NFL VI - I'm dreaming of a White Christmas...

[Kalbear]

If you disagree, I would like to know what skill Rodgers lacks that makes anyone else better.

To name a few:

horrible pocket presence; all of the really elite QBs right now (Manning, Brady, Brees, Rivers) have this more than Rodgers. It's actually a glaring deficiency and has lost them several games; while he isn't getting a lot of favors from his blockers, he's also causing a lot of sacks.

poor reads of defenses. He does well against more vanilla stuff but exotic blitz angles and odd coverages he does poorly on. Speaks to him as not a great film student, which I've heard.

poor leadership - at least so far. How many 4th quarter comebacks has he led? How many games has the game failed due to him?

His actual mechanics are sound, though he's not the fastest arm out there. His decision making is largely good. He does have adequate running ability. But he's nothing like the true elite QBs, and until he gets sacked less than 30 times a season he won't be. There's a common misconception that Manning's line is godly, but it's really not true; Manning makes his line better.

[Lord O' Bones]

I realize they are resting some guys and arguably playing for not much, but this Bengals team looks awful right now.

[Jaime L]

God Week 17 sucks. Always, by far, the worst week in the NFL season.

It's cool that 3 of the wildcard matchups were played today, but all were absolute blowouts today by the lower seeded team. What does that mean? It's clear that the higher seeded team in each case was probably keeping things close to the vest and that next week's result should be quite different. But still can't believe that accounts for the margin of victory we've seen in each of these games. Especially the Eagles getting shut out in a game that had meaning. Now they have to go to Dallas next week. I mean, what reason do we have to believe next week will be so different?

Rodgers easily is a better thrower than Manning, Brady, Big Ben...and he's far more mobile than any of them (though they all have great pocket presence, Rodgers is simply just faster on his feet).

Agree with all this, Trisky, but as Bronn and Kal say, the single most important attribute a QB can have is far more intangible. Look at Montana who was middling in every measurable. Perhaps Rodgers can show that he has the rare field vision, pocket presence and overall clutchness to make the leap to becoming truly elite but from what I've seen, he's not there yet. He has a great chance to take a step forward in the most meaningful game of his career next week. But the league is littered with QBs who light up the league without ever winning anything substantial.

As it stands at this moment I rate him behind Manning, Brady, Brees and Rivers in that order. But is he top 5? Yeah, I think you can say that..and he's got the chance to be #1 in a few years as the older generation starts declining. I'll even take him over Warner at this point, though next week should be telling.

[LCOTNW]

Well, there's nothing like falling ass backwards into a first round bye, but I'll take it.

The best case scenario for the Vikes is for the Pack and the Eagles to upset. Not just because they are the lower seeds, but also because the Vikes match up better against the Pack. Facing the Cards, Boys, or even the Eagles if that had been possible, are more troublesome.

It will be interesting to see which Cards team shows up in the Wild Card game. They have been as up-and-down as the Vikes (and several others). I am guessing that the Pack loses the wild card game to a Warner-lead Cardinals team that has something to play for (unlike today). I think the Boys will beat the Eagles. The Eagles could have earned a bye with a win today and they couldn't even get on the board. It will be a closer game, but I think Dallas will win. That will mean the Cowboys Cards go to New Orleans and the Cards Cowboys (3rd seed) come to Minnesota. Anything could happen in those games.

The AFC will send either the Chargers or the Colts to the Super Bowl. The Pats are the only AFC playoff team that could manage to beat both of those teams in succession, but if Welker is indeed out of the playoffs I think it will tough for the Pats to win out. Even if Welker can play, those are a couple of tough road games. Considering those two teams, the NFC better send a team that can rush the passer.

ETA: corrected my error

[Trebla]

God Week 17 sucks. Always, by far, the worst week in the NFL season.

yeah no kidding. During the noon games I had to switch to the Falcons/Bucs game to find a competitive one.

