PDA

View Full Version : Best QB In NFC North


Pages : [1] 2

Barbecue Bob
03-04-2008, 04:21 PM
Now that Brett Favre is retired who do you think is the best quarterback in the NFC North?

RollingMoss
03-04-2008, 04:49 PM
Did you ask who the best QB in the NFC North is or did you ask what pile of sh*t is the sh*ttiest pile of sh*t in the port-a-potty?

KCJ58
03-04-2008, 04:51 PM
http://images.sportsnetwork.com/football/nfl/allsport/packers/rodgers_aaron.jpg

iowatreat54
03-04-2008, 04:55 PM
neck beard ftw!!!

seriously, it might be Kitna by default, but I'd still take Orton

regoob2
03-04-2008, 07:53 PM
Kitna I'd say is the least bad.

Crazy_Chris
03-04-2008, 08:18 PM
Obviously it's Jon Kitna by Default.

neko4
03-04-2008, 08:22 PM
1 Kitna
2 Rodgers
3 Grossman
4 Jackson
5 Orton

Crazy_Chris
03-04-2008, 08:29 PM
1 Kitna
2 Rodgers
3 Grossman
4 Jackson
5 Orton

No way is rodgers 2nd, A QB who has NEVER started an NFL game is not going to be that high up the list.

1. Kitna
2.?? I don't think anyone out of the rest has shown enough to truly seperate himself from the flock.

neko4
03-04-2008, 09:26 PM
its more of a projection. based off last year(not including Favre), T-Jack is some how Number 2, because Grossman couldnt keep a job.

BeerBaron
03-04-2008, 09:45 PM
ky-le or-ton

and his 66% career winning percentage.

though its probably kitna, hes the one eyed man in the land of the blind...but ill put KO as 2nd until either he, or tavaris jackson or maybe rodgers, proves me otherwise

iowatreat54
03-04-2008, 09:47 PM
ky-le or-ton

and his 66% career winning percentage.

though its probably kitna, hes the one eyed man in the land of the blind...but ill put KO as 2nd until either he, or tavaris jackson or maybe rodgers, proves me otherwise

exactly, neck beard has the 2nd most experience and 2nd best stats, plus a neck beard, he's at least #2 (Grossman doesn't count btw)

TimD
03-04-2008, 09:48 PM
Right now I want to say Rodgers but we have to wait to see what he does.

regoob2
03-04-2008, 09:49 PM
None of these guys deserved to be #2 but by default I'd go with Orton cause of experience. I think Rodgers will have the better season and probably career , but until he plays an entire game I'd go Orton.

yo123
03-04-2008, 09:50 PM
Jon Kitna. (puke)

619
03-04-2008, 09:51 PM
1. Rodgers
2. Kitna
3. Jackson
4. Grossman

Crazy_Chris
03-04-2008, 10:08 PM
exactly, neck beard has the 2nd most experience and 2nd best stats, plus a neck beard, he's at least #2 (Grossman doesn't count btw)

Thats not true at all.

awfullyquiet
03-04-2008, 10:20 PM
no seriously. how is rodgers pulling #1 or #2. he's not on the list. he hasn't started a game, he did play well against dallas. but that's it

it's still

1) Kitna
2) Orton/Grossman
3) TJax
4) Rodgers.

iowatreat54
03-04-2008, 10:20 PM
Thats not true at all.

who has better stats besides Kitna and excluding sexy rexy...backup vets who will never play don't count

Crazy_Chris
03-04-2008, 10:22 PM
Tarvaris Jackson has better stats than Kyle Orton.

iowatreat54
03-04-2008, 10:26 PM
Tarvaris Jackson has better stats than Kyle Orton.

fair enough, he has Orton by 50 yards...I meant career stats in case anyone was wondering...and Kelly Holcomb has the better stats than both...but Orton has more TDs and less INTs, so I consider Orton > Jackson, plus Jackson doesn't have a neck beard

BeerBaron
03-04-2008, 10:33 PM
plus orton has won a good deal more games than hes lost than jackson. 66% vs. something under .500 i believe for jackson

and take away the game vs. the bengals in ortons rookie year, and his career stats actually arent all that bad for a young guy

roidrunner
03-04-2008, 10:33 PM
its got to be
1. Rodgers
2. kitna
3. nothing
4. Orton
5. grossman
6. Tjack

yo123
03-04-2008, 10:35 PM
its got to be
1. Rodgers
2. kitna
3. nothing
4. Orton
5. grossman
6. Tjack



What the hell has Aaron Rodgers done?

yo123
03-04-2008, 10:36 PM
plus orton has won a good deal more games than hes lost than jackson. 66% vs. something under .500 i believe for jackson



Jackson was 8-4 last year.

BeerBaron
03-04-2008, 10:37 PM
i recall a televised scrimmage on the very very young nfl network a few years back where mike sherman had to literally be in the huddle with rodgers to help with play calling.....ha, that was a good laugh

thatll always be my impression of rogers until he proves otherwise

BeerBaron
03-04-2008, 10:37 PM
Jackson was 8-4 last year.

wasnt talking abotu just last year. you have to go career when comparing people like this

Crazy_Chris
03-04-2008, 10:38 PM
Lol you gotta be kidding me, it's actually a pretty sad arguement since the stats are both bad...

Career stats(Keep in mind Tarvaris has played in 2 less games and started 4 less games than orton)

Completetion percentage
Orton:52% Jackson:58.1%

Yards:
Orton:2,347 Jackson: 2,386

Yards per game:
Orton 130.4 Jackson: 149.1

YPA:
Orton: 5.2 Jackson: 6.4

Pass TD:
Orton:12 Jackson:11

Totals TD(Rushing + Passing)
Orton:12 Jackson:15

Interceptions:
Orton: 15 Jackson: 16

Fumbles:
Orton: 14 Jackson: 9

Total Turnovers(Fumbles + INTS)
Orton: 29 Jackson: 25

QB Rating
Orton: 62.2 Jackson: 69

roidrunner
03-04-2008, 10:38 PM
Im a slight homer. I lost my hero, so i have to find a new one. and i respect a man that will rock a stalker stash.

iowatreat54
03-04-2008, 10:41 PM
Jackson was 8-4 last year.

yea? Orton was 10-4 his rookie year...

yo123
03-04-2008, 10:41 PM
Lol you gotta be kidding me, it's actually a pretty sad arguement since the stats are both bad...

Career stats(Keep in mind Tarvaris has played in 2 less games and started 4 less games than orton)

Completetion percentage
Orton:52% Jackson:58.1%

Yards:
Orton:2,347 Jackson: 2,386

Yards per game:
Orton 130.4 Jackson: 149.1

YPA:
Orton: 5.2 Jackson: 6.4

Pass TD:
Orton:12 Jackson:11

Totals TD(Rushing + Passing)
Orton:12 Jackson:15

Interceptions:
Orton: 15 Jackson: 16

Fumbles:
Orton: 14 Jackson: 9

Total Turnovers(Fumbles + INTS)
Orton: 29 Jackson: 25

QB Rating
Orton: 62.2 Jackson: 69



This is like asking would you rather have your nuts cut off by a dull knife or bitten off by Mike Holmgren.

P-L
03-04-2008, 10:41 PM
It's obviously this guy:

http://blog.mlive.com/saginaw_sports_extra/medium_MLlions5_sa.jpg

yo123
03-04-2008, 10:42 PM
yea? Orton was 11-4 his rookie year...



He said Jackson was under .500. Just stating that wasn't the case last year.

Crazy_Chris
03-04-2008, 10:54 PM
The best QB in this division now is Sidney Rice

2/2 100% 94yds 47 YPA (Robbed of a TD cuz Shank Hoe is slow) 118.7 career rating.

iowatreat54
03-04-2008, 10:56 PM
The best QB in this division now is Sidney Rice

2/2 100% 94yds 47 YPA (Robbed of a TD cuz Shank Hoe is slow) 118.7 career rating.

i can agree with that...sidney rice it is!

BeerBaron
03-04-2008, 11:17 PM
alright, we'll go with rice

side note: if the bears were to run the option and direct snap it to hester, i would go with him, lol

neko4
03-05-2008, 05:58 PM
or bitten off by Mike Holmgren.
You mean, the event that happened to all the other NFC central teams from 92-98

EvilMonkey
03-05-2008, 10:54 PM
i recall a televised scrimmage on the very very young nfl network a few years back where mike sherman had to literally be in the huddle with rodgers to help with play calling.....ha, that was a good laugh

thatll always be my impression of rogers until he proves otherwise

I think a solid performance against Dallas last year should be a bigger impression than some stupid scrimmage before his rookie year when he wasnt signed until 5 days into camp...

well, i'm not gonna say that Rodgers is the best in the division because like other people have said, until he starts a game he really doesn't count. I think he'll be fine, all he did in college was the short accurate passing game and that's all he's gonna be asked to do next year. McCarthy made Aaron Brooks a good QB in his system for a couple years for god's sake. You cant put him anywhere near #1 as of now, but a month into the season I can definitely see myself saying otherwise.

bearsfan_51
03-06-2008, 12:55 AM
I like how Packers fans always reference the Cowboys game, but not the other total disasters that Rodgers put out there.

neko4
03-06-2008, 07:17 AM
I think his preseason play is what impressed me, not the boys game. They seemed to play a bit softer when he came in.
He looked good and even got time against the first team D's

Gay Ork Wang
03-06-2008, 10:35 AM
Lol you gotta be kidding me, it's actually a pretty sad arguement since the stats are both bad...

