listening to Sirius/XM NFL radio on way home from work yesterday - Moving the Chains with Jim Miller and Pat Kirwan.
They were talking about the Firing of McCarthy and Kirwan said Rodgers has become a piece of work in Green Bay and then said "I will leave it at that".
It was a very interesting comment especially now that Rodgers has been paid the money and his play has not been good. Now, if that was no. 10, man, we'd be hearing it from the beat writers and so forth.
But I see the same situation in Green Bay that I have in New York. The Packers have not built or given Rodgers help. Based purely on observation, the Packers should be scoring 30 pts a game but they are not. So for those who may watch Green Bay more than I do...what's the issue there?
There is no blame to assign this generational QB, his franchise has failed him.
This is the opposite of the Giants situation where it is old, obsolete and immobile Eli who has been an anchor on the Giants success.
Or, football might be a team game and it is hard to keep a winner going.
😎😎
It's the same boring narrative from the haters.
Excuses all around for the other guys, throw our guy under the bus.
It's the same boring narrative from the haters.
Excuses all around for the other guys, throw our guy under the bus.
Duh, ya think? :)
😎😎
Yeah, it is always like this. Football is the ultimate team sport, by nature of the position QB gets a lot of blame or credit. Some in my view, get way more blame than others. Every game is a referendum on Eli's career and always has been. Rodgers on the other hand has the excuse parade marched out over and over.
As Ive said since 2011, Rodgers would have zero titles if not for our 2010 31-10 meltdown in the Philly game.
Again, I give two shitz whether they are better QBs. Give me my titles, angst and all
The grass isn't always greener, you know?
👍
Prior to this year, Rodgers consistently won when he stayed the starter for the team.
The lack of context is a little alarming in the comparisons.
It is a team game, but the appropriate amount of blame the qbs should have is very different between gb and nyg.
Big Blue '56 : 8:20 am : link : reply
I will always take an Eli over a Marino, Rodgers and Brees because he has as many SB wins than those QBs combined, even if they are/were better QBs over a career..
Big Blue '56 : 8:20 am : link : reply
I will always take an Eli over a Marino, Rodgers and Brees because he has as many SB wins than those QBs combined, even if they are/were better QBs over a career..
You forgot to bold even if they are/were better QBs over a career.
There are Eli hater there, but seeing his limitations this stage of his career does not put one in that club.
There are Eli hater there, but seeing his limitations this stage of his career does not put one in that club.
Absolutely not. But he has more championships which is ALL this fan cares about
But who the better player is and who's had a better career is a far different story and should be measured by different criteria.
Winning 2 rings isn't a career measurement. No one thinks Jim Punket had better career than Steve Young, right?
It is a team game, but the appropriate amount of blame the qbs should have is very different between gb and nyg.
Youre right about context. Comparing Rodgers and Eli has always been apples and oranges. And Rodgers stats have been pretty good this season. Elis? No. But Rodgers has always been an imprtovisational player. Elis a pocket passer, where the line play is critical. Hed actually be playing considerably better with GBs line. (The last time I checked anyway, it had a decent rating.)
Listen, Im an Eli homer, but Ive never thought hes been on par with Rodgers. The end results, though, are the same. 4 wins.
But who the better player is and who's had a better career is a far different story and should be measured by different criteria.
Winning 2 rings isn't a career measurement. No one thinks Jim Punket had better career than Steve Young, right?
Morning buddy. No sane fan would ever argue that Eli is or has been better or comparable to Rodgers over their respective careers. You cant. I dont know of anyone who would
Quote:
The cumulative satisfaction of the 2 championships makes being a Giants fan over the span of Manning's career more enjoyable than being a Packers fan over the span of Rodgers. I don't think anyone can honestly argue against that.
But who the better player is and who's had a better career is a far different story and should be measured by different criteria.
Winning 2 rings isn't a career measurement. No one thinks Jim Punket had better career than Steve Young, right?
Morning buddy. No sane fan would ever argue that Eli is or has been better or comparable to Rodgers over their respective careers. You cant. I dont know of anyone who would
Completely agree. Tangent, but I feel like some fans feel like they need to be hyperbolic about Manning, as if his career and achievements alone don't make him great. He is a great quarterback, who's achieved so much.
He's just had the misfortune, reputation wise of playing through 2 eras of fantastic QB play. But who's played at the same time is just background noise to me.
The undisputed quality he should be remembered for is being the toughest QB of his era. He doesn't get nearly enough praise for that.
Also Chris and yes I will take shit for this,
Big Blue '56 : 8:20 am : link : reply
I will always take an Eli over a Marino, Rodgers and Brees because he has as many SB wins than those QBs combined, even if they are/were better QBs over a career..
You are correct! That is much better!
So you basically took a packer caller who called into boomer and carton and regurgitated it as your own thoughts. You even used hero ball and the big shot down field. Exactly how the caller said it. Man I wish people would either give credit or not post others peoples shit as their own.
lol that so laughably untrue
outside of Jordy Nelson, Rodgers has had a rotating cast of nobodies at WR/TE/RB, not to mention horrible defenses
that statement doesnt put Eli in a better light, it puts guys like Cruz, Burress, Beckham, Nicks, Steve Smith, and Jacobs/Bradshaw in a worse light
Eli's not as good as Rodgers. He's also not as good as Brady. So what? Does that somehow take away from his career or accomplishments, that he doesn't directly measure up against two of the best to ever play the position?
