Who is better Rogers or Eli?

[Storm]

I can think of many games including a SB game where Eli played better than Rodgers

Eli is a top 5 QB.........coming off a bad year, he will likely spring back with his full offense in place and healthy plus an addition or 2 and have a banner year

 

Rodgers on the other hand, based upon past SB follow up years will likely sink in the mud.

 

We still have the draft and free agency to see where the teams stack up next year. I do believe with Fewell in place and the two knotheads a full 6 months to think about ball security, Steve Smith and Plaxico back that the Giants will roar undefeated into December (if the lockout is settled) and then we'll see from from there

 

Hopefully Coughlin wins a second Superbowl and finally retires and does not have to be wheeled tot he sidelines in his 80's like George Halas was (

 

How did Eli play better than Rodgers in his Super Bowl?? Because he threw up a prayer and got lucky to have it be caught? Seriously, statistically, Aaron Rodgers had a much better game against a much better Steelers defense.

 

Lest we forget, Eli almost threw the Super Bowl away to Asante Samuel, as well.

[Storm]

who was attacking you? you are quite touchy. all the dog was doing was responding to your question about how do dropped passes translate into the steelers not scoring points. the dog went on to simply add that what storm is saying makes sense on all accounts regarding rodgers and the super bowl. you can say the pitt defense was poor and rodgers was genius as well. it is possible for both to be true. rodgers was spot on in his performance. throughout the game he made plays that were successful because of what he did, not because of what pitt didn't do (i.e., the first td to jennings, the third down and long pass to jennings on the last drive, several accurate passes under pressure into solid coverage...etc...). at the same time, polomalu gave a weak performance all game, including the time where he "guessed" wrong on the last TD, the d-line was neutralized most of the game, and the defense made few if any adjustments to the packer scheme that as storm pointed out, revolved completely on the passing game with little to no focus on the run.

 

examples of rodgers being lights out and the defense, from individual players to units to coaching being subpar. if you can't understand that, or take it seriously as you say, then you know even less about football than the dog originally thought, and that is not saying much.

 

And the very fact that Pittsburgh couldn't adjust to stop Rodgers says alot about how well he played in the first place. If you can drop back and pass 40 times, without a running game, and not throw a single interception and still score points and amazingly still sustain drives to take time off the clock, you're playing pretty damn well.

[Storm]

did i think you were attacking me? no.... i just think you're generally arrogant and relatively simple so i was dumbing it down plus i dislike you so i dig when the feeling hits. . storm was adamant about the D being at fault, then he was adamant about Rodgers being a genius. You are bringing it to a milquetoast whiny middle. "gee rodgers was really good but the steelers could've been better...." thanks, lonely guy for your input.

 

I said the Steelers weren't sending many blitzes but when you step back and think about it, we also couldn't blitz or even get anywhere near him....I think we got one sack on him, maybe.....he's got that quick release, timing, and quick decision making that makes it very difficult to blitz him or do really anything to disrupt him. That's on the Steelers to find a way to get that done and find some way to stop him. They couldn't and Rodgers still tore them up passing nearly every down.

[JMFP]

I said the Steelers weren't sending many blitzes but when you step back and think about it, we also couldn't blitz or even get anywhere near him....I think we got one sack on him, maybe.....he's got that quick release, timing, and quick decision making that makes it very difficult to blitz him or do really anything to disrupt him. That's on the Steelers to find a way to get that done and find some way to stop him. They couldn't and Rodgers still tore them up passing nearly every down.

 

The Bears did a good job against Rodgers.

 

We lost because we gave him a 10 yard cushion in the 1st half, and then turned the ball over 5 times in the 2nd half.

[Guest StrahansGap]

Is this a joke?

[ksm7]

did i think you were attacking me? no.... i just think you're generally arrogant and relatively simple so i was dumbing it down plus i dislike you so i dig when the feeling hits. . storm was adamant about the D being at fault, then he was adamant about Rodgers being a genius. You are bringing it to a milquetoast whiny middle. "gee rodgers was really good but the steelers could've been better...." thanks, lonely guy for your input.

 

and the dog was simply pointing out that both rodgers being a genius and the pitt d being at fault are both possible and in fact both accurate. dig all you want, do you really that the dog thinks twice about your mundane, mindless barbs? not at all...you are a mere distraction for the dog's pleasure. if only you weren't so crabby all the time, you might just be a tad more entertaining...

[fringe]

and the dog was simply pointing out that both rodgers being a genius and the pitt d being at fault are both possible and in fact both accurate. dig all you want, do you really that the dog thinks twice about your mundane, mindless barbs? not at all...you are a mere distraction for the dog's pleasure. if only you weren't so crabby all the time, you might just be a tad more entertaining...

 

if you watched the game, you'd realize it was 2 evenly matched teams- separated by turnovers. btw, no one has used the word "tad" since 1983.

