Best QB In NFC North - Page 6

nrk · 04-11-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renji

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iamcanadian

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtariBigby

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by regoob2

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by regoob2

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renji

He does know that Grossman wasnt always that horrible right?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skibow

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

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