Career stats(Keep in mind Tarvaris has played in 2 less games and started 4 less games than orton)

Completetion percentage
Orton:52% Jackson:58.1%

Yards:
Orton:2,347 Jackson: 2,386

Yards per game:
Orton 130.4 Jackson: 149.1

YPA:
Orton: 5.2 Jackson: 6.4

Pass TD:
Orton:12 Jackson:11

Totals TD(Rushing + Passing)
Orton:12 Jackson:15

Interceptions:
Orton: 15 Jackson: 16

Fumbles:
Orton: 14 Jackson: 9

Total Turnovers(Fumbles + INTS)
Orton: 29 Jackson: 25

QB Rating
Orton: 62.2 Jackson: 69
So whose running game was better ;) Running game opens up alot of space for Tjax imo

lod01
03-06-2008, 02:32 PM
What the hell has Aaron Rodgers done?

It's not what has he done. It's the fact that the others have been given thier chance and have done NOTHING. The other 3 QB's suck and that's a fact. Therefore the only one that has a chance to be something is Rodgers. He is also surrounded by the superior team.

lod01
03-06-2008, 02:34 PM
I like how Packers fans always reference the Cowboys game, but not the other total disasters that Rodgers put out there.

Lol. Enlighten us with the 'total disasters' of Aaron Rodgers. This should be comical.

bearsfan_51
03-06-2008, 02:53 PM
Lol. Enlighten us with the 'total disasters' of Aaron Rodgers. This should be comical.

@ New England. 4/12 for 32 yards, and 3 sacks.

@ Baltimore 8/15 for 65 yards, 1 interception, and 3 sacks.


Those are the only two other games where Rodgers has really played at all. So out of three games you have a good performance, a bad performance, and a terrible performance.

Does that mean anything? No, and that's the whole point. You can't point to one game without taking the whole thing into perspective, and right now it's a big fat question mark.

To act like there won't be some serious growth issues is totally naive though. At best Rodgers isn't part of the equation, but I don't think it's unfair to currently put him at the bottom, as he's proven nothing.

And I would put the Vikings and Lions supporting offensive cast on par with the Packers.

Gay Ork Wang
03-06-2008, 02:53 PM
It's not what has he done. It's the fact that the others have been given thier chance and have done NOTHING. The other 3 QB's suck and that's a fact. Therefore the only one that has a chance to be something is Rodgers. He is also surrounded by the superior team.
You see, its chance, the others are still on the team right? Aaron Rodgers could turn out to be like Monatana or like Leaf, u never know, thats why u cant count Rodgers in yet

bearsfan_51
03-06-2008, 02:56 PM
It's not what has he done. It's the fact that the others have been given thier chance and have done NOTHING. The other 3 QB's suck and that's a fact. Therefore the only one that has a chance to be something is Rodgers. He is also surrounded by the superior team.
Well Kyle Orton won the division, and Rex Grossman made it to the Superbowl, which is more than Brett Favre did in the last 10 years of his career.

But yeah, other than that nothing.

Crazy_Chris
03-06-2008, 06:17 PM
So whose running game was better ;) Running game opens up alot of space for Tjax imo

It really doesn't matter how much space it opens up if the recievers sturggle to get open and some of them can't catch the ball when they do. ;)

Crazy_Chris
03-06-2008, 06:19 PM
It's not what has he done. It's the fact that the others have been given thier chance and have done NOTHING. The other 3 QB's suck and that's a fact. Therefore the only one that has a chance to be something is Rodgers. He is also surrounded by the superior team.

The others really haven't been given much of a chance other than Grossman and Kitna. It's an Asinine statement to say that Rodgers is the only one ho has a chance to be something.

neko4
03-06-2008, 06:22 PM
Positive Arguements for top 5
Rodgers- Has the best surronding cast
Jackson- Entering 3rd year (typical breakout point), Has AD
Grossman- Had sucess in 06, 20+ TD's
Orton- Is a winner, and a game manager
Kitna- Most experienced, Good WR's

Crazy_Chris
03-06-2008, 06:39 PM
Like I said I don't think anyone has done enough to really seperate himself from the others as the 2nd best. But if I had a gun to my head and had to chose one I would have to go with Rex Grossman simply because he has played at a very high level before at times in 2006.

bearsfan_51
03-06-2008, 07:47 PM
Not to mention his mighty sex cannon.

It's a stupid argument anyway (no offense). It's like asking who is the prettiest girl at fat camp.

lod01
03-06-2008, 08:09 PM
Well Kyle Orton won the division, and Rex Grossman made it to the Superbowl, which is more than Brett Favre did in the last 10 years of his career.

But yeah, other than that nothing.


The Bears defense won the division. The Bears defense made it to the Superbowl. Grossman did nothing noteable to get them there. He was your Trent Dilfer. Grossman was hauled along as a sacrifice since there was no chance in hell that they were going to win. Fluke wins via Hester punt and kick returns only last so long as the Bears of 2007 found out.

roidrunner
03-06-2008, 08:13 PM
i think the best way to look at this question of who is the best QB. pick one but they can not be on your team. sorry bears fans that means both grossman and Orton.

bearsfan_51
03-06-2008, 08:22 PM
The Bears defense won the division. The Bears defense made it to the Superbowl. Grossman did nothing noteable to get them there. He was your Trent Dilfer. Grossman was hauled along as a sacrifice since there was no chance in hell that they were going to win. Fluke wins via Hester punt and kick returns only last so long as the Bears of 2007 found out.
Ah yes, the ol' fluke wins. I'm sure the Packers didn't have any of those fluke wins this year. Those indisctructable Packers that only win the cool ways that really count.

Come to think of it, we must have fluked our way to sweeping the Packers last year. And the fact that we're 6-2 in the last 4 years? Total fluke. And there's no possibly way that our defense simply owned Favre (2 touchdowns to 13 interceptions the last 6 games). Nawh. None of those are possible, because Brett Favre and the Packers are the greatest thing in the world, and the Bears are just a fluky team that somehow ****** up their way to the Superbowl (which, by the way, the Packers completely failed in their attempts to reach). You've said one correct thing since you've been here, everything else is just total ****.

So if Rodgers is helped by his supporting cast, that makes him a better quarterback, but if Grossman is helped by his supporting cast, it's because he sucks? Makes sense.

ny10804
03-06-2008, 09:23 PM
If I had to take a QB from the NFC North, it would be Aaron Rodgers without question.

regoob2
03-06-2008, 09:28 PM
Rodgers has just as good of a chance of being worse than grossman as he does and being better. We'll have to wait and see.

detknowitall
03-08-2008, 08:20 AM
Well Kyle Orton won the division, and Rex Grossman made it to the Superbowl, which is more than Brett Favre did in the last 10 years of his career.

But yeah, other than that nothing.

I'll let you take back that statement as a 1 time whoops what the hell wa I thinking moment out of respect.

Favre is a 1st Ballot HOF guy with a ring. Orton and Grossman are done. They are only holding a spot for the next guy. Neither are the QB of the future. Evidenced by 1 year deals they signed. Your franchise QB doesnt get signed to a 1 year deal to compete with Orton. Both of those guys would be backups at best anywhere else in the league.

And its true the Bears D got them to a Superbowl.

Addict
03-08-2008, 12:45 PM
Never thought I'd say this, but if I had to choose right now, I'd take Kitna, simply because Rexy and Tavaris haven't shown anything and Rodgers is still very much up in the air.

But I'm fairly sure Rodgers will be just fine.

bearsfan_51
03-08-2008, 03:39 PM
I'll let you take back that statement as a 1 time whoops what the hell wa I thinking moment out of respect.

Favre is a 1st Ballot HOF guy with a ring. Orton and Grossman are done. They are only holding a spot for the next guy. Neither are the QB of the future. Evidenced by 1 year deals they signed. Your franchise QB doesnt get signed to a 1 year deal to compete with Orton. Both of those guys would be backups at best anywhere else in the league.

And its true the Bears D got them to a Superbowl.
Never said they were, but it's not as if they've accomplished nothing, especially in comparison to Rodgers who has literally done nothing.

And of course I'm not comparing either player to Favre, but in terms of team accomplishments, Grossman & friends did something that Favre was unable to do for the last 10 years of his career. That's gotta count for something.

detknowitall
03-08-2008, 07:27 PM
Never said they were, but it's not as if they've accomplished nothing, especially in comparison to Rodgers who has literally done nothing.

And of course I'm not comparing either player to Favre, but in terms of team accomplishments, Grossman & friends did something that Favre was unable to do for the last 10 years of his career. That's gotta count for something.

put Favre on that team and they would have won the Superbowl. Take either Orton or Rexy and compare their numbers that year to Favre and Favre is easily the better QB.

You said it yourself "Grossman and friends" Don't lump Grossmans succes or lack thereof into that of the and friends. He's just that tagalong that was riding the coat tails of a successful D.

bearsfan_51
03-08-2008, 07:38 PM
I don't believe we would have won the Superbowl with Favre. Based on what? Favre has sucked ass in the playoffs for the last 10 years. He's been nothing but a choker. Why would he all of the sudden make us that much better? He couldn't beat the Giants at home with a better surrounding cast on offense and a defense that isn't much worse but he's going to beat Peyton Manning and the Colts? Doubtful.

Hell, Favre couldn't even beat the Bears the last 4 years of his career.

iowatreat54
03-08-2008, 07:43 PM
put Favre on that team and they would have won the Superbowl. Take either Orton or Rexy and compare their numbers that year to Favre and Favre is easily the better QB.

You said it yourself "Grossman and friends" Don't lump Grossmans succes or lack thereof into that of the and friends. He's just that tagalong that was riding the coat tails of a successful D.

considering iirc that was Favre's worst statistical year ever, I highly doubt they would have won the Super Bowl

regardless, all bf51 said was that they did something Favre hadn't done in 10 years, not that either had a better year or a better career or is the subject of more wet dreams in Green Bay, just that they each accomplished one thing that Favre hadn't in that time frame...and sure, the defense carried those teams, but last time I checked football is still played with a QB and that's what Orton and Grossman were in 05 and 06, so they must have done something right in order to lead a team to a division championship/Super Bowl...

