NFL Offseason 2011

[Rhom]

Since the last thread hit 21 pages and is likely to soon close.

Rivers has had some incredible statistical years, including this year where he worked with some truly terrible WRs for most of the season. That being said, he hasn't had success in the playoffs yet so he's not quite there but his talent level is clearly elite.

I recognize that he is an elite talent with singularly impressive numbers, but as you mention - he hasn't been able to get it done in the playoffs. That may be a problem with coaching, but it also is a condemnation of him. I don't think you have to win a Super Bowl to validate a career, but it certainly puts John Elway a notch above Dan Marino.

:dunno:

[Mexal]

Since the last thread hit 21 pages and is likely to soon close.

I recognize that he is an elite talent with singularly impressive numbers, but as you mention - he hasn't been able to get it done in the playoffs. That may be a problem with coaching, but it also is a condemnation of him. I don't think you have to win a Super Bowl to validate a career, but it certainly puts John Elway a notch above Dan Marino.

:dunno:

Agreed. But it's early in his career. I guess my point is, the stats are there and I'm sure the playoff wins will follow at some point.

As for the offseason, Bengals have already won so no need to go through it.

[Bronn Stone]

I recognize that he is an elite talent with singularly impressive numbers, but as you mention - he hasn't been able to get it done in the playoffs. That may be a problem with coaching, but it also is a condemnation of him. I don't think you have to win a Super Bowl to validate a career, but it certainly puts John Elway a notch above Dan Marino.

Really? You put Rivers ahead of Rodgers at this point? And you consider Brees part of a "Big Three?"

I think Manning and Brady are clearly at the top, and its a pretty good step down before you get to Drew Brees/Aaron Rodgers. I don't see how Phillip Rivers fits into the conversation at all.

I'd say Aaron Rodgers today isn't one iota a better QB than he was three days ago. He got an opportunity and managed to shine with it (and would have been even more stellar with a half dozen fewer drops), but I think the gap between him and Rivers is more about opportunity than talent.

I don't think there is a QB dead or alive, current or retired who could have done more to make his team win than Rivers did this season.

That having been said, Rivers would not rank ahead of Rodgers in my list. His passing motion really bugs me.

[Kalbear]

I don't think there is a QB dead or alive, current or retired who could have done more to make his team win than Rivers did this season

See, I attribute more of that to Norv than Rivers. It's his offensive system, and when he got replacement players they did pretty well too. I didn't see Rivers significantly change his style when playing (like Manning did with the loss of Clark) so...dunno. I didn't admittedly watch a ton of SD games, and Rivers did have the advantage of playing the AFC West and the NFC West.

Rivers lack of maturity and mistake-prone value bothers me. His need for a quality running game also does. He puts up stats like gangbusters ,but the competition he does it against is a bit...weak. I just haven't seen him take over games like I have Manning/Brady or Brees or even Ben. (and I don't think I've ever seen that with Rodgers, where he decides it's time to stop fucking around and goes out and wins).

There's another bit of damning praise - with Rodgers, (and yes I know this is fairly inaccurate) he has just a few comeback drives in his career as a starter. Compare to Manning or Ben as a counterexample.

[Bronn Stone]

See, I attribute more of that to Norv than Rivers. It's his offensive system, and when he got replacement players they did pretty well too. I didn't see Rivers significantly change his style when playing (like Manning did with the loss of Clark) so...dunno. I didn't admittedly watch a ton of SD games, and Rivers did have the advantage of playing the AFC West and the NFC West.

Rivers lack of maturity and mistake-prone value bothers me. His need for a quality running game also does. He puts up stats like gangbusters ,but the competition he does it against is a bit...weak.

