Originally posted by GolittaCamper:
First off, plenty of teams passed on Brady, second You really think Rodgers would have been any better getting tossed to the wolves like Smith was?
No o-line, no recievers, just Vernon and Gore. Horrible offensive COs, man Rodgers wouldn't have done s**t.
Rodgers got to sit behind a HOFer, and work with a great offensive staff, so move on.
This same argument gets brought up whenever the 49ers passing on Rodgers is mentioned. It's invalid, and if you ever watch Rodgers play you'd know why. The guy makes magic happen, repeatedly. He has "it." That cannot be taught and there is no other way to describe what he does. It has nothing to do with coaching, a system, or sitting on the bench for 3 years - none of that would have impacted the aforementioned trait. Would he have been the all-time great that he currently is? That can be debated and questioned. But to act like he would have failed just because someone else didn't conquer the situation is pure nonsense.
Him having "no O-line" in SF? He didn't have one to start his career in GB, either. He was running for his life on almost every snap and his O-line has never been anything more than mediocre the entire time he's been there. In fact, the 49ers O-Line in 2006 - the one he would have been operating behind in year 2 if we had chosen him - was better than anything he has ever had.
"No receivers, just Vernon and Gore?" Rodgers has
made receivers in GB. When they leave, what do they accomplish without him? And he's NEVER had an offensive weapon close to Frank Gore to alleviate the burden of having to throw without a run game.
"Terrible OCs?" Norv Turner in 2006 would likely have brought out the dominant passer in Rodgers! Alex had the weapons and the system to light it up that year, but couldn't do it. Rodgers is far more talented, so it stands to reason he would have had a good season, which could have been the launch pad needed to get his career heading down the path it ultimately did. This is obviously just an assumption, but I believe it holds more merit than the old "well, Alex failed due to this, this, and that, so Rodgers would have failed as well" argument.
Sitting on the bench for a few years helped Rodgers. I don't think anyone would argue against that. But to act like playing and gaining starting experience instead of sitting would have undoubtedly destroyed him is ridiculous. The idea that every QB needs to sit and watch before they can be effective has long been thrown out. And not every QB that gets "thrown to the wolves" winds up broken. Nothing about Aaron Rodgers suggests he would have suffered that fate. This is an argument that 49ers fans use as a defense mechanism to ease the pain of passing on the better, more NFL-ready QB when we had the 1st overall pick!
Rodgers is an all time great and we made a HUGE mistake choosing Alex Smith over him. That's the fact of the matter. Acting like he wouldn't have done anything with his career if we had chosen him is just ludicrous. He isn't an average QB boosted by a system. There is no fluke in his game. He may have had a tougher path with the 49ers - and hey, maybe he never would have become
as great as he is - but to act like he would have unquestionably failed is just unreasonable.