Hawk
03-09-2008, 12:54 AM
So your saying that you would rather have Grossman/Orton quarterbacking the Bears in SB XLI, than Favre? Makes sense.

Boston
03-09-2008, 01:04 AM
considering iirc that was Favre's worst statistical year ever, I highly doubt they would have won the Super Bowl

regardless, all bf51 said was that they did something Favre hadn't done in 10 years, not that either had a better year or a better career or is the subject of more wet dreams in Green Bay, just that they each accomplished one thing that Favre hadn't in that time frame...and sure, the defense carried those teams, but last time I checked football is still played with a QB and that's what Orton and Grossman were in 05 and 06, so they must have done something right in order to lead a team to a division championship/Super Bowl...

Give the guy a break. He was going through some growing pains, but he got his **** together...

iowatreat54
03-09-2008, 01:05 AM
So your saying that you would rather have Grossman/Orton quarterbacking the Bears in SB XLI, than Favre? Makes sense.

no one ever said that, I don't know where all these Packer fans keep getting that from...all that was said was that they did something Favre hadn't, and I said that just adding Favre to that team wouldn't necessarily have won them a Super Bowl...no one has said they would rather have Orton/Rex over Favre, don't worry, no blasphemy has occurred

bearsfan_51
03-09-2008, 01:48 AM
So your saying that you would rather have Grossman/Orton quarterbacking the Bears in SB XLI, than Favre? Makes sense.
Maybe it makes sense cause you can't ******* read. I said that we likely still wouldn't have won the Superbowl if Favre was our quarterback. In no way does that translate to I'd rather have Grossman/Orton, it just means that Favre wouldn't have made a difference, or at least not big enough of a difference. And considering Favre's record/performance in the playoffs the last 10 years, that's not a very bold statement.

roidrunner
03-09-2008, 04:50 PM
would you rather have a QB with the neck beard or the stash??? Now there is a question

iowatreat54
03-09-2008, 05:00 PM
would you rather have a QB with the neck beard or the stash??? Now there is a question

see, Orton has both, so it's win-win

roidrunner
03-09-2008, 05:01 PM
lol. but if you could only pick one. the neck beard or the stash?

iowatreat54
03-09-2008, 05:12 PM
lol. but if you could only pick one. the neck beard or the stash?

you can't make that kinda choice...but if I had to, I'd say neck beard because it seems a lot rarer than a sweet stache

roidrunner
03-09-2008, 05:26 PM
true, but the stash is more iconic. I.E. Tom Selleck

the_legend_killer
03-09-2008, 05:30 PM
The fact Aaron Rodgers had one good game while playing from behind and can't stay healthy for more than 3 games makes him the best QB in the North? It's Kitna.

roidrunner
03-09-2008, 05:53 PM
kitna is the most proven out of all the QB's but potentially it would be rodgers.

Addict
03-09-2008, 06:19 PM
So your saying that you would rather have Grossman/Orton quarterbacking the Bears in SB XLI, than Favre? Makes sense.

so by your logic, you're saying Ben Stiller is hiding his fairy wings because of his grandmother's hammeroid problem?

Learn how to read before you post.

Crazy_Chris
03-09-2008, 06:39 PM
kitna is the most proven out of all the QB's but potentially it would be rodgers.

What the heck are you talking about? Potentially Brooks Bollinger could come out of no where next year to be the best. Potentially Rex Grossman could end the inconsistencies and could start playing at an All Pro level. Potentially Aaron Rodgers could be worse then Ryan Leaf.

Boston
03-09-2008, 06:45 PM
What the heck are you talking about? Potentially Brooks Bollinger could come out of no where next year to be the best. Potentially Rex Grossman could end the inconsistencies and could start playing at an All Pro level. Potentially Aaron Rodgers could be worse then Ryan Leaf.

I don't know if you were going for an attempt at humor there or what, but it didn't work. Rodgers is a first round pick that has had three years to learn behind Favre. Combine that with the best supporting cast in the division on offense, and you have the potential to be the best QB in the division. If you need me to go slower, just ask...

Crazy_Chris
03-09-2008, 06:47 PM
Every QB has the potential to be the best or the worst, thats the only point I was trying to make.

neko4
03-09-2008, 08:17 PM
i gotta agree, the only way we'll find out is what happens this year

regoob2
03-09-2008, 08:21 PM
I don't know if you were going for an attempt at humor there or what, but it didn't work. Rodgers is a first round pick that has had three years to learn behind Favre. Combine that with the best supporting cast in the division on offense, and you have the potential to be the best QB in the division. If you need me to go slower, just ask...Potential is not always met. Especially at qb, just ask any bears fan.

Boston
03-09-2008, 08:27 PM
Potential is not always met. Especially at qb, just ask any bears fan.

Obviously. But since we can't accurately predict the future yet, that's really all we have to go off of, isn't it?

regoob2
03-09-2008, 08:37 PM
Obviously. But since we can't accurately predict the future yet, that's really all we have to go off of, isn't it?
You seem to be assuming that since he was a first round pick he automaticly is going to be the best and that isn't the case at all.

GB12
03-09-2008, 08:41 PM
Why the hell even have this thread then? If you're going to count out Rodgers and Jackson because they're just potential at this point that leaves Grossman and Kitna. Grossman blows, Kitna blows less. It's not even a question then.

bearsfan_51
03-09-2008, 08:43 PM
Well, I would disagree that Kitna blows less than Grossman, but yes, this is a pointless argument, I think I said that about two pages ago.

And to be honest, if a gun was to my head I'd probably say Rodgers too, but that's based more on what I liked about him coming out of college, which really doesn't count for much of anything.

Boston
03-09-2008, 08:50 PM
You seem to be assuming that since he was a first round pick he automaticly is going to be the best and that isn't the case at all.

So you're assuming that since he was a first round pick, he is automatically going to not be the best? I think my assumption makes more sense than yours... I don't even know why I'm arguing this...

regoob2
03-09-2008, 08:51 PM
Ya it's pretty obvious there is no correct answer all opinions.

bearsfan_51
03-09-2008, 08:58 PM
So you're assuming that since he was a first round pick, he is automatically going to not be the best? I think my assumption makes more sense than yours... I don't even know why I'm arguing this...
Neither opinion makes any sense.

neko4
03-09-2008, 09:04 PM
lets all just say that brett favre is still best in the division until Aaron Rodgers has his first start

detknowitall
03-09-2008, 10:06 PM
What the heck are you talking about? Potentially Brooks Bollinger could come out of no where next year to be the best. Potentially Rex Grossman could end the inconsistencies and could start playing at an All Pro level. Potentially Aaron Rodgers could be worse then Ryan Leaf.

No ORton had his shot, Grossman has had several shots. Rodgers is still a questionmark. The best QB in the NFC North is Kitna and thats sad. Statistically the 4 worst QB's in the NFL may be comming out of the NFC North. How sad is that?

Boston
03-09-2008, 10:28 PM
No ORton had his shot, Grossman has had several shots. Rodgers is still a questionmark. The best QB in the NFC North is Kitna and thats sad. Statistically the 4 worst QB's in the NFL may be comming out of the NFC North. How sad is that?

It's funny how we can go from the division with the best QB's, to the worst over the course of one season. :D

bearsfan_51
03-09-2008, 10:30 PM
No ORton had his shot, Grossman has had several shots. Rodgers is still a questionmark. The best QB in the NFC North is Kitna and thats sad. Statistically the 4 worst QB's in the NFL may be comming out of the NFC North. How sad is that?
When has Kitna proven anything in his career?

DaBear89
03-09-2008, 11:58 PM
No ORton had his shot

may i just ask when that was? was it 3 years ago when he was a 4th rnd rookie force to start...or the end of this year when he diidn't look half bad?

roidrunner
03-10-2008, 02:48 AM
im willing to say that we know what we get from Grossman and Kitna. And i will give Orton a mulligan for his rookie year. so that leave orton and rodgers as unprovens. so i am willing to put it like so

1. Kitna
2. Rodgers/Orton
3. T Jack
4. Grossman

iowatreat54
03-10-2008, 11:38 AM
im willing to say that we know what we get from Grossman and Kitna. And i will give Orton a mulligan for his rookie year. so that leave orton and rodgers as unprovens. so i am willing to put it like so

1. Kitna
2. Rodgers/Orton
3. T Jack
4. Grossman

what do you mean a mulligan his rookie year? He started basically a full season and took the Bears to the playoffs...his stats weren't great, but he did good for a rookie

Pacific
03-10-2008, 11:50 AM
First off, I think Kitna is getting too much love. It's not like he was superstar quality with Martz, and now that Martz is gone, they probably won't be throwing the ball 60 times a game. It's easy to throw for 4000 yards when you drop back every down.

As a Packers fan, I'm more than comfortable with Rodgers right now, but because he hasn't really proved anything, I'd rank the division QB's like this...
1) Tarvaris Jackson
2) Kyle Orton
3) Jon Kitna
4) Aaron Rodgers
5) Rex Grossman

vikes_28
03-10-2008, 11:57 AM
they probably won't be throwing the ball 60 times a game. It's easy to throw for 4000 yards when you drop back every down.

And not to mention Kitna has awesome receivers.

roidrunner
03-10-2008, 12:40 PM
what do you mean a mulligan his rookie year? He started basically a full season and took the Bears to the playoffs...his stats weren't great, but he did good for a rookie

because that was his rookie year. i think he should be given a second chance. but one thing i do think i know, i like him alot better than sexy rexy

bigbluedefense
03-10-2008, 09:23 PM
Am I crazy if I say Grossman? Because Im leaning towards Grossman....


I want to say Rodgers, but can't. One game doesn't = best in the division. Let him prove it first.

It can't be Kitna. Kitna sucks. Just because they started out hot doesn't mean a thing, he's not that good at all. He's probably not even the best qb on his team. Everyone is forgetting about Stanton and how he'll likely replace Kitna before week 8.

