NFC North now the best division for QB's?

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:


Their record was 3-13. What more has to be said. Your link points that out as well.

Yeah, THEY MADE ZERO IMPROVEMENT. Thanks for playing the game.

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Yuck:
Yes and you still haven't grasped the concept that your buddy MC was comparing 2009 Manning to 2009 Rodgers.....which if you look at the stats and their play of last year it's very easy to see that YES, Rodgers is very close to Manning....and could very well surpass him.

Let me know if I need to break this down into smaller words so you can understand what I'm saying.

And you don't get that I don't care about the numbers. A first-year QB with one good year, is not at the level of a 33-year-old, three-time MVP, Super Bowl Champ and MVP QB. Manning was also hurt early on last year so his numbers were down early on.

My perception of level is who is the best QB(s) in the game. Who do you want QB-ing your team on Sunday to win the game. ARodg isn't at Manning's level as far as I'm concerned right now. If you are rebuilding, yes, I would take ARodg. If you are shooting for the bowl this season, I take Manning 10 times out of 10 over ARodge. 2008 stats and all...

Yes....why let stats get in the way
Never said Rodgers was a HOFer, never said he was at Mannings level.
I said he was close.....there is a difference.

I also said that Rodgers could have a better 2009 than Manning....which is entirely possible......and what the discussion was about in the first place.

I also believe that by this time next season Rodgers will be considered one of the top QB's in the league.

This is from a group that thinks that Culpepper is a 6, and that Stafford is already better than Garrard?

Artist- I gave you last season's QB ratings. It favored my comparison. Schaub was the higher rated QB of the two.

I dare you to say that Manning isn't better than all of these QBs by a lot. Manning is a Superstar. There are no superstars in the NFC North, which is what I said from the beginning. Manning tips the scales.

But just so I'm clear as to avoid insulting the superior mind of Mr. Timberlake:

Saying that a division with:
- Manning, a Superstar
- Schaub who was had a higher QB rating than Cutler
- Collins who while not a star was certainly good enough to manage the Titans to the brink of the AFC Championship Game
- Garrard who had a +80 rating and was coming off a very good season in 2007

is stupid when...
- Rodgers is actually equal with Manning right now
- Cutler (despite his lower QB rating and worse record as a starter) is so much better than Schaub that it is beyond comprehension to think of it
- Collins as a more or less average QB is so much worse than a pedestrian Favre or Sage Rosenfels
- A washed up Culpepper or a rookie is better than David Garrard

I'm in capable of being mature right now. I'll get back to you guys later. Hugs!!!

Give up up the logic Yuck. MC and CB still think Yost is the best manager the MLB's has ever seen.

Don't you have any more spelling smack? That's the rich stuff you can deal...

quote:

I'm in capable of being mature right now. I'll get back to you guys later. Hugs!!!

Awww come on! That was great stuff! Especially the leg-humping puppy part!

Music,

You were clearly the outkast in HS that picked fights and talked a lot but ran when the facts stood out you ran like a girl.

Again, I bet scouts and GM's would take the four of Stafford, Rodgers, Cutler, and Favre over Manning and the rest of those 3 guys.

BTW, if Gerard or Garrad or whoever you want to call was good, why was Jacksonville hot for Sanchez? Hmmm....

Call me some more names big guy.

quote:

Again, I bet scouts and GM's would take the four of Stafford, Rodgers, Cutler, and Favre over Manning and the rest of those 3 guys.

Yes, because your bet = facts... gotcha!

Ahhhhh.....Music City now I see. When you say something "is my opinion," you really mean; "What I say is fact and you are an idiot if you disagree with me."

Thanks for the clarification.....feel free to continue with your meltdown.

quote:

Originally posted by Music City:

quote:

Again, I bet scouts and GM's would take the four of Stafford, Rodgers, Cutler, and Favre over Manning and the rest of those 3 guys.

Yes, because your bet = facts... gotcha!

Put your money where your mouth is boy. Instead, of barking about what maybe 5 % of football fans might agree with let's get some money of this one please.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Yuck:
Never said Rodgers was a HOFer, never said he was at Mannings level.
I said he was close.....there is a difference.

I also said that Rodgers could have a better 2009 than Manning....which is entirely possible......and what the discussion was about in the first place.

I also believe that by this time next season Rodgers will be considered one of the top QB's in the league.

Realize that and I still disagree, he isn't close yet.

Yes he (ARodg) could have a better year. He could have better numbers, he could win more games even...but...two years still wouldn't put him in that top tier (Brady, Manning, Brees)...yet...IMO...

quote:

Ahhhhh.....Music City now I see. When you say something "is my opinion," you really mean; "What I say is fact and you are an idiot if you disagree with me."

Yuck,
Check through this thread. I am not the one calling people stupid. I am debating my point, but not at anyone else's expense. I am backing up my opinion with the facts that support my case. Others are disgreeing with it, and I am fine with that. I'm not conceeding my point because my opinion has merit. I am perfectly fine if I have an opinion that isn't running along with the concensus.