I saw about half the Chargers games this season. They had four national games, a couple of Raider games and a few games I saw because the Raiders were blacked out. His game against the Patriots this season was a thing of beauty (there was some damned ugly by his receivers - Hester didn't bother to chase an errant lateral and a rookie WR set the ball down on the field after a reception without having been touched). Should have been sent to overtime, but a stupid false start and the Chargers being on a replacement kicker due to a previous injury to Kaeding meant SD came 3 points short. He didn't have a quality running game at any point this season. Tolbert was okay a couple of times, but never dominant. Mathews was worse.

[Rhom]

Ultimately, I really think its pretty close between Rivers and Rodgers. I do think I give Aaron the nod at this point though.

Since this is the offseason thread... what was up with those commercials during the game last night about the draft that kept saying "The future starts tomorrow" or something like that. Was it "tomorrow" as a replacement for some nebulous future date, or is there something with the draft process that actually does start today?

[Slurktan]

Since this is the offseason thread... what was up with those commercials during the game last night about the draft that kept saying "The future starts tomorrow" or something like that. Was it "tomorrow" as a replacement for some nebulous future date, or is there something with the draft process that actually does start today?

I believe those were just saying that the countdown to the draft begins today.

[Bronn Stone]

Love the text sent to Michael Silver this morning...

“[Expletive] turnovers”

– Text from Hines Ward

[awesome possum]

I don't mind Rodgers being in the conversation of top QBs. He's played like one, and he now has a ring.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if he'll last long enough to be considered in the mix of top QBs long term. I don't think his body will last, especially if he keeps racking up concussions.

[Rhom]

I don't mind Rodgers being in the conversation of top QBs. He's played like one, and he now has a ring.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if he'll last long enough to be considered in the mix of top QBs long term. I don't think his body will last, especially if he keeps racking up concussions.

He could wind up like Aikman or Young, both had to leave a bit early; but both are still considered some of the all time greats.

[Stego]

Rivers does not deserve to be talked about with Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger, Brees, and Rodgers. There is no reasonable, rational argument that can be made where he compares to them in any way but fantasy stats.

Daunte Culpepper used to be a fantasy football players dream, too.

[Maithanet]

Aikman or Young, both had to leave a bit early; but both are still considered some of the all time greats.

You think so? I guess they're both hall of famers, so if that is the metric, then yes, they are great. But I feel like neither are even in consideration for Top 5 (top 10?) qbs of all Time. That Dallas team was as stacked as any team in the past 25 years. And Young only had the one Super Bowl against that suspect Chargers squad.

[Kalbear]

But I feel like neither are even in consideration for Top 5 (top 10?) qbs of all Time.

Unless Rodgers switches on another gear I don't think he's going to be in that conversation either. Which is fine - you can be an elite QB and not be in the top 10.

But yeah, I said that earlier - if he keeps getting injured/concussed at the rate he is, he'll have a career like Aikman's - very good, very productive, but ultimately fairly short.

This GB team is awfully good as well, Maith - the difference is that the talent is more on both sides of the ball. Jennings is a very good WR, Finley's great (when active), Rodgers is good - but the big difference is on their defense.

[Fez]

As much as I love baseball (and I really, really do, I don't care what you haters say about it being boring) I really, truly hope that yesterday was not the last NFL game I"ll see in 2011.

Especially since this Jets team has a lot of older guys who's window of opportunity is already small enough.

[DanteGabriel]

And Young only had the one Super Bowl against that suspect Chargers squad.

In those days, the real Super Bowl was the NFC Championship Game.

[Spring Bass]

Oh no, the NFL season is over, and we might not see another game for more than a year if the Lock-Out happens. :crying:

[Kalbear]

So I had an idea on the lockout.

If the lockout happens - and it's looking likely that it will - the winner could be the UFL if they play their cards right.

Picture this: the UFL mandates everyone uses the better concussion helmets, and encourages folks to wear the super concussion helmets with the external pads - especially on defenders.