VoteLynnSwan
03-10-2008, 09:41 PM
It's funny how we can go from the division with the best QB's, to the worst over the course of one season. :D

when did this division have the best QBs? It had one above average one... that's it.

bearsfan_51
03-10-2008, 09:57 PM
Yeah the Grossman hate is getting a bit silly. I agree with BBD, Mike Martz would have done wonders with Grossman. Hell, Grossman with Mike Martz, Roy Williams, and Calvin Johnson? They would have scored a lot more than with Kitna. Kitna really does suck. I'm not sure why anyone thinks otherwise. Grossman is an idiot, but at least he's talented. Kitna is just an idiot.

Lionsfan93
03-10-2008, 09:58 PM
Jon Kinta is this really a question

bigbluedefense
03-10-2008, 10:00 PM
Yeah the Grossman hate is getting a bit silly. I agree with BBD, Mike Martz would have done wonders with Grossman. Hell, Grossman with Mike Martz, Roy Williams, and Calvin Johnson? They would have scored a lot more than with Kitna. Kitna really does suck. I'm not sure why anyone thinks otherwise. Grossman is an idiot, but at least he's talented. Kitna is just an idiot.

i have no doubt that Grossman would outperform Kitna in detroit. Grossman had a crappy oline and far less at the skill positions than Kitna had. Even less in the run game. Granted Kitna had no oline either, but he had more talent around him than Grossman had.

Throwing it deep to Williams and Johnson? Grossman would pop a boner just thinking about it.

Im not saying he'd turn into Montana, but he would do a better job than Kitna would.

vikes_28
03-11-2008, 08:24 AM
Grossman would pop a boner just thinking about it.

So would Jackson.

Twiddler
03-11-2008, 03:50 PM
1a. Kitna
1b. Orton/Grossman
3. Jackson
4. Rodgers (incomplete)

I'm not sold on Jackson yet being anything special and Kitna, Orton, and Grossman are all lumped together into a blob of mediocrity. A few years ago I would have said Kitna was better than those two but now I see no reason to say that. And I do believe that Rodgers can jump to #1 after this season but theres literally no proof to think that is the case now. Like BF51 said, he's had one really good game and two bad ones, there's nothing to judge him on.

Thunder&Lightning
03-11-2008, 07:39 PM
1.Kitna
2.Rodgers
3.Jackson
4.Grossman

bearsfan_51
03-11-2008, 09:26 PM
So would Jackson.
Jackson would still jump in the air for no reason and throw it twenty feet over anyone's head. I have to watch the Vikings every week and I'm amazed at how completely inept he is. Grossman got more of a spotlight because the Bears were a Superbowl team, but Jackson is just absurdly terrible. They ask him to do next to nothing and he still can't do that.

There's a reason why Brad Childress wanted Sage Rosenfels to be the starter next year.

neko4
03-11-2008, 09:50 PM
Notable backup QB's
Trent Dilfer
Shaun Hill
Kurt Warner
Trent Green
Charlie Frye
Seneca Wallace
Byron Leftwich
David Carr
Chris Simms
Bruce Gradkowski
Luke McCown
Todd Collins
Hefty Lefty
Aj Feeley
Brad Johnson
Josh McCown
Damon Huard
Kyle Boller
Charlie Batch
Brady Quinn
JP Losman
Chad Pennington
Cleo Lemon
Jim Sorgi
Sage Rosenfels
Kerry Collins
Joey Harrington
Patrick Ramsey

How many of them would be the best QB in the division if they were actually in the division

GB12
03-11-2008, 09:53 PM
Warner and possibly Pennington.

neko4
03-11-2008, 09:54 PM
i can see rosenfels and maybe Losmon on Green Bay or Detroit

bearsfan_51
03-11-2008, 09:55 PM
Quinn could be. As a prospect I like him more than Rodgers, and Rodgers certainly has the potential to be the best.

Boston
03-11-2008, 10:35 PM
Jackson would still jump in the air for no reason and throw it twenty feet over anyone's head. I have to watch the Vikings every week and I'm amazed at how completely inept he is. Grossman got more of a spotlight because the Bears were a Superbowl team, but Jackson is just absurdly terrible. They ask him to do next to nothing and he still can't do that.

There's a reason why Brad Childress wanted Sage Rosenfels to be the starter next year.

Poor Vikings fans are going to have this bookmarked for a WHILE.

neko4
03-11-2008, 11:30 PM
Quinn could be. As a prospect I like him more than Rodgers, and Rodgers certainly has the potential to be the best.
I feel the same way. I wish we wouldve waited till last years draft and got Quinn, or the draft before and got Cutler. But im happy with Rodgers

bearsfan_51
03-12-2008, 01:51 AM
Poor Vikings fans are going to have this bookmarked for a WHILE.
Hey I mean...he could turn it around. Steve Young went from bumbling mess to Hall of Famer.

I mean...I don't think he will....but he could.

The book on Grossman, on the other hand, is probably closed as ever being much more than he is. I'll give Tavaris this year before I totally write him off.

vikes_28
03-13-2008, 08:46 AM
Poor Vikings fans are going to have this bookmarked for a WHILE.

yeah...unfortunatly we will because tavaris jackson does suck. i dont think he knows his stuff that well.

SunDevil450
04-03-2008, 09:31 AM
Jackson gets this year as the final judgement but in all honesty unless he pulls something amazing you got to think he is out. Vikings dont need a project at qb.

ChezPower4
04-03-2008, 01:33 PM
Im gonna have to say Jon Kitna this year if he can stay healthy

umphrey
04-03-2008, 01:36 PM
Preseason
1. Kitna
2. Jackson
3. Rodgers
4. Bears

Postseason
1. Rodgers
2. Jackson
3. Kitna
4. Bears

ChefMike
04-04-2008, 05:26 PM
I think this division needs to just add an extra blocker on the edge and get rid of their QB's ?!?! just snap the ball direct to a RB and let them make a play ! The QB's in the division are piss poor, Orton, Grossman, Kitna (Overrated), Rodgers (Unproven), Jackson ( WAY Overrated) come on Kitna is the best of the group and he is only good if you let him pray in between plays and has Mike Martz calling plays...

Crazy_Chris
04-04-2008, 05:39 PM
I think this division needs to just add an extra blocker on the edge and get rid of their QB's ?!?! just snap the ball direct to a RB and let them make a play ! The QB's in the division are piss poor, Orton, Grossman, Kitna (Overrated), Rodgers (Unproven), Jackson ( WAY Overrated) come on Kitna is the best of the group and he is only good if you let him pray in between plays and has Mike Martz calling plays...

How is Jackson "WAY Overrated" when the majority feel that he is not a good QB?

Addict
04-05-2008, 02:08 PM
How is Jackson "WAY Overrated" when the majority feel that he is not a good QB?

well appearently 'not good' is still overrating him in his mind.

asmitty45
04-06-2008, 02:42 PM
I guess it'd be Kitna right now, which is soooo sad. Cuz Jackson is not very good, Grossman is Grossman and Rodgers is completely unproven.

Nevermind, as long as Favre's still GB's property he's the best QB in this division, retired or not.

EvilMonkey
04-07-2008, 03:07 PM
I guess it'd be Kitna right now, which is soooo sad. Cuz Jackson is not very good, Grossman is Grossman and Rodgers is completely unproven.

Nevermind, as long as Favre's still GB's property he's the best QB in this division, retired or not.

yup, retirement papers arent filed yet, Favre is still the best.

BeerBaron
04-10-2008, 09:34 AM
Preseason
1. Kitna
2. Jackson
3. Rodgers
4. Bears

Postseason
1. Rodgers
2. Jackson
3. Kitna
4. Bears

completely asinine. until tavaris and rodgers win the division (kyle orton) or reach the SB (rexy) theres no way anyone can take jackson or rodgers over them.

go ahead and say they had a great defense. sure they did. minny has a hell of a run game and an excellent run defense but tavaris couldnt do anything with them. and rodgers is completely unproven, no one can take him over anyone else atm.

Dr. Gonzo
04-11-2008, 01:22 PM
Right now I would probably put Jackson at the bottom of the list but I think that if he develops like he should he can be the best in the division, thats not saying much though.

Packman1957
04-11-2008, 02:55 PM
I'm being honest when I say I would take Aaron Rodgers over any quarterback in the NFC North, if he is anywhere near as good as I think he is anyway...

Crazy_Chris
04-11-2008, 02:58 PM
completely asinine. until tavaris and rodgers win the division (kyle orton) or reach the SB (rexy) theres no way anyone can take jackson or rodgers over them.

go ahead and say they had a great defense. sure they did. minny has a hell of a run game and an excellent run defense but tavaris couldnt do anything with them. and rodgers is completely unproven, no one can take him over anyone else atm.

Now that statement is completely asinine winning the divison or reaching the super bowl does not alone make them better. By your logic I guess Rex Grossman is a better QB than any QB that hasn't reached the super bowl huh watch out Carson Palmer, Drew Brees, Tony Romo, ETC.

BeerBaron
04-11-2008, 04:31 PM
Now that statement is completely asinine winning the divison or reaching the super bowl does not alone make them better. By your logic I guess Rex Grossman is a better QB than any QB that hasn't reached the super bowl huh watch out Carson Palmer, Drew Brees, Tony Romo, ETC.

for this division, they are the only QBs in it to do that. no theyre not better than other guys outside of it, but theyve done more than rodgers and jackson.

everyone just wants to pull down their pants and take a huge crap all over the bears QBs while they fail to realize their guys havent done as much

nrk
04-11-2008, 05:01 PM
for this division, they are the only QBs in it to do that. no theyre not better than other guys outside of it, but theyve done more than rodgers and jackson.

everyone just wants to pull down their pants and take a huge crap all over the bears QBs while they fail to realize their guys havent done as much

How about until Jackson or Rodgers lose their starting spot, Orton and Rexxy can be put over Jackson and Rodgers?