Strahan was no Reggie White either, but I'm still glad he played in a Giants uniform.
But here is where you have your cake and want to eat it too. If Rodgers got them to the playoffs so many year, 9 I believe, and he only has one superbowl win and Eli has been there 6 times and has 2 superbowl victories wouldnt that make him a better quarterback? Or are we going to pick and choose when its an organizational issue, a team effort, the competition, or all just on the QB?
Rogers is a great quarterback no doubt. But you have to give Eli credit where its due as well. Even his two SB teams were not world beaters in the regular season. He made some average receivers and TE's better players.
The year he actually won the Superbowl, they had the 2nd ranked defense in the NFL.
drivel nonsense.
And as far as two championships go, perhaps if Rodgers had defenses that held NE to 14 and 17 points, respectively, things would be different for him.
Instead -- they gave up 51 to Arizona, 37 to NYG, 45 to SF, 44 to ATL. Green Bay has averaged giving up 26.5 points per game in 16 Rodgers playoff games. But by all means, lets pretend Rodgers isnt clutch.
The year he actually won the Superbowl, they had the 2nd ranked defense in the NFL.
In 2011, the Packers defense averaged giving up 19 points per game during their superbowl run. The following year, the NYG defense averaged giving up 14 points per game.
The year he actually won the Superbowl, they had the 2nd ranked defense in the NFL.
So you're making the same damn argument you make for Eli--that he needs help to succeed. Moreover, Rodgers does make his receivers better. Rodgers has largely enjoyed pretty good offensive lines, but his accuracy and mobility have allowed him to make his offensive cast better than the sum of its parts.
Nearly every football claim you make about other QBs is some shadow claim about Eli or is inconsistent with your own previous defenses of Eli.
It's all bullsh-t. All QB's need help. Nobody does it on their own.
You act like that's some kind of universal opinion here, it's not.
Quote:
Meaning they won a playoff game that year too.
But here is where you have your cake and want to eat it too. If Rodgers got them to the playoffs so many year, 9 I believe, and he only has one superbowl win and Eli has been there 6 times and has 2 superbowl victories wouldnt that make him a better quarterback? Or are we going to pick and choose when its an organizational issue, a team effort, the competition, or all just on the QB?
Rogers is a great quarterback no doubt. But you have to give Eli credit where its due as well. Even his two SB teams were not world beaters in the regular season. He made some average receivers and TE's better players.
A lot has gone wrong here.
Eli Needs more help around him than Rodgers does, but suffice it to say Eli hasnt gotten it from NY and Rodgers certainly hasnt gotten it from GB.
You will take shit for it because you will deserve to take shit for it. If you fire up the time machine and put prime Dan Marino on those Giants teams, do you really mean to suggest that they DON'T win with him? Utterly ludicrous.
I've pointed this out before and I'll do so again now: when Marino took over as starter in 1983, the Dolphins still had a great defense, ranked 1st in points allowed and 7th in yards allowed. In year two, when they went to the Super Bowl, they slipped a bit to 7th and 12th. After that? 12/23, 26/26, 16/26, 24/26, 22/24, 4/7, 24/25, 11/10, 24/20, 17/19, 10/16, 17/17, 16/26, 1/3, 19/5. He played almost his entire career with awful defenses, and even when their defense was good in 1990, they allowed 44 points to Buffalo in their playoff loss. Additionally, here are the leading rushers he had over the course of his career: Andra Franklin, Woody Bennett, Tony Nathan, Troy Stradford, Lorenzo Hampton, Sammy Smith, Mark Higgs, Bernie Parmalee, Karim Abdul-Jabbar, JJ Johnson. Abdul-Jabbar in 1996 was the only 1000 yard rusher he ever had. And he never had great receivers, either. Duper and Clayton were good, but hardly Hall of Fame caliber players. Same with Irving Fryar in his later career.
Dan Marino is the poster boy for a franchise wasting its QB with a subpar roster.
Quote:
I will always take an Eli over a Marino, Rodgers and Brees because he has as many SB wins than those QBs combined, even if they are/were better QBs over a career.
You will take shit for it because you will deserve to take shit for it. If you fire up the time machine and put prime Dan Marino on those Giants teams, do you really mean to suggest that they DON'T win with him? Utterly ludicrous.
I've pointed this out before and I'll do so again now: when Marino took over as starter in 1983, the Dolphins still had a great defense, ranked 1st in points allowed and 7th in yards allowed. In year two, when they went to the Super Bowl, they slipped a bit to 7th and 12th. After that? 12/23, 26/26, 16/26, 24/26, 22/24, 4/7, 24/25, 11/10, 24/20, 17/19, 10/16, 17/17, 16/26, 1/3, 19/5. He played almost his entire career with awful defenses, and even when their defense was good in 1990, they allowed 44 points to Buffalo in their playoff loss. Additionally, here are the leading rushers he had over the course of his career: Andra Franklin, Woody Bennett, Tony Nathan, Troy Stradford, Lorenzo Hampton, Sammy Smith, Mark Higgs, Bernie Parmalee, Karim Abdul-Jabbar, JJ Johnson. Abdul-Jabbar in 1996 was the only 1000 yard rusher he ever had. And he never had great receivers, either. Duper and Clayton were good, but hardly Hall of Fame caliber players. Same with Irving Fryar in his later career.
Dan Marino is the poster boy for a franchise wasting its QB with a subpar roster.
This is a pretty good post but I think Duper and Clayton were really good. Simms would have given his left nut for them.