So black Monday begins soon. Jaime, will Snyder start it out at 12:01 like he always does free agency? :P And 10 mill. a year for Shannahan? WOW :stunned:

[dalThor]

So the Lions set some records this year!

Detroit set a league record with 30 losses over two seasons.

Detroit has won just three games since midway through the 2007 season in what has been the worst 40-game stretch since the Dayton Triangles were slightly less successful during the 1920s, according to STATS.

The Lions’ 33-111 record since 2001 — when ex-general manager Matt Millen turned a lackluster franchise into a laughingstock — is the poorest nine-season stretch by an NFL team since World War II.

*sigh*

[Mexal]

So from what I can see, the Bengals looked terrible last night. I don't think it's a major surprise considering Ocho (our only real threat at WR) got hurt in warm ups, we rested several major starters, lost a key rotational DT for the year, decided to bring out the stone hands for the evening and played very vanilla coverages.

That being said, we still looked abysmal, like we didn't have any desire to win that game and it's a bit worrying.

On the positive side, we play NY again next week, play them at home and will have Peko, Crocker and Benson in there. I can only hope that they make a big difference and I suspect they will. Even still, our passing game is so bad that even should we win this game, we'll get destroyed in Indy. But that's ok. I'll take one playoff win!!!

[Maithanet]

Annd Jim Zorn is fired. A man who was unqualified to be a head coach and was paid very well to carry on the charade that he was, indeed, running things. I am hoping Shanahan is our new man, although it will take a lot more than a coaching change to fix whats wrong in DC.

We have the #4 pick, and the preliminary board I saw had us taking Bradford. I can only hope they are wrong, since Campbell is clearly at least average, and we have so many more pressing needs on the O line.

I agree that week 17 was pretty terrible. Although I can't help but wonder if the Bengals and Cards really outsmarted themselves with trying not to reveal their game plans before the playoffs. The momentum of those losses could be difficult to overcome. I will be rotting for them both, but I'm not sure I like their chances. The Eagles looked so much worse than I expected.

Aaron Rodgers is having a great season. But Manning is having a better one, and has a super bowl ring to boot. Rodgers may develop into the best QB in the league. But it certainly hasn't happened yet.

[Bronn Stone]

I will be rotting for them both, but I'm not sure I like their chances. The Eagles looked so much worse than I expected.

Spell check is such a wonderful thing...

I hope that if nothing else Zorn got a big pile of money for his charade.

[Rockroi]

On this Black Monday (which will not be really THAT black):

-Pats' season and post-season ended yesterday when Wes Welker made a cut we have all seen him make 500 times before. As Tom Brady said this morning on WEEI (Boston radio): "Football is a very unforgiving game... I mean, how many times have you seen Wes make that move? How many times have you seen me step up in the pocket with a blitzer coming?" I really like Edelman coming in to spell Wes, but its hard to replace the dynamic Wes brings. Mostly, though, ONCE AGAIN the Pats blow a double-didgit lead in the second half, on the road against a non-playoff team. WTF are they going to do against the Chargers? Or the Ravens for that matter? I also was DUMBFOUNDED by the QB switch-a-roo Belichick did with Brady at the end of each half. And especially on that last drive. I mean, Jesus- were we playing to win or not?

Regardless, now the second-guessers are coming out of the woodwork- Welker should not have played at all, they say. These are the same talking heads who SCREAMED when the Colts rested their starters in week 16 (and subsequently week 17). Well, which is it, you morons? Either you are angry at teams who sit their starters (and allow gimmie games late in the season) or you are angry that teams play their starters and risk injury. I can respect either position, BUT NOT BOTH AT THE SAME TIME! Pick one and take a stand. Frankly, almost EVERY team yesterday had their starters play at least one series, so its not like the Pats committed some cardinal sin. It could have happened to any team, any player, it just happened to happen to the most prolific WR in the NFL today.

I think there is a legitimate chance the Pats lose to the Ravens on Sunday. However, I can't pick against my team. Just won't do it at home. Next week against the Chargers? Different story, most likely.