GB12
04-11-2008, 05:02 PM
for this division, they are the only QBs in it to do that. no theyre not better than other guys outside of it, but theyve done more than rodgers and jackson.

everyone just wants to pull down their pants and take a huge crap all over the bears QBs while they fail to realize their guys havent done as much
Exactly. They have done more. I don't think anyone will argue that. Doing more and being better are two completely different things though.

Gay Ork Wang
04-11-2008, 05:03 PM
Its not like it matters who is ranked first....

BeerBaron
04-11-2008, 05:17 PM
Its not like it matters who is ranked first....

they are all pretty terrible, lol. we might have a chance as the best defensive division but we also all have QBs who would start on very, very few other teams.

miami and atlanta are the only places any of our guys might actually be upgrades, lol

umphrey
04-11-2008, 05:20 PM
Meh, I look at it as Rodgers and Jackson haven't done much but both have shown some potential, while Rex would be a backup on most teams and I don't see him getting much better.

AtariBigby
04-14-2008, 07:52 AM
1- Aaron Rodgers
2- Jon Kitna
3- Kelly Holcomb
4- Rex Grossman
5- Tarvarris Jackson

Rodgers hasn't played much obviously, but in his one extensive action game in primetime last year, he did more to justify him being a 1st rounder than Alex Smith has in 3 seasons, or than Joey Harrington or Grossman ever did in their numerous seasons.

Rodgers is good.
Durable? Now that's our worry, but not his ability.

Iamcanadian
04-14-2008, 08:21 AM
Using the word 'good' to describe any QB in the NFC North Division is an insult to all the other good QB's in the NFL. All you have is maybe's and that is about it. 8 wins will take the Division IMO.

bigbluedefense
04-14-2008, 08:26 AM
Using the word 'good' to describe any QB in the NFC North Division is an insult to all the other good QB's in the NFL. All you have is maybe's and that is about it. 8 wins will take the Division IMO.

i think the winner of that division gets 10 wins or more honestly. first and foremost, they have an easy schedule, and if one dominant team emerges of the group, winning say 5 out of 6 division games isn't out of the question.

that means they just need another 5 wins out of division to win 10 games. with a soft schedule thats doable. its also a pretty solid defensive division, and that should keep them in contention for a lot of games even with the glaring dirth of qbs in the division.

right now i think the Packers and Vikings are the most capable of doing this. The Bears and Lions are both going to need very good drafts to keep in contention, they have a lot more holes then the aforementioned 2.

regoob2
04-14-2008, 08:26 AM
1- Aaron Rodgers
2- Jon Kitna
3- Kelly Holcomb
4- Rex Grossman
5- Tarvarris Jackson

Rodgers hasn't played much obviously, but in his one extensive action game in primetime last year, he did more to justify him being a 1st rounder than Alex Smith has in 3 seasons, or than Joey Harrington or Grossman ever did in their numerous seasons.

Rodgers is good.
Durable? Now that's our worry, but not his ability.I'd take Grossman best game over Rodgers best game. Rodgers has done nothing. He's an incomplete until this year, I don't know how you can say he is the better than Kitna.

BeerBaron
04-14-2008, 08:37 AM
I'd take Grossman best game over Rodgers best game. Rodgers has done nothing. He's an incomplete until this year, I don't know how you can say he is the better than Kitna.

thank you. i didnt want to touch it for fear of ranting....

Gay Ork Wang
04-14-2008, 08:40 AM
He does know that Grossman wasnt always that horrible right?

bigbluedefense
04-14-2008, 08:41 AM
The thing with Grossman is, we already know what he is. His grade is pretty much completed.

Rodgers, we don't know yet. So while he hasn't had as good of a game as Grossman's best yet, there is more hope for him developing and panning out opposed to Grossman turning on the switch all of a sudden.

He's also in an ideal situation. He's been developed slowly, he has the oline, and wide receivers, and probably has a decent run game as well. And a solid defense. He's in a position to succeed.

Grossman is in a position to fail. Porous oline, no run game, and no wide receivers. A good draft could help change some of this of course, but won't rid all of the issues.

BeerBaron
04-14-2008, 08:47 AM
I'd take Grossman best game over Rodgers best game. Rodgers has done nothing. He's an incomplete until this year, I don't know how you can say he is the better than Kitna.
thank you. i didnt want to touch it for fear of ranting....
He does know that Grossman wasnt always that horrible right?

i like the bears fan assault that went on there, lol


The thing with Grossman is, we already know what he is. His grade is pretty much completed.

Rodgers, we don't know yet. So while he hasn't had as good of a game as Grossman's best yet, there is more hope for him developing and panning out opposed to Grossman turning on the switch all of a sudden.

He's also in an ideal situation. He's been developed slowly, he has the oline, and wide receivers, and probably has a decent run game as well. And a solid defense. He's in a position to succeed.

Grossman is in a position to fail. Porous oline, no run game, and no wide receivers. A good draft could help change some of this of course, but won't rid all of the issues.

as for you, lets remember, we don't know what rodgers is going to be. he could be terrible, awful...worse than rex. he could be better too but since we dont know, theres no way anyone can say that. grossman's been to a superbowl and hell, even KO has won the division, something none of the other QBs in this division have done.

so the uncertainty around rodgers makes it so i can't justify saying that he is a better QB than guys who have proven more

bigbluedefense
04-14-2008, 08:50 AM
i like the bears fan assault that went on there, lol




as for you, lets remember, we don't know what rodgers is going to be. he could be terrible, awful...worse than rex. he could be better too but since we dont know, theres no way anyone can say that. grossman's been to a superbowl and hell, even KO has won the division, something none of the other QBs in this division have done.

so the uncertainty around rodgers makes it so i can't justify saying that he is a better QB than guys who have proven more

oh definitely. im not saying that Rodgers is a lock to be a good qb. Im just saying that the hope that Packer fans have is warranted. Its foolish to label him the best in the division already of course. hes got to prove it, but i can understand where the optimism comes from. thats all im saying.

If you look back earlier in this thread, I said Rex Grossman right here right now is the best in the division.

BeerBaron
04-14-2008, 10:20 AM
oh definitely. im not saying that Rodgers is a lock to be a good qb. Im just saying that the hope that Packer fans have is warranted. Its foolish to label him the best in the division already of course. hes got to prove it, but i can understand where the optimism comes from. thats all im saying.

If you look back earlier in this thread, I said Rex Grossman right here right now is the best in the division.

understood and agreed. in terms of what theyve done, i think its kitna and grossman at the top. kitna has done a lot of several teams and has been at least decent everywhere hes been and gross has been to a SB and his best was right up there with some of the best around.....but his worst is worse than anyone too.....

if we want to talk potential, then yeah, sure rodgers....id even put stanton up there. there were times he looked like the next great QB in college but also times he looked downright awful. in terms of actual, in game experience, rodgers is only slightly ahead of stanton....and is only starting because favre retired.....

stuff to think about anyway

Skibow
04-14-2008, 02:18 PM
Grossman by a significant margin. Compare 2006-07 stats if you think Kitna is somehow better. Last season was a mess for the whole Bears team, and Rex unfairly got (benched) the most blame early on, but did fine once reinserted.

Grossman
Kitna
Orton
Rodgers
Tarvarious

BeerBaron
04-14-2008, 04:50 PM
Grossman by a significant margin. Compare 2006-07 stats if you think Kitna is somehow better. Last season was a mess for the whole Bears team, and Rex unfairly got (benched) the most blame early on, but did fine once reinserted.

Grossman
Kitna
Orton
Rodgers
Tarvarious

well thanks dude, nice to have some more bears support. welcome to the boards too.

i was arguing basically that gross has done more than rogders or jackson but i feel like if i were in need of a QB, i would take kitna over the inconsistent grossman still.

btw, didnt realize that tavaris jackson was a roman!

Tavarious Julius Lepidus, lol..idk...funny typo, oh well

Dr. Gonzo
04-14-2008, 04:51 PM
Hell I would take Tarvaris Jackson over Grossman. The guy had one good year but it seems as if he is done.

BeerBaron
04-14-2008, 04:51 PM
Hell I would take Tarvaris Jackson over Grossman. The guy had one good year but it seems as if he is done.

maybe i would argue that for the betterment of the vikings future, jackson should be done.....eh? eh?

GB12
04-14-2008, 04:54 PM
So, a question for Bears fans. If you could trade Grossman for Rodgers straight up would you?

BeerBaron
04-14-2008, 04:57 PM
So, a question for Bears fans. If you could trade Grossman for Rodgers straight up would you?

sure. we have KO also and id be happy with a rodgers/KO tandem to head into next season.

but has rodgers been to a SB? hmm.......ehhhhhh........i dont recall that happening anyway.......

so in the eyes of history, nay, in the eyes of the proven....its still grossman.

rodgers hasn't done **** yet so to put him ahead of guys who you at least know what your getting from is foolish. rodgers could be absolutely terrible and worse than ryan leaf. we just dont know....but we do know pretty much what grossman is.

you gotta think about these possibilities....

regoob2
04-15-2008, 06:32 PM
So, a question for Bears fans. If you could trade Grossman for Rodgers straight up would you?
Here's a shorter answer, yes.

Gay Ork Wang
04-16-2008, 03:04 AM
Just means he has more potential, doesnt mean he is better ;)

BcLion
04-16-2008, 08:42 AM
i think the winner of that division gets 10 wins or more honestly. first and foremost, they have an easy schedule, and if one dominant team emerges of the group, winning say 5 out of 6 division games isn't out of the question.

that means they just need another 5 wins out of division to win 10 games. with a soft schedule thats doable. its also a pretty solid defensive division, and that should keep them in contention for a lot of games even with the glaring dirth of qbs in the division.

right now i think the Packers and Vikings are the most capable of doing this. The Bears and Lions are both going to need very good drafts to keep in contention, they have a lot more holes then the aforementioned 2.

