Disagree.

I'll give you "average" or arguably "below average" passer, but he does (or did) possess an extremely strong arm (well above average if not elite).

Tampa wrote the book on how to stop Vick. Put disciplined pressure on him (staying in designated lanes to keep him contained in the pocket) and make him beat you by throwing the ball.

Which he couldn't do because he wasn't consistently accurate (and prison didn't help that I'm sure).

Back to the central point: Jamie Dukes is in fact a complete Idot.

Jamie Dukes is vastly over-estimating Vick's current talent level. I'll be beyond shocked if Vick's athleticism and/or ability is anywhere near '04, '05, '06 levels

I can't wait to see Rodgers this year. I'm calling my shot right now. He's a potential MVP & will be in the discussion

If you're right, we'll win the division.

Dukes doesn't much care for Rodgers ... thinks he's a frontrunner, anc can't play when his team is down. He's got it in for the Packers ... obviously took the Favre side of things, and now seems biased against the Packers in his coverage. Big Fat Douche Bag !!

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?...omments&confirm=true

I think time will prove hes overrated. Getting to sit on the bench three years learning and not having to be thrown to the wolves at all is a rarity in todays game. Then being handed two pro bowl receivers and a 1k back. And the 6-10 record blamed soley on the defense. The Jets defense was about as bad yet they still won 9 games and would have won at least a couple more if not for the arm injury.

quote:

Originally posted by the-icon:
I think time will prove hes overrated. Getting to sit on the bench three years learning and not having to be thrown to the wolves at all is a rarity in todays game. Then being handed two pro bowl receivers and a 1k back. And the 6-10 record blamed soley on the defense. The Jets defense was about as bad yet they still won 9 games and would have won at least a couple more if not for the arm injury.

LMAO!

You're nothing if not consistent. Forever Brohm...

quote:

Originally posted by the-icon:
I think time will prove hes overrated. Getting to sit on the bench three years learning and not having to be thrown to the wolves at all is a rarity in todays game. Then being handed two pro bowl receivers and a 1k back. And the 6-10 record blamed soley on the defense. The Jets defense was about as bad yet they still won 9 games and would have won at least a couple more if not for the arm injury.

I think time has already proven that you're the next tlc when it comes to predictions

Icredibly
Consistent
Online
Nitwit

Classic post, as usual.

quote:

Originally posted by the-icon:
I think time will prove hes overrated. Getting to sit on the bench three years learning and not having to be thrown to the wolves at all is a rarity in todays game. Then being handed two pro bowl receivers and a 1k back. And the 6-10 record blamed soley on the defense. The Jets defense was about as bad yet they still won 9 games and would have won at least a couple more if not for the arm injury.

Well, sh!t, maybe we would have won a couple more if not for Rodgers' shoulder injury. Right?

And, seriously, the Jets defense was "about as bad" as ours? Really?

yards given up per game: Jets 16th Packers 20th
points given up per game: Packers 23.8 Jets 22.2


It just doesen't bode well for Rodgers when given the luxuries he was given, put up pretty good stats, and they can only muster 6 wins.

But yea lets stick to some delusional company line that Favre sucks even though he led the team to 13 wins two years ago then was thrown into a completely unfamilier situation last year and still got 9 wins with things only delrailed once he got hurt.

what kind of resources the Jets used to get the 11 on the offensive side of the ball?

Like 10 #1 picks around the Qb, yet can't get it done?

quote:

Originally posted by the-icon:
yards given up per game: Jets 16th Packers 20th
points given up per game: Packers 23.8 Jets 22.2

It's common knowledge that the QB plays on offense and thus is responsible for moving the team down the field and scoring points.

2008 yards per game - and I think everyone knows the Jets had a better rushing game - Packers 351.1, Jets 331.7. The Jets averaged .6 YPC more than the Packers and ran for about 13 more yards per game.

2008 points per game - Packers 26.2, Jets 25.3.

One offense was more successful than the other and one QB was BY FAR more successful then the other when it came to scoring points, moving the chains and not throwing the ball to the wrong team. You would have to be a total idiot to try to paint the lesser QB as the better one in 2008.

Keep hating on Rodgers. He'll only get better if your track record holds course.

quote:

Originally posted by the-icon:
yards given up per game: Jets 16th Packers 20th
points given up per game: Packers 23.8 Jets 22.2


It just doesen't bode well for Rodgers when given the luxuries he was given, put up pretty good stats, and they can only muster 6 wins.

But yea lets stick to some delusional company line that Favre sucks even though he led the team to 13 wins two years ago then was thrown into a completely unfamilier situation last year and still got 9 wins with things only delrailed once he got hurt.

Rodgers' problem is that he threw too many TD's and not enough INTs.

"Matt Flynn, a seventh-round pick last year, remains well ahead of his more renowned classmate, former second-round pick Brian Brohm, for the backup job. Flynn has an average arm at best but is a leader and has enough mobility to make some plays when things break down. Brohm is better than last year but still had too many head-scratching moments as well as a surprising number of ducks this summer."