Brady was asked today if the reports were true that he was playing with three broken ribs and a broken ring finger on his throwing hand. Brady's response was hilarious, "Uhm... what does the injury report say?" He then said, "I mean, its the end of the season, everyone has some broken bones." That's just sick.

-I put no stock in the following games: Bengals-Jets, Bills-Colts, Giants-Vikings, Saints-Panthers, Packers-Cardinals, Redskins-Chargers. The better team rested their starters or the Giants gave up 3 weeks ago. Its sort of disgraceful that the Giants are this horrendous. Then again, I may be projecting a little here.

-Speaking of disgraceful, the Eagles lay an egg when they could have had a first round bye. Dinks. Yes, part of this is the amazing resurgence of the Cowboys (who look as legit as ANY team right now); Romo hit studd status, and the D shut out a relatively effective offense. But the Eagles looked atrocious, lackluster- utterly powerless. Its NOT like they had nothing to play for. They just laid down out there.

-Answer this question: who did a better job of coaching their team over the last 6 weeks- Josh McDaniel or Eric Mangini? Its not as easy a question as you may think. And think about this: 10 weeks ago, if anyone said to you that Eric Mangini should be retained as the Browns head coach, you would have thought they were mental. Now? His team, legitimately, fought to save his job. And I am really pleased that the Pats kept their "Assistant Head Coach who blew once he left the Pats" streak alive. Well done, men.

-Speaking of fighting to save a job of a head coach- I think Jack del Rio SHOULD be fired, but won't be (the Jags cannot afford to fire him). His team just went to hell over the last few weeks, lethargic.

-Look, Pittsburgh, its not necessarily a grand conspiracy against your team when YOU fail to make the playoffs. I had to say the same thing last season when Pats fans wanted to undo the entire playoff structure because we did not make the playoffs last season. Sometimes, you're just not good enough to go on. Now move on.

-Gratz to Chris Johnson, and to the entire Titans team for salvaging a decent season out of a completely horrendous start. They started 0-6 and finish a respectable 8-8. While I am starting to think that Fisher is overrated as a head coach, I do think that he helped get this team back on track... after everyone and their mother told him to start Young.

-Jim Zorn has already been fired. I think he was treated unfairly, but he was also a poor coach. I just think its another example of the Redskins' schizophrenia. They just have no direction, no plan, nobody at the controls. They will probably bring in Shanahan, and that's fine. But is Shanahan going to be "the answer" or another head coach who cannot live with this owner?

-I think the Pats beat the Ravens, but other than that I think I am going to hold off on my other predictions because, as you may be aware, I am awful at it. 100% awful.

[Maithanet]

Spell check is such a wonderful thing...

I hope that if nothing else Zorn got a big pile of money for his charade.

What makes you thing I spellcheck my posts?

And yes, he did, although he would have gotten less if he'd quit mid season. Which was why he was willing to put up with being neutered midseason.

[grozeng]

What got me in the Jets/Bengals game was how bad the Bengals were at tackling. It was their starters too that were missing tackles. I don't think it is a good sign for them next week. But they will be at home, so it will be a vastly different game. I am just glad the Jets showed up and played (unlike the Falcons game which was also a must win at the time).

How crazy would it be if Chris Johnson raced Usain Bolt. I think Bolt would win, hands down but Johnson is trying to make it a shorter race since Bolt really excels in the second half of the 100.

[Rockroi]

Finally, yes, the Pats finished with the #3 ranked Offense in the NFL this season, beating their #5 ranking last season (they also had more total yards, more points per game, etc). Therefore, as Kal alluded to last week, I "win" our bet, merely because the Pats did not have a "worse" offense. As a result, Kal cannot comment on any NFL topic (on these boards) until "after the Super-Bowl victory parade is over." Thus, no kal until the Tuesday afternoon after the Superbowl.

[Kalbear]

Yep. Grats on your win, Rock. And sorry that the Pats lost Welker.

[Rockroi]

Yep. Grats on your win, Rock. And sorry that the Pats lost Welker.