Umm easy schedule?

Lions' schedule 9th most difficult next season; Steelers' toughest, Patriots' easiest
FREE PRESS STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES • April 16, 2008

Read Comments(2)Recommend Print this page E-mail this article
Share this article: Del.icio.us Facebook Digg Reddit Newsvine What’s this?
Detroit has the 9th toughest schedule in 2008. That's according to a ranking that average each teams' opponents' win-loss percentage from last season.

The Pittsburgh Steelers have the most difficult path ahead. Their opponents had a combined .598 winning percentage in 2007. Oddly enough, the New England Patriots, who went 16-0 during the regular season last year, have the easiest schedule heading into the '08 season. Their opponents were below the .400 mark.


Below is the full ranking list, from toughest to easiest schedule, with the teams' opponents '07 winning percentage listed after them.

Steelers .598
Colts .594
Jaguars .559
Vikings .551
Ravens .551
Bengals .547
Texans .547
Browns .547
Lions .543
Titans .543
Bears .531
Packers .531
Redskins .523
Cowboys .523
Eagles .520
Giants .520
Rams .488
49ers .484
Seahawks .477
Buccaneers .469
Falcons .469
Cardinals .465
Dolphins .465
Panthers .465
Jets .457
Chiefs .453
Bills .449
Saints .449
Broncos .445
Raiders .438
Chargers .422
Patriots .387

Maybe you want to retract that comment now?

This division is up for grabs with ? marks on all teams and could see a below
.500 club making the playoffs.

Bclion

Gay Ork Wang
04-16-2008, 09:36 AM
That does mean anything, u know everyone facing the Jets last year had easy game last year but the SoS said something different

Every year teams get stronger/weaker. So u have to look at the teams. not the SoS

BeerBaron
04-16-2008, 09:45 AM
That does mean anything, u know everyone facing the Jets last year had easy game last year but the SoS said something different

Every year teams get stronger/weaker. So u have to look at the teams. not the SoS

agreed.

plus, heres how i see the nfc north.

put the 4 teams in any order. idc what it is, and i will make a case for why it could end up in that order.

GB12
04-16-2008, 01:20 PM
agreed.

plus, heres how i see the nfc north.

put the 4 teams in any order. idc what it is, and i will make a case for why it could end up in that order.
Lions
Packers
Vikings
Bears

Dr. Gonzo
04-16-2008, 01:23 PM
I really don't see anyone but the Vikings or Packers winning the division this year. I think both will end up making the playoffs.

BeerBaron
04-16-2008, 03:02 PM
Lions
Packers
Vikings
Bears

with martz out of the picture, the lions offense becomes much more balanced. calvin johnson progresses well and really adds to it as well. their defense improves after another year of marinelli's system and this combination of things allows them to win the division at 10-6

the packers offense takes a step back with rodgers at the helm but he does well enough to keep them in the games they play. they lean on the run a little more as well as their defense to finish 2nd at 9-7

jackson holds the vikings back. AP perhaps gets a little overused early on and later in the season, he's worn out and possibly suffering from little nagging injuries. their pass rush also doesn't improve leaving their defense vulnerable and this combination of things keeps them from going over the top. their run defense and run game hold up well enough to keep them in 3rd at 7-9 or 8-8.

KO and gross fail miserably as the teams offensive woes continue. benson flounders once again behind an o-line that, even with improvements from the draft doesnt hold up. without an offense, the bears still great defense wears down over the season and is plagued by overuse injuries. they wind up in last somewhere between 6-10 and 8-8.

but then you could flip it all around and just reverse everything i said about them in there.

vikesrock28
04-17-2008, 02:13 AM
I gotta say Rodgers, I'm no Tavaris Jackson fan, I tell ya that much.

I'm praying that the Vikes draft from amongst Ryan, Brohm or Flacco depending on who's available in the first and second round.

If Derrick Harvey is gone at 17, Brohm is a good bet.

They were strongly considering Brady Quinn last year.

Crazy_Chris
04-17-2008, 11:20 AM
I gotta say Rodgers, I'm no Tavaris Jackson fan, I tell ya that much.

I'm praying that the Vikes draft from amongst Ryan, Brohm or Flacco depending on who's available in the first and second round.

If Derrick Harvey is gone at 17, Brohm is a good bet.

They were strongly considering Brady Quinn last year.

No they weren't it was reported that if Adrian Peterson was gone they were going to take Darelle Revis or Leon Hall.

Dr. Gonzo
04-17-2008, 01:38 PM
I am pretty sure everyone BUT the Vikings strongly considered Brady Quinn for us. It seems that every year certain Vikings fans fall in love with a QB and say he will be picked by us in the first. Truth is the team loves Jackson and if they are looking for a replacement I think it will be in the 3rd earliest.

vikesrock28
04-17-2008, 01:52 PM
Oh no, Childress genuinely liked Quinn.

It was Spielman who talked him out of it.

If AD hadn't been there or the safety the Skins drafted, then it damn well could have been Quinn.

vikesrock28
04-17-2008, 01:53 PM
Now after another year, I think they all have doubts about Jackson.

Dr. Gonzo
04-17-2008, 01:56 PM
We will see I guess.

Crazy_Chris
04-17-2008, 02:03 PM
The Vikings weren't interested in Quinn they weren't going to take him. I highly doubt Speilman would have been the one to talk childress out of Quinn. It would be more logical that Childress were to talk Speilman out of Quinn because he absolulty loves Jackson as the QB.

Gay Ork Wang
04-17-2008, 02:04 PM
they wouldve give up on Jackson after a year? i dont think so

Crazy_Chris
04-17-2008, 02:05 PM
I think they would have, had they actually loved Quinn and thought he was a sure fire franchise QB, but that wasn't the case.

vikesrock28
04-17-2008, 07:46 PM
Hell, I liked Quinn just not as much as Peterson and yer right Chilly loves Jackson and Spielman does the drafting.

The Vikes were high on Quinn though, that was well publicized.

Dr. Gonzo
04-17-2008, 07:48 PM
I hated Quinn last year. I have Ryan rated much higher. I was callin for AD the whole time and I was going crazy when we picked him.

vikesrock28
04-17-2008, 10:44 PM
Same here on AD, the Vikes have NEVER had a superstar runningback until now. I like Brohm this year as well.

vikesrock28
04-17-2008, 10:47 PM
Gonzo , who made you and EJ your gifs in your display there.

I really like the one EJ has with the Peterson runs.

Nobody I talk to on here knows how to make them like that though.

Gay Ork Wang
04-18-2008, 07:36 AM
i made Gonzos....and pls pls pls start to use the edit button. Everywhere u post u have 2-3 posts in 2 mins....

Michigan
04-26-2008, 11:39 AM
I read this whole thread, and I have to say I laughed 2-3 times. IMO-

1. Kitna, is the most proven, although still below average
2a. Grossman, is the most talented but least consistent
2b. Orton, can potentially be a game manager
3. Jackson, has potential but has really looked ugly so far
4. Rodgers, by far highest trade value but needs game experience

Iamcanadian
04-26-2008, 09:24 PM
What's sad is that it is probably Kitna, a career backup who will probably be OK in Detroit's new offense as a game manager and not a thrower.
Jackson, I still like a lot but he has quitye a ways to go.
Chicago = no comment
Green Bay thinks so much of Rodgers, they drafted Brohm in round 2. Not exactly a vote of confidence.
Face it, the NFC North has the weakest crop of QB's in the NFL and not one of them will lead a team anywhere.

Boston
04-26-2008, 10:03 PM
I read this whole thread, and I have to say I laughed 2-3 times. IMO-

1. Kitna, is the most proven, although still below average
2a. Grossman, is the most talented but least consistent
2b. Orton, can potentially be a game manager
3. Jackson, has potential but has really looked ugly so far
4. Rodgers, by far highest trade value but needs game experience

So, for me, would this be the third, or fourth time I've laughed in this thread?

asmitty45
04-27-2008, 01:44 PM
Brohm will end up being the best QB in the NFC north within 3 years. Rodgers days in GB are numbered.

I also think Booty has a chance to do some good things in Minny.

And don't forget about Stanton in Detroit, he's going to be a solid pro.

Sorry Bears, don't have much good to say about that situation, you should try to get Woodson.

Zbikowski_9
05-02-2008, 07:43 AM
Some (not all) of you Packer fans are so far up your a**. It is so arrogant the way you all go on about Rodgers. I can't wait till the opener to see how he copes with the Vikes pass rush.

Now if i had a team (same players regardless of QB) in the superbowl and had to choose my QB this is how it would go.

Kitna- most experience, limmit mistakes.

Grossman- Experience in the big game. Has all the physical and may have learnt from mistakes.

Orton- Bear vs Vikes he showed some good things, he has experience andif he kept his head a bit and had a good running game to work with he could have done alot better.

T-Jack- At least he has started a decent amount of games, he is still raw, but he has had time to develop can make plays with his feet and showed a little bit of leadership and poise in the 4th quater of the Broncos game. (i would still be having heart problems watching him though)

Rodgers- I have never seen him play. The highlights i have seen make me think there is a lot of potential there, but he is yet to start and i want to see him handle pressure before i would consider him


By the end of the season i realy do see Jackson and Rodgers making strides, but that is just speculation. I am actually a big fan of Rodgers, but Packer fans are so use to having thier QB position being a sure thing that they are realy not paying due respect to game experience and to claim him the best in the division is arrogant.

neko4
05-02-2008, 01:59 PM
Phillip Rivers didnt do too bad his first year and he only had a TE and a RB.

A great RB, but still, the weapons are there for Rodgers

johbur
06-03-2008, 11:13 PM
The best QB in this division now is Sidney Rice

2/2 100% 94yds 47 YPA (Robbed of a TD cuz Shank Hoe is slow) 118.7 career rating.