Contrast with Timberlake's contributions, and you'll see you have the wrong guy with your statement.

quote:

Put your money where your mouth is boy. Instead, of barking about what maybe 5 % of football fans might agree with let's get some money of this one please.

Yes, because you feel threatened so you must "challenge me" to a duel. Blow me leg humper...

quote:

Originally posted by Music City:

quote:

I'm in capable of being mature right now. I'll get back to you guys later. Hugs!!!

Awww come on! That was great stuff! Especially the leg-humping puppy part!

I didn't edit the original post, but next time you should consider going with a graphic. You know what they say about pictures...

Notice Artist isn't really trying to stop the golden lab, just get him in better position...

What facts have you stated?

opinion: collins is a winner. 79-85 record
opinion: Garrard is better than Cutler according to your ranking
opinion: Schaub's game versus the Packers non-existent pass rush.

Manning: 10
Schaub: 7
Collins: 7
Gerard: 7

is greater than

Rodgers: 8
Cutler: 7
Favre: 7
Stafford: 5

Yeah, you have really went all out. Pure jeenyus.

Oh, I dunno...

quote:

Manning: 95.0
Schaub: 92.7
Collins: 80.2
Garrad ( ): 81.7

Rodgers: 93.8
Cutler: 86.0
Favre: 81.0
Culpepper: 63.9

Add...

http://www.postgameheroes.com/?p=6732

here's one guys take so far. Yep, you are in the consensus MC.

quote:

Originally posted by The Artist fka TD:
http://www.postgameheroes.com/?p=6732

here's one guys take so far. Yep, you are in the consensus MC.

Cripes, if someone just could have let us all know what "Dutch" thought about this stuff from the get-go, we could have saved ourselves some valuable work time...

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:

quote:

Originally posted by The Artist fka TD:
trying to outtap more dumb than MC, chicken?

http://www.pro-football-refere...m/teams/clt/1998.htm

Yeah, that 98 Colts team only had first ballet HOF Marshall Faulk and Marvin Harrison on plus Pathon, Pollard, and Dilger were respectable players.

Their record was 3-13. What more has to be said. Your link points that out as well.

So how would your grades work out for Stafford then who was also the first pick in the draft?

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:

quote:

Originally posted by The Artist fka TD:
http://www.postgameheroes.com/?p=6732

here's one guys take so far. Yep, you are in the consensus MC.

Cripes, if someone just could have let us all know what "Dutch" thought about this stuff from the get-go, we could have saved ourselves some valuable work time...

Yet, we are supposed to listen to you... Point me to your website.

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Yuck:
Never said Rodgers was a HOFer, never said he was at Mannings level.
I said he was close.....there is a difference.

I also said that Rodgers could have a better 2009 than Manning....which is entirely possible......and what the discussion was about in the first place.

I also believe that by this time next season Rodgers will be considered one of the top QB's in the league.

Realize that and I still disagree, he isn't close yet.

Yes he (ARodg) could have a better year. He could have better numbers, he could win more games even...but...two years still wouldn't put him in that top tier (Brady, Manning, Brees)...yet...IMO...

Ummmmm.....yes it would.
The guy passes for 4000+ yards, throws 30+ TD's wins 10+ games after the season he had in 08' then guess what???? He's a top-tier QB.

BTW...you saying he "isn't close" is like Icon endorsing a player....no possible way it can be taken seriously.


Music City, between your past posting style and the fact you seem to be working towards a minor meltdown I would say that hammer has met nail.
Don't really care what TD, or CB posts. One is inflammatory in pretty much every thread, and one is clueless in pretty much every thread.

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:
Manning took over a 3-13 team. ARodg a 13-3 team. I suppose that doesn't matter however...

Good point. Although a very important part of the team, the QB isn't the only thing that plays into a teams record. Defense, STs, strategy, execution, personnel usage, etc. all play a part as well. But good point none the less.

quote:

Music City, between your past posting style and the fact you seem to be working towards a minor meltdown I would say that hammer has met nail.

Spare me your psychoanalysis. I haven't really seen too much to destroy my poit of view. Sure, disagree with it, but I have backed up my point and given the evidence why I think I am right. I think you're seriously over estimating Cutler's value, you think I am over estimating Collins. I don't know what else to tell you. I see no hammer in this thread. Nothing you have posted or zippy over there has posted has made my point irrelevant. I am happy to leave it at that.

Just the mere fact you called Collins a winner and Garrard as good as Cutler is relevant.

Has anyone mentioned that Collins went to a super bowl? He is a solid QB that sat back and dumped the ball of when he needed to, but was actually able to throw the ball when necessary. You could do a lot worse in the NFL.

Cutler on the other hand has not had a winning record since high school. IMO, Cutler is going to have a great statistical career but won't win much of anything. Winning is a habit and Cutler doesn't have it.

quote:

Has anyone mentioned that Collins went to a super bowl?