[Storm]

if you watched the game, you'd realize it was 2 evenly matched teams- separated by turnovers. btw, no one has used the word "tad" since 1983.

 

Well, this fact makes Rodgers a better QB than Manning alone. Manning loves to turn the ball over.

[fringe]

Well, this fact makes Rodgers a better QB than Manning alone. Manning loves to turn the ball over.

 

yes, he's a tad better.

 

anyone remember Tad's Steak House? I bet T does. For $1.99 you could get the grisliest, toughest piece of grade D beef and a baked potato.

[BIGBLUE01]

How did Eli play better than Rodgers in his Super Bowl?? Because he threw up a prayer and got lucky to have it be caught? Seriously, statistically, Aaron Rodgers had a much better game against a much better Steelers defense.

 

Lest we forget, Eli almost threw the Super Bowl away to Asante Samuel, as well.

 

I love Eli, and believe it wasnt all luck in our SB.......but I agree with you Storm. Elis magic in our SB was perseverance, staying strong despite being faced with 2 min left and down 4 points. Yes a lil luck, but determination more than anything. But Aaron Rodgers was simply superb vs an awesome D.

[ksm7]

if you watched the game, you'd realize it was 2 evenly matched teams- separated by turnovers. btw, no one has used the word "tad" since 1983.

 

 

um, ok. and so because they were evenly matched that somehow means rodgers' performance was less than spectacular and the steelers defense had a good game? the dog has no idea what you are spinning about, but you are obviously spinning. if you have two evenly matched teams, and the game comes down to turnovers, doesn't it stand to reason that the QB that threw for over 300 yards, 3 tds and no interceptions performed masterfully in that situation? and doesn't it also stand to reason that the defense that was out of position, performed weakly, and created no turnovers shares in the blame? hence, both are possible, which is all the dog stated when agreeing with storm's assessment. apparently the rebel rouser in you was motivated to pick a fight where there was no fight to be had...that is a tad childish on your part.

 

was 1983 the year you were scorned in some way sending you down the path of developing into the crotchety old buzzard that the dog has the pleasure of engaging with currently?

[Treehugger]

I love Eli, and believe it wasnt all luck in our SB.......but I agree with you Storm. Elis magic in our SB was perseverance, staying strong despite being faced with 2 min left and down 4 points. Yes a lil luck, but determination more than anything. But Aaron Rodgers was simply superb vs an awesome D.

I think "superb" is stretching it. There was nearly 30min where the GB offense did nothing and let Pitt get back into the game. Rodger's comp % was nearly identical to Ben's; the guy who's performance is described in this same thread as terrible.

 

He didn't throw any INTs where Ben did. That's the only real difference.

[RandolphScott]

yes, he's a tad better.

 

anyone remember Tad's Steak House? I bet T does. For $1.99 you could get the grisliest, toughest piece of grade D beef and a baked potato.

 

 

It's still open.

 

Now it's just $7.99

[BIGBLUE01]

I think "superb" is stretching it. There was nearly 30min where the GB offense did nothing and let Pitt get back into the game. Rodger's comp % was nearly identical to Ben's; the guy who's performance is described in this same thread as terrible.

 

He didn't throw any INTs where Ben did. That's the only real difference.

 

OK, maybe superb is stretching it a lil. But only his completion % was close. Rodgers performed better in every other category, including yds and TD's. But the biggest difference I noticed, which doesnt have a stat.....was his mind. He didnt look flustered one bit. Big Ben was gettin pummeled for a bit.

[ksm7]

I think "superb" is stretching it. There was nearly 30min where the GB offense did nothing and let Pitt get back into the game. Rodger's comp % was nearly identical to Ben's; the guy who's performance is described in this same thread as terrible.

 

He didn't throw any INTs where Ben did. That's the only real difference.

 

the dog would have to disagree. the packers didn't score on 6 of their possessions (excluding the one before half where they handed the ball once to starks to run out the clock). 3 of those 6 possessions ended on dropped passes that were clearly drops of accurately thrown balls (nelson, jones and swaine). not moving the ball had very little to do with rodgers. given that they put the entire game in his hands against what was suppossedly a great defense, and he dissected it for 300 plus yards and 3 tds without a pick, the dog would say that was pretty superb. imagine if the drops had been converted? yes they are part of the game, but green bays offense doing nothing for any stretch that day was impacted by three blatent drops that would have had a significant impact on the game...

[fringe]

um, ok. and so because they were evenly matched that somehow means rodgers' performance was less than spectacular and the steelers defense had a good game? the dog has no idea what you are spinning about, but you are obviously spinning. if you have two evenly matched teams, and the game comes down to turnovers, doesn't it stand to reason that the QB that threw for over 300 yards, 3 tds and no interceptions performed masterfully in that situation? and doesn't it also stand to reason that the defense that was out of position, performed weakly, and created no turnovers shares in the blame? hence, both are possible, which is all the dog stated when agreeing with storm's assessment. apparently the rebel rouser in you was motivated to pick a fight where there was no fight to be had...that is a tad childish on your part.