LOL!!!

Nice. Rice for President! 118.7 lifetime career rating doesn't lie...

GB12
09-14-2008, 03:56 PM
Some (not all) of you Packer fans are so far up your a**. It is so arrogant the way you all go on about Rodgers. I can't wait till the opener to see how he copes with the Vikes pass rush.
Hello.

How 'bout that Vikings pass rush. I mean Kevin Williams, Pat Williams, and Jared Allen, no way you can stop all three right? Haha, I've been waiting for so long to do this. We're the arrogant ones? All offseason we kept hearing how great the Vikings DL would be and how their pass rush would be unstoppable or how Minnesota was going to easily take the NFC North and be Super Bowl contenders. Well your DL got shut down against us and you're 0-2

By the end of the season i realy do see Jackson and Rodgers making strides, but that is just speculation. I am actually a big fan of Rodgers, but Packer fans are so use to having thier QB position being a sure thing that they are realy not paying due respect to game experience and to claim him the best in the division is arrogant Or maybe we were just right?

Rodgers
Orton
Kitna
Jackson

and I don't see it changing throughout the season.

Gay Ork Wang
09-14-2008, 03:58 PM
u need to give it time, Grossman looked like a MVP in 2006 the first 5 games

Addict
09-14-2008, 04:16 PM
u need to give it time, Grossman looked like a MVP in 2006 the first 5 games

that's true. But he looked like a complete amateur later on...

regoob2
09-14-2008, 04:19 PM
Hello.

How 'bout that Vikings pass rush. I mean Kevin Williams, Pat Williams, and Jared Allen, no way you can stop all three right? Haha, I've been waiting for so long to do this. We're the arrogant ones? All offseason we kept hearing how great the Vikings DL would be and how their pass rush would be unstoppable or how Minnesota was going to easily take the NFC North and be Super Bowl contenders. Well your DL got shut down against us and you're 0-2

Or maybe we were just right?

Rodgers
Orton
Kitna
Jackson

and I don't see it changing throughout the season.Rodgers looked amazing but he still more likely to end the season on IR than not.

bearsfan_51
09-14-2008, 04:29 PM
Orton is second? That's probably true, but it doesn't make it any less hilarious.

Prince 561
09-14-2008, 04:52 PM
Rodgers looked amazing but he still more likely to end the season on IR than not.

Why?......

bearsfan_51
09-14-2008, 05:05 PM
Well he has proved himself to be rather injury prone.

regoob2
09-14-2008, 05:20 PM
Why?......Because he gets hurt a lot.

Prince 561
09-14-2008, 06:44 PM
Because he gets hurt a lot.

The only significant injury I remember was a broken foot two years ago.

regoob2
09-14-2008, 07:06 PM
The only significant injury I remember was a broken foot two years ago.If he gets injured that often in practice I wouldnt bank on him playing all 16 even if the injuries aren't related.

Prince 561
09-14-2008, 07:14 PM
If he gets injured that often in practice I wouldnt bank on him playing all 16 even if the injuries aren't related.

That often? He had a broken foot in 3 seasons. I remember another injury but they said he was only being held out as a precaution since there was no reason to risk his health.

Plus the guy hasn't even be hit yet this year.

P-L
09-14-2008, 07:16 PM
I think at this point I might take Jackson over Kitna. Now I might be overreacting, but still...

bearsfan_51
09-14-2008, 07:17 PM
Plus the guy hasn't even be hit yet this year.
Which of course means that he never will.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
09-14-2008, 09:58 PM
Rodgers got hit today by White on the fumble. Rodgers moves incredibly well in the pocket though. Very good pocket presence. So far, he is playing mistake free football and at this point is the best in the North hands down. Rodgers has talent and McCarthy is a great coach(heck he made Aaron Brooks look good). Packers have a great start 2-0 in division. Long season thoguh and the Vikes and Bears both have a chance.

Lions and Kitna have regressed if thats even possible.

mqtirishfan
09-15-2008, 01:01 AM
If he gets injured that often in practice I wouldnt bank on him playing all 16 even if the injuries aren't related.

He didn't break his foot in practice. It happened in a game. It's ****** to judge a player on what he does coming in cold in the middle of a season.

the_legend_killer
09-15-2008, 11:04 AM
Best QB in the North? John David Booty.


BUT 2nd right now would be Rodgers.

umphrey
09-16-2008, 11:48 AM
Rodgers hands down. I knew it all offseason, now I can back it up.

bearsfan_51
09-16-2008, 03:57 PM
He didn't break his foot in practice. It happened in a game. It's ****** to judge a player on what he does coming in cold in the middle of a season.

Getting hurt is getting hurt. I don't think anyone is judging him on his performance.

johbur
09-16-2008, 09:50 PM
Getting hurt is getting hurt. I don't think anyone is judging him on his performance.

Does the same logic apply to Tommie Harris. Maybe Johnny Jolly should be rated over Harris as Harris is "injury-prone". Not.

Rodgers has taken some hits when he's scrambled and when the very young and playing out of position offensive line has broken down. He's gotten right back up. He wasn't injured in HS or College, and has has a broken foot in the pros. I guess Tom Brady will fall to being the worst QB in his Division next year when he comes back from injury using this logic. And that QB in Philadelphia should just give it up to Kolb due to his injuries.

If Rodgers gets hurt, then he gets hurt. His performance over two games is heads and shoulders above the rest of the stiffs in the NFC North, which is reflected by the W-L records.

bearsfan_51
09-17-2008, 12:45 AM
Does the same logic apply to Tommie Harris. Maybe Johnny Jolly should be rated over Harris as Harris is "injury-prone". Not.

Rodgers has taken some hits when he's scrambled and when the very young and playing out of position offensive line has broken down. He's gotten right back up. He wasn't injured in HS or College, and has has a broken foot in the pros. I guess Tom Brady will fall to being the worst QB in his Division next year when he comes back from injury using this logic. And that QB in Philadelphia should just give it up to Kolb due to his injuries.

If Rodgers gets hurt, then he gets hurt. His performance over two games is heads and shoulders above the rest of the stiffs in the NFC North, which is reflected by the W-L records.
I don't think his comment was directed in terms of how he is ranked, it's just a pretty basic concern that Rodgers has a history of injuries. Any argument contrary is a case of protesting out of self interest. In other words, your **** is in a bind for no reason.

As a side note, I'm not really sure beating the Lions is a reflection of one's ability as a QB, or every QB in the NFL would be in the Hall of Fame.

awfullyquiet
09-17-2008, 12:51 AM
Rodgers got hit today by White on the fumble. Rodgers moves incredibly well in the pocket though. Very good pocket presence. So far, he is playing mistake free football and at this point is the best in the North hands down. Rodgers has talent and McCarthy is a great coach(heck he made Aaron Brooks look good). Packers have a great start 2-0 in division. Long season thoguh and the Vikes and Bears both have a chance.

Lions and Kitna have regressed if thats even possible.

See, i think kitna is still kitna. and that is everything the lions need to be slightly above mediocre offensively.

Marlo
09-17-2008, 11:50 AM
I don't think his comment was directed in terms of how he is ranked, it's just a pretty basic concern that Rodgers has a history of injuries. Any argument contrary is a case of protesting out of self interest. In other words, your **** is in a bind for no reason.

As a side note, I'm not really sure beating the Lions is a reflection of one's ability as a QB, or every QB in the NFL would be in the Hall of Fame.

Is Tom Brady injury prone? What about Tommie Harris? Just because a guy breaks his foot once in 3 years and has one other minor injury doesn't make him injury-prone. It's a physical sport and a lot of it comes down to luck.

Gay Ork Wang
09-17-2008, 01:21 PM
Tommie harris and Tom Brady played alot longer and had less injury concerns. Mike Brown is injury prone. And Rodgers is def easier to get injuried than other QBs

awfullyquiet
09-17-2008, 02:32 PM
on the original topic...

grossman > frerotte

Marlo
09-17-2008, 03:36 PM
Tommie harris and Tom Brady played alot longer and had less injury concerns. Mike Brown is injury prone. And Rodgers is def easier to get injuried than other QBs

What are Rodger's injury concerns? That he broke his foot once? How is he "def easier to get injured than other QBs"?

awfullyquiet
09-17-2008, 04:47 PM
What are Rodger's injury concerns? That he broke his foot once? How is he "def easier to get injured than other QBs"?

He gets hit as much as jon kitna.

bearsfan_51
09-17-2008, 07:16 PM
Is Tom Brady injury prone? What about Tommie Harris? Just because a guy breaks his foot once in 3 years and has one other minor injury doesn't make him injury-prone. It's a physical sport and a lot of it comes down to luck.
Didn't he get put on IR last year? That would make 2 injuries in 3 years, and this is considering he's actually played about 2 real games.

And yes, Tommie Harris is injury prone. If by injury prone you mean...umm...prone to getting injured.

GB12
09-17-2008, 08:28 PM
Tommie harris and Tom Brady played alot longer and had less injury concerns. Mike Brown is injury prone. And Rodgers is def easier to get injuried than other QBs
I don't like calling QBs injury prone. RBs it makes sense for, they are taking hits every play and their running style can affect how susceptible to injury they are. A lineman breaking the QB's foot is no fault of the QB. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Put any other QB in where Rodgers was and they'd have a broken foot, even Brett Favre would have been out after that. Rodgers has been very unlucky with getting hurt, but I think that's all it is: luck.

He gets hit as much as jon kitna.
What have you been watching? He barely gets touched. Minnesota did nothing to him and Detroit sacked him once. I don't know where to find stats of QB hits, but his would be pretty low.

