Since you can't make logical points and just use smilies here you go. Enjoy your continued debate over splitting over hairs. 450 yard and 5 TD's is great but it's not 6 TD's
480 > 450

6 > 5

Show me something greater than 480 and 6 TD's....
The real question is can Flynn deliver these 400+ yards performances consistently
Originally posted by JerryRice1848:
The real question is can Flynn deliver these 400+ yards performances consistently

Well it didn't look hard for him. The game didn't matter at all for the Packers. And they looked like they were just throwing it around in practice without a defense at all. Difficult to say if he could do it consistently but he sure has a good team around him and an ideal situation.
  • vaden
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,926
So because a few other backup QBs have had similarly (but not equally) great games, the implication is that Flynn's performance was just another fluke and had nothing to do with GB's talent and offensive system. I don't buy it. The odds are astronomical that the next backup QB to do this just so happened to be Rodgers' backup and a guy who's had four years to train in that system.
Originally posted by vaden:
So because a few other backup QBs have had similarly (but not equally) great games, the implication is that Flynn's performance was just another fluke and had nothing to do with GB's talent and offensive system. I don't buy it. The odds are astronomical that the next backup QB to do this just so happened to be Rodgers' backup and a guy who's had four years to train in that system.

Yup. Agree 100%. Astronomical odds....
What? The packs are good? Haven't noticed. Bring them on!
Originally posted by elguapo:
Originally posted by blizzuntz:
There is no "Jerry Rice" on this Packers team. By that I mean Hall of Fame.

That's a wonderful observation....but there is Jennings a pro bowl and top 5 wr that could eventually be a hover and Nelson and jones and driver and Finley so don't know the point you are trying to make when rodgers would never do great without his great wr core and Montana won 2 subs with Dwight Clark....wow. Last time I checked rogers is a great qb with great weapons, however when they didn't have great weapons I seem to recall an 8-8 and a 9-7 team with a good qb not a great one. Now they have better weapons = great qb......hence the whole point of this thread

Dwight Clark was a pro bowler as well.

My whole point is Rodgers has won with out a Jerry Rice HOF talent just like Joe Montana. And If you look back Joe Montana had some all pro talent around him when he won with out Rice.

Both Montana and current day Rodgers are surgeons as far as cutting up defenses with precision accurate passing.

Rodgers has won over 10 games every year he has started except his first year starting
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
So freakin what. Rodgers is great and anyone trying to come up with ways to discredit him is simply showing whatever bias they have against him. Flynn had a big game against a vulnerable Detroit secondary in a very high scoring game. Stafford had 520 and 5 as well. No one was playing defense that game. I don't understand why that means Rodgers is less than spectacular or whatever point this thread is trying to make.

Maybe Flynn is a good up and coming qb. Some teams and scouts are just better and finding talent at certain positions than others. We'll find out next season when he's starting for someone. Elvis Grbac came in for us and put up huge numbers. Does that take away from Steve Young? Young came in and had a hall of fame career with us. Does that mean Montana wasn't so great? A qb needs talent around him to have a great year. Rodgers having talent around him doesn't make him less of a player.

A makes him in a VERY ADVANTAGEOUS SITUATION. The team around you MATTERS!.... If a scrub backup came come off the bench and post 480 yards and 6 TD's like a walk in the park it says something about the talent surrounding the QB position on that team.

It's true the team around you matters, but plenty of qbs landing in good situations haven't done anything close to what rodgers has done. Lienart is the first that comes to mind. I'm not sure Flynn is a scrub though. Teams wanted him this off season and GB refused to trade him. They must like something about him. We'll find out how good he is when he's starting for someone else next season.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
480 > 450

6 > 5

Show me something greater than 480 and 6 TD's....

Stop being difficult man.
Originally posted by vaden:
So because a few other backup QBs have had similarly (but not equally) great games, the implication is that Flynn's performance was just another fluke and had nothing to do with GB's talent and offensive system. I don't buy it. The odds are astronomical that the next backup QB to do this just so happened to be Rodgers' backup and a guy who's had four years to train in that system.

Nobody has said Green Bay doesn't have a good offensive system. I'd like you guys to show me one time anybody has ever said otherwise.

It's funny that you guys are also completely ignoring that the rest of Green Bay's offense also benefits from that same system. Green Bay's line is no more talented than ours. They have no running game to speak of and their receivers system guys too. We're not talking about Matthew Stafford throwing to Calvin Johnson.

Ultimately this is what comes down to. Yeah Green Bay's got a good system and can develop quarterbacks. Walsh, Holmgren, Reid, Mariucci, Gruden . Successful west coast offensive coaches all have that track record. Every single one of them took journeyman quarterbacks and turned them into Pro Bowlers. Does Matt Hassleback take away from Brett Favre? Does Steve Young take away from Joe Montana? Does Kevin Kolb and AJ Feely take away from Donovan McNabb?

According to some of you guys it's no unless we have to compare to Alex than it's yes.

Regarding Matt Flynn's game. It's one game and it was just 2 weeks ago when the same people making this argument was telling everyone look at Green Bay without Jennings they can't throw the ball. You need elite receivers. How's that working out right now? One game is too small of a sample size to make any definitive statement.
[ Edited by tjd808185 on Jan 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM ]
those idiots should cut aaron rodgers then.