 

was 1983 the year you were scorned in some way sending you down the path of developing into the crotchety old buzzard that the dog has the pleasure of engaging with currently?

 

yes it was the last time you got laid. you remember, you took her to tad's steak house but it was a tad expensive. s/he was both ugly and beautiful at the same time. you were masterful and s/he was drunk. just like rodgers and the pittsburgh D.

[ksm7]

yes it was the last time you got laid. you remember, you took her to tad's steak house but it was a tad expensive. s/he was both ugly and beautiful at the same time. you were masterful and s/he was drunk. just like rodgers and the pittsburgh D.

 

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....wake the dog once you have put down the joke book purchased back at the turn of the century when you entered middle school and we can move forward from there. or just email them directly to bigblue, that is more his pace. either way, the dog is satisfied watching you spin aimlessly about.

[fringe]

i won't waste my time. you don't get it, you'll never get it.

[JackStroud]

Eli had a bad year

 

so did Jacobs and Brasdshaw..........get over it

 

Had Ol Ironsides not re-shuffled the O-line and put lame Ohara back in we'd probably have won the SB

 

shit happens

[BIGBLUE01]

the dog would have to disagree. the packers didn't score on 6 of their possessions (excluding the one before half where they handed the ball once to starks to run out the clock). 3 of those 6 possessions ended on dropped passes that were clearly drops of accurately thrown balls (nelson, jones and swaine). not moving the ball had very little to do with rodgers. given that they put the entire game in his hands against what was suppossedly a great defense, and he dissected it for 300 plus yards and 3 tds without a pick, the dog would say that was pretty superb. imagine if the drops had been converted? yes they are part of the game, but green bays offense doing nothing for any stretch that day was impacted by three blatent drops that would have had a significant impact on the game...

 

That was my line of thinking when I said superb, but the point tree brought up was a good one, so I downgraded from superb to pretty damn good. lol But I agree with what youre saying, if the WRs didnt drop those perfectly thrown balls, Rodgers would have passed for 400+ yds and maybe another TD or 2. Thus making it....SUPERB.

[BlueInCanada]

I dont know why this thread is even still going in all honesty.

 

Rodgers is a better overall QB then Eli, he has mobility, accuracy on the run, a really quick release and what I find most impressive does it all with a lack of a running game.

 

Eli is a good QB who can win games but Rodgers is a better QB then him.

 

Honestly what more needs to be said?

[JMFP]

I dont know why this thread is even still going in all honesty.

 

Rodgers is a better overall QB then Eli, he has mobility, accuracy on the run, a really quick release and what I find most impressive does it all with a lack of a running game.

 

Eli is a good QB who can win games but Rodgers is a better QB then him.

 

Honestly what more needs to be said?

 

If you can argue the 2010 Steelers = 2007 Patriots, you've got a great point.

[BlueInCanada]

If you can argue the 2010 Steelers = 2007 Patriots, you've got a great point.

 

What is there to argue both of them lost the Superbowl, Eli did it against the Pats, Rodgers against the Steelers.

 

Honestly if you want to say Eli is a better QB then Rodgers because he beat an at the time perfect team then you can say it all you want but it's not true. I'm pretty sure Eli had alittle bit of help from a defense that held the top scoring offense in the league to only 14 points.

 

Come on Joe even you cant be this childish to say Eli is better just because he beat the Pats, were not talking who beat who in the Superbowl were talking about who is the better QB. By your line of logic since Eli beat the "perfect Pats" then he is obviously a much better QB then guys like Joe Montana, Steve Young, Peyton Manning, ect.

 

Eli played good in the SB and brought his team back for the winning touchdown but still the point remains were talking about who is a better QB not who had the better performance....although Rodgers still beats Eli in that category.

[ksm7]

If you can argue the 2010 Steelers = 2007 Patriots, you've got a great point.

 

why is it so hard to concede that another QB might be better than eli? the dog doesn't get it. but what is really odd is to base that argument over who beat a better team in the super bowl. that is just beyond absurd. the dog could argue that rodgers was placed in a harder situation going into the super bowl than manning was in 2007...in the end, who cares. rodgers is a better QB in all facets of the game. does that matter? no, becuase he is better than a lot of NFL qbs. who cares if manning isn't better than rodgers (besides apparently you)? can they win with him, yes. so be it.

[ksm7]

i won't waste my time. you don't get it, you'll never get it.

 

well, in all of your crotchety old wisdom, the dog would ask that you please explain it then. you fancy yourself to be high and mighty, so please, take the time to explain whatever it is you are trying to explain...