Addict
09-18-2008, 05:34 AM
He gets hit as much as jon kitna.

that's a bold statement, I'd like to see the stats, because although the Bears' line isn't very strong, it's not as swiss cheese as the Lions'

Kid_Ego
09-26-2008, 11:50 AM
They have quarterbacks in the NFC North?
I thought all they had were runningbacks and defenses, Some good and well some detriot

Bearsfan123
09-26-2008, 03:45 PM
My list:

1: Aaron Rogers
2:Jon Kitna
3:Kyle Orton
3b:Gus Ferotte (for one game anyway)
4:Tavaris Jackson

bearsfan_51
09-28-2008, 04:14 PM
So much for Rodgers not getting hit or injured. That took a long time.

TitleTown088
09-28-2008, 05:42 PM
Regardless , still been the best QB in the North.

Dr. Gonzo
09-28-2008, 06:09 PM
Regardless , still been the best QB in the North.

JDB is clearly the best QB in the division.

Kid_Ego
09-29-2008, 02:11 PM
The Grocery store clerk is clearly the best qb for the vikings at this point.

The Dynasty
09-29-2008, 03:20 PM
The Grocery store clerk is clearly the best qb for the vikings at this point.

It worked for the Rams with Kurt Warner...Wasnt he a Box Boy at a Grocery Store? lol.

Kid_Ego
10-06-2008, 03:24 PM
Yeah at the ghetto HYVEE in cedar rapids But lets face it that was a complete fluke He would of made any time other then the packers that already had Detmer Brunell Farve.

bearsfan_51
10-06-2008, 11:24 PM
What the **** did you just say?

Twiddler
10-07-2008, 10:48 PM
Yeah at the ghetto HYVEE in cedar rapids But lets face it that was a complete fluke He would of made any time other then the packers that already had Detmer Brunell Farve.

I'm glad you decided to throw in that period there at the end, otherwise I would have been completely lost...

TitleTown088
10-19-2008, 07:12 PM
Clearly it's between Neck beard and Rodgers. Close one right meow.

yo123
10-19-2008, 11:34 PM
Yeah at the ghetto HYVEE in cedar rapids But lets face it that was a complete fluke He would of made any time other then the packers that already had Detmer Brunell Farve.

This is without a doubt the greatest sentence I have ever seen.

Gay Ork Wang
10-20-2008, 07:25 AM
omg Neckbeard might even be the #1 QB :O

PACKmanN
10-20-2008, 07:48 AM
omg Neckbeard might even be the #1 QB :O

Lets all have a drink to that, lol.

Gay Ork Wang
10-20-2008, 02:20 PM
he is definitely having one, u can bet on that

Fck JC, He got off e.z
10-20-2008, 04:36 PM
Orton and Rodgers are very similarly statistically. Right now I would give a slight edge to Rodgers based on his ability to hurt teams with his legs but it should also be noted that he's playing on the better overall offense with more weapons.

http://i37.tinypic.com/iyemf6.jpg

Gay Ork Wang
10-21-2008, 07:30 AM
btw orton should have 1 more TD pass, the one that clark fumbled and davis recovered didnt count

Dr. Gonzo
10-21-2008, 10:16 AM
Orton and Rodgers are very similarly statistically. Right now I would give a slight edge to Rodgers based on his ability to hurt teams with his legs but it should also be noted that he's playing on the better overall offense with more weapons.

http://i37.tinypic.com/iyemf6.jpg

You must also remember Rodgers upped his stats a whole lot in garbage time against the freaking Lions.

regoob2
10-21-2008, 11:02 AM
I think it's Rodgers then Orton. Orton is playing great but Rodgers is playing a bit better.

mqtirishfan
10-21-2008, 11:19 AM
You must also remember Rodgers upped his stats a whole lot in garbage time against the freaking Lions.

Not really. After the first half he did mostly nothing.

Also, Orton had more yards against the Lions, and only one less TD. I honestly have no idea what the hell your point is.

awfullyquiet
10-21-2008, 12:13 PM
omg Neckbeard might even be the #1 QB :O

Scary but true.

When you factor in what he's done. With what he has...

Orton > Rodgers.

Twiddler
10-21-2008, 01:27 PM
Scary but true.

When you factor in what he's done. With what he has...

Orton > Rodgers.

Yeah, that actually is a pretty logical conclusion, although I still prefer Rodgers. Say it ain't so! That's some scary stuff!

All I know is that I'm really looking forward to us finally getting to play a game against each other, should make this argument much more interesting.

Dr. Gonzo
10-21-2008, 01:36 PM
Not really. After the first half he did mostly nothing.

Also, Orton had more yards against the Lions, and only one less TD. I honestly have no idea what the hell your point is.

I hate everything Rodgers stands for. I will always find some way to call him bad. Always. That is just me being a homer.

drowe
10-21-2008, 01:39 PM
I hate everything Rodgers stands for. I will always find some way to call him bad. Always. That is just me being a homer.

so.....what exactly does Rodgers "stand for"?

weird facial hair?

PACKmanN
10-21-2008, 01:39 PM
Scary but true.

When you factor in what he's done. With what he has...

Orton > Rodgers.

ok how about you factor what Rodgers has been playing threw....

Rodgers>Orton.

Dr. Gonzo
10-21-2008, 01:42 PM
so.....what exactly does Rodgers "stand for"?

weird facial hair?

The Packers of course. Just like Packer fans always hate on the Vikings and I attack them for it I do the same to the Packers. Plus I just want to bunch him in the face really ******* badly. Damn you fudgepacker bastards for all of your Rodgers sigs.

PACKmanN
10-21-2008, 01:43 PM
oh yeah Gonzo, looks like i am winning that bet we made before the start of the season.

Dr. Gonzo
10-21-2008, 01:46 PM
oh yeah Gonzo, looks like i am winning that bet we made before the start of the season.

:( I still have a shot though. We are only one game back!

drowe
10-21-2008, 02:29 PM
The Packers of course. Just like Packer fans always hate on the Vikings and I attack them for it I do the same to the Packers. Plus I just want to bunch him in the face really ******* badly. Damn you fudgepacker bastards for all of your Rodgers sigs.

interesting. so, you're blatantly doing the exact same thing that you admit to attacking others for. i love viking fans. i'm gonna go request a Rodgers sig :)

Dr. Gonzo
10-21-2008, 04:44 PM
interesting. so, you're blatantly doing the exact same thing that you admit to attacking others for. i love viking fans. i'm gonna go request a Rodgers sig :)

Indeed sir. That is what us Vikings/Packers fans do. But seriously, Rodgers blows.

sweetness34
10-21-2008, 05:54 PM
btw orton should have 1 more TD pass, the one that clark fumbled and davis recovered didnt count

He should have had two if Marty could catch a damn ball. Two right off his hands in the endzone, so that would have been 5 touchdowns on Sunday.

Twiddler
10-21-2008, 06:54 PM
The Packers of course. Just like Packer fans always hate on the Vikings and I attack them for it I do the same to the Packers. Plus I just want to bunch him in the face really ******* badly. Damn you fudgepacker bastards for all of your Rodgers sigs.

Hmm, interesting. I mean I hate the Vikings but I guess I don't single out individual players, unless they annoy me. For example, I still can't ******* stand Chris Hovan. Even if he isn't on the Vikings anymore.

And I guess I'll have to work on a Rodgers sig... ;)

DHVF
10-21-2008, 10:22 PM
Hmm, interesting. I mean I hate the Vikings but I guess I don't single out individual players, unless they annoy me. For example, I still can't ******* stand Chris Hovan. Even if he isn't on the Vikings anymore.

And I guess I'll have to work on a Rodgers sig... ;)
<<<<<< For you Twiddler. :)

Gay Ork Wang
10-22-2008, 12:21 PM
ok how about you factor what Rodgers has been playing threw....

Rodgers>Orton.
Orton is playing drunk.

Orton > Rodgers

BeerBaron
10-22-2008, 12:35 PM
ok how about you factor what Rodgers has been playing threw....

Rodgers>Orton.

for the Packer fan spelling and grammar....

Orton > Rodgers

don't forget Orton's 16-9 career record as starter vs. Rodgers record of 4-3. Just win baby.

Xiomera
10-22-2008, 12:43 PM
Dan Orlovsky is the best. No doubt about it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Gay Ork Wang
10-22-2008, 12:44 PM
damn he is so confident, he scores for the opposing team

Twiddler
10-22-2008, 02:00 PM
Orton is playing drunk.

Orton > Rodgers

Yeah, well Rodgers is playing..........Jesus?

http://apudgeisasandwich.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/aaron-rodgers.jpg

Xiomera
10-22-2008, 08:09 PM
Orlovsky thinks he's playing in the CFL with 20 yard deep endzones. WEEEEEE!

GB12
10-22-2008, 10:27 PM
Orlovsky thinks he's playing in the CFL with 20 yard deep endzones. WEEEEEE!
Maybe he was just preparing for next year

EvilMonkey
10-24-2008, 12:43 PM
for the Packer fan spelling and grammar....

Orton > Rodgers

don't forget Orton's 16-9 career record as starter vs. Rodgers record of 4-3. Just win baby.

so they have the exact same winning percentage? That matters how?

Dr. Gonzo
10-24-2008, 12:51 PM
so they have the exact same winning percentage? That matters how?

You struggle at math don't you :)

Gay Ork Wang
10-24-2008, 12:52 PM
Orton made it into the playoffs!

Orton win percentage is higher... 0.59 against 0.57

Gay Ork Wang
10-24-2008, 12:53 PM
You struggle at math don't you :)
He just squared both and thought its the same :D

BeerBaron
10-24-2008, 01:07 PM
even if it was the same, it's over a greater sample of games. (25 vs. 7)

Rodgers could go on an extraordinary losing streak and be 4-21 after this......who knows.

Dr. Gonzo
10-24-2008, 01:11 PM
even if it was the same, it's over a greater sample of games. (25 vs. 7)

Rodgers could go on an extraordinary losing streak and be 4-21 after this......who knows.

Let's all cross our fingers for that 4-21 streak. Call me a troll if you want but Aaron Rodgers failing at life brings me so much joy.