So has Rex Grossman, your point?

quote:

Originally posted by CUPackFan:
Has anyone mentioned that Collins went to a super bowl?

Cutler on the other hand has not had a winning record since high school. IMO, Cutler is going to have a great statistical career but won't win much of anything. Winning is a habit and Cutler doesn't have it.

I'm sure Kerry Collins would have had Vanderbilt battling for National Championships year after year . I don't know if Cutler is our savior or not, but I'm not ready to label him a loser after two seasons as an NFL starter, one 7-9 and one 8-8, for a putrid team defensively.

I'm also not ready to anoint the North a mecca for QBs just yet. We've got a couple young guys with burgeoning skills (Rodgers and Cutler), a couple veterans with fading ones (Favre and Culpepper), and a heralded rookie with no NFL track record (Stafford). Not bad, but there are divisions with deeper and more proven QBs at the moment (IMHO ).

B-N-D

A division where Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are starters immediately trumps the NFC norse. And I think Sanchez very close to Stafford talent wise as far as first year starters go.

We might have the most interesting division as far as QB's go if Favre signs with the purple twits...but not the best.

You'd be right except for 1 small tidbit ... Manning and Brady aren't in the same division.

Music....Your posting style is "I'm right you're wrong." No psychoanalysis involved. I was right on the mark with my previous post.

Opinion is just that....opinion. May help you to try and remember that.

Regardless of everything said in this thread....the North can certainly make an argument for being one of the better divisions QB-wise.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Yuck: Don't really care what TD, or CB posts. One is inflammatory in pretty much every thread, and one is clueless in pretty much every thread.

Then don't bother responding. Just sit back with your buddies and pat each other on the back about your football wisdom and rips on posters you don't agree with.

I'd actually be interested in how many actually agree with you and would put ARodg in the same class as Manning after two years as a starter and if he has better stats next year. I personally need more than that to put him at that level and that is not a shot at ARodg.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...6/19/mail/index.html

quote:

Twitter question of the week: Who will be the best QB in the NFC North this year? I predict Rodgers.
--@steffeck

I agree. I think Aaron Rodgers is poised to build on what he did last year and that he will play better than a receiver-less Jay Cutler and Old Man Favre, if he comes back.

quote:

Originally posted by lambeausouth:
A division where Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are starters immediately trumps the NFC norse.

As long as we're playing make believe, a division with Joe Montana, Dan Marino, and Johnny Unitas trumps that.

Your turn.

quote:

Originally posted by lambeausouth:
A division where Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are starters immediately trumps the NFC norse.

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Yuck: Don't really care what TD, or CB posts. One is inflammatory in pretty much every thread, and one is clueless in pretty much every thread.

Then don't bother responding. Just sit back with your buddies and pat each other on the back about your football wisdom and rips on posters you don't agree with.

I'd actually be interested in how many actually agree with you and would put ARodg in the same class as Manning after two years as a starter and if he has better stats next year. I personally need more than that to put him at that level and that is not a shot at ARodg.

At least you picked out the "clueess" one.

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Yuck: Don't really care what TD, or CB posts. One is inflammatory in pretty much every thread, and one is clueless in pretty much every thread.

Then don't bother responding. Just sit back with your buddies and pat each other on the back about your football wisdom and rips on posters you don't agree with.

I'd actually be interested in how many actually agree with you and would put ARodg in the same class as Manning after two years as a starter and if he has better stats next year. I personally need more than that to put him at that level and that is not a shot at ARodg.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. Don't generally rip on posters who I don't agree with either. Arrogant azzes and clueless posters are prime targets though. Guess which one you are.
Stay in the baseball forum.....fewer posters will realize how foolish you come off on a regular basis.


As far as Rodgers vs. Manning:
Seriously, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. You keep stating I claim Rodgers is neck and neck with Manning. Never once said that.
I posted earlier how Rodgers could be considered a top-tier QB after this season.....which is very possible. I also stated Rodgers could be close to Manning. Once again close and even are not the same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by The Artist fka TD:
At least you picked out the "clueess" one.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Yuck:

As far as Rodgers vs. Manning:
Seriously, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. You keep stating I claim Rodgers is neck and neck with Manning. Never once said that.
I posted earlier how Rodgers could be considered a top-tier QB after this season.....which is very possible. I also stated Rodgers could be close to Manning. Once again close and even are not the same thing.

I will skip with the name calling and question your comprehension. Yes, you say could. I say he couldn't. That's it. Two years (with any numbers) isn't enough to put him Manning's class (which is top tier) or close to it (or Brady's for that matter). That has been my position from the get go. Four years at last years production? Maybe. But he will need a MVP and/or some playoff wins.

quote:

Two years (with any numbers) isn't enough to put him Manning's class

Unless of course Rodgers happens to win the Super Bowl this season