They also go after the second stringers in the NFL hard. Their pitch is this: in the UFL you can be a star, and be a star for a long time. We're safer, we'll let you play with your kids when you're 40, and you'll get more money while being a starter. We'll even sign you a 3-year contract that is all guaranteed as long as you don't go back to the NFL, and it's worth $2 mil a year. What do you say?

Meanwhile the NFL is dealing with lockouts, no practices, and no revenue. The hardest hit people on that aren't the Bradys or the Vicks - it's the 53rd man who is making league minimum and probably has no real savings or second career.

Wouldn't he jump at that opportunity in the UFL?

Then the UFL does the advertising. "Watch great college and pro stars play again! And watch them play with the latest in safety technology, virtually guaranteeing that they can play with their kids!"

Wouldn't that suck some people in?

So then the NFL has the high-paid stars (who aren't doing anything) but they don't have the base. That base is playing more and getting more screen time and is likely having a good time doing it. They're not getting hurt as much either and they don't ahve to worry about flying around out there as much, which means those bone-jarring hits you like seeing you get to see more of. Helmet to helmet? Sorry, not a big deal if you're wearing a big foam hat. highlight reels can showcase the 'jacked up' things without worry.

I think this could win, at least for a while.

[Spring Bass]

EDIT: Nah, I don't know what I'm talking about. I stand by not giving Soccer the chance to complete its Worldwide Domination, though. ;)

[Jaime L]

From the last thread:

Indeed, and re:young Favre ... what I see from Rodgers (that Favre never really had) is his ability to make the smart decision, if he can't find a receiver he either throws the ball out of bounds takes the sack - the way a great QB should do.

It's funny, I had a post in the last thread pre-emptively warning about this exact kind of analysis.

Favre was a three time league MVP. The guy was the best player in the league for three years in a row. Rodgers is not everything Favre was + good decision making. The only reason I can think people would say that is they didn't see Favre play in the mid to late 90s. As for Rodger's laser-rocket throws - I've seen them before, back when Favre threw them.

Aaron Rodgers is not as unique as Frisky's and Arrow's post make him out to be. There's plenty of guys who won their first Superbowl at age 27. There's plenty of guys who've had early success in the league, some faster than Rodgers. Whoever brought up Warner is exactly right - he came literally out of the shoot throwing 3 TD passes a game and winning Superbowls. But I get the sense if someone were to compare Aaron Rodgers to Warner at this point, there'd be sighs of disappointment which is crazy.

We don't know where this ends up on the Kurt Warner - Brett Favre - Tom Brady continuum. But to just assume he'll surpass all that doesn't take into account how tough football is and how this game has a way of laying everyone low. My point is: don't dimish what came before just to pump up your guy.

[Kalbear]

Another, more pessimistic, way to say what Jaime said is that the difference between the great and the all-time great is repeated, sustained success. Rodgers may be as good as anyone to play the game, but he's played 3 seasons and only truly excelled in two. Right now that puts him in a realm of QB play that includes such notables as Kurt Warner (who actually was better than that), Daunte Culpepper (who was a beast for 3 seasons and would have been MVP in a year where Manning didn't go nuts, like this one), Mark Bulger, Carson Palmer, Brad Johnson (yes, THAT Brad Johnson) and he's just slightly better than the best Bear QB of all time in the modern era - Kramer.

There are lots and lots and lots of QBs who have had two really great seasons. Even their first two - like Tony Romo. I'm not saying he won't have many more, and there's no reason that he shouldn't have many more - but that doesn't mean he WILL. Aikman and Young both had to leave early because of injury. Warner basically had to play second string for a while because of it. Culpepper and Palmer were never the same after leg injuries. Pennington was injury prone all the time despite having some of the best accuracy ever seen by a QB. Favre was special partially because of his insanely strong throwing ability but because he just kept going out there and doing it. That he could play at a competitive level last year at all was astounding in the NFL.

If Rodgers has 5 more years of the productivity he has now he'll still not be in the class of Manning or Brady. He'll be a great, great QB, but he'll need to last a lot longer than that.