Told you it was a Pyrrhic Victory... and I am not doing this to goad you; I am just saying this because sometimes winning isn't everything... did I just say that?

[Jaxom 1974]

When, if ever, was the last time three of the first four playoff games were identical to the final week of the season? That's crazy.

[davos]

Bronn - I meant literally best QB in the NFL. Save this post and read it again in a few years. If you disagree, I would like to know what skill Rodgers lacks that makes anyone else better. It is only a matter of time. Steve Young a few weeks ago was trying to temper his praise because he knew how close he was to saying something like "this is the best QB in the league, period." He knew that it would be going out on a limb to crown a guy like that, so he said something more like "we're seeing the emergence of a great one."

Despite being a big fan of Rodgers and feel very fortunate that my Packers were able to move straight one of the all-time great QB's to one of such high potential I have to agree with those who have chimed in to say that he's not the top QB yet. Manning, Brees, Favre and Brady are clearly ahead of him at this point. Rivers and Rothlisberger arguably also should be included in there as well. These guys have proven themselves over a number of seasons and most have playoff success in their resume as well. Rodgers does not have either.

I would also defend Rodgers agianst some concerns mentioned by others.Remember that this is Rodgers 2nd season as a starter. Few, if any, QB's have reached his level of play with the kind of consistancy he's shown as quickly. Yes, he had an issue with pocket awareness early this season that contributed to the attrocious number of sacks the team suffered. He's also clearly learned from that experience and adjusted his game accordingly. he's getting ride of the ball faster and moving better to avoid pressure. His ability to read defenses quickly and correctly has improved dramatically over the past 2 seasons. He's shown he has a good head for the game and is only getting sharper in that area. All accounts from other players are that he is a stronger locker room leader and is well respected by his teammates. There is every reason to believe that his skills will continue to improve over the next few seasons which strongly suggests that he will within a season or two be the best QB in the league, at least from a technical standpoint. Rather he has the ability to move from very good to great we will have to wait and see. I tend to think he will prove himself in those intangible areas as well.

[Rockroi]

I would also defend Rodgers agianst some concerns mentioned by others.Remember that this is Rodgers 2nd season as a starter. Few, if any, QB's have reached his level of play with the kind of consistancy he's shown as quickly.

Peter King posted today that Rodger's first two years as the starter in GB bear a striking similarity to the 1996-1997 years Favre put up there (Favre's two SB years). The numbers are basically identical (except that Favre threw more TDs... and more INTs). It adds fuel to the fire that, statistically, Young Favre and Rodgers had very similar outputs.

However, during that time, Favre won a SB and played in another (losing to the Broncos). He also had better records those two seasons than Rodgers has had in his two. The reason Favre seemed like a better QB was because he got better results. Well, that was because he was playing with a studd Defense (remember Reggie White? I mean, before he said all those crazy things about Latinos fitting a lot of people into one car).

Now, obviously, before and after those years, Favre has shown how great a QB he is- statistically there are few better (though, one is probably playing in Indy right now). All I am saying is that results-wise, the Packers did better during the Favre years than they are right now, and as such, people think that Favre was way way way better than Rodgers during that time. Well, he really wasn't. At least not statistically. His TEAM was better, so our memories are better.

Let me put it to you this way: lets say in 10 years, the Pats get a QB who plays EXACTLY like Tom Brady did in 2001-2005. Statistically the same. But the Pats do not do as well - they don;t make it to any Super Bowls. Its perfectly normal to say "Well, he's not as good as Tom Brady," even if that is 100% not true (at least statistically). If the Pats get a QB who is, statistically, justa s good as Brady was during that time, I think we should be happy with that, just as the Packers have to be happy with Rodgers so far, even if it SEEMS like Favre was oh so much better.

[Chuck Klingbeil]

Peter King posted today that Rodger's first two years as the starter in GB bear a striking similarity to the 1996-1997 years Favre put up there (Favre's two SB years). The numbers are basically identical (except that Favre threw more TDs... and more INTs). It adds fuel to the fire that, statistically, Young Favre and Rodgers had very similar outputs.

However, during that time, Favre won a SB and played in another (losing to the Broncos). He also had better records those two seasons than Rodgers has had in his two. The reason Favre seemed like a better QB was because he got better results. Well, that was because he was playing with a studd Defense (remember Reggie White? I mean, before he said all those crazy things about Latinos fitting a lot of people into one car).

Now, obviously, before and after those years, Favre has shown how great a QB he is- statistically there are few better (though, one is probably playing in Indy right now). All I am saying is that results-wise, the Packers did better during the Favre years than they are right now, and as such, people think that Favre was way way way better than Rodgers during that time. Well, he really wasn't. At least not statistically. His TEAM was better, so our memories are better.

Let me put it to you this way: lets say in 10 years, the Pats get a QB who plays EXACTLY like Tom Brady did in 2001-2005. Statistically the same. But the Pats do not do as well - they don;t make it to any Super Bowls. Its perfectly normal to say "Well, he's not as good as Tom Brady," even if that is 100% not true (at least statistically). If the Pats get a QB who is, statistically, justa s good as Brady was during that time, I think we should be happy with that, just as the Packers have to be happy with Rodgers so far, even if it SEEMS like Favre was oh so much better.

So are you saying Marino would have won a SuperBowl with a better D?

;)

[Rockroi]

So are you saying Marino would have won a SuperBowl with a better D?

;)

Heh. Maybe I am.

I think what I am actually saying is that if you are going to judge a QB, you have to look at everything that surrounds that QB. For YEARS I have heard that Tom Brady was just a "slightly above average" QB. Well, my counter was that if you looked at what he had to work with - on O -he was really limited; the guy was the only real thing we had going for us. In 2006- the Colts SB year -his #1 WR was Reche Caldwell; his #2 was Jabbar Gaffney (who had just been cut by another team). Not exactly go-to guys; and prior to 2006, his WR core consisted of Troy Brown (Pats all around HoF'er, but not in the discussion for Top 50 WRs of the Century) and basically a who's who of nobodies (and yes, I am including Deon Branch here) Caldwell, David Patton, David Givens (yes, I know- you have absolutely no idea who these people are), etc would eventually leave the Pats and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (I am aware that Gaffney had a great week this week). So, if we are going to judge Brady, you really have to look at who he was throwing to. As I said years ago (and was somebody's quote for some time) "Android Joe Montana could not make those guys look any better."

So what happened? In 2007 the Pats got Moss and Welker went 16-0 in the reg season and Brady just blew the doors off the place, having an INSANE statistical season. In other words, yeah, he was pretty good SEPARATE AND APART from being a three-time SB champ and 2 time-SB MVP (yes, projecting again).

I think that STATISTICALLY Rodgers could be a really huge QB. I think Favre was not, statistically, oh so much better than Rodgers during that limited time frame (I cannot stress this enough: I am ONLY using this 2 year period to accentuate how good Rodgers could be AND NOT how "overrated" Favre was - I DO NOT THINK FAVRE WAS OVERRATED DURING THAT TIME... okay maybe a little, but its inconsequential to this discussion). I think the Packers have a really special QB in Rodgers. Now, if he IS lazy, if he does not put the time in the film room, if he continues to make poor decisions, etc, than he will go down. But if he fixes that... he can go up.

Getting back to Marino, in an earlier post some time ago (like three years ago) I posted how many pro-bowlers and DEFENSIVE pro-bowlers Marino played with during his career and it was actually pretty good evidence that it wasn't just "Dan and 21 other guys" during those seasons. And this included a few impressive running backs. Add in that the Dolphins did anything they could to keep Dan happy, and I think Marino had enough chances to do what needed to be done to win, but for many reasons (some within his control, some not so much) he did not.

I mean... he lost to the 1985 Pats... how bad is that? (I still liked that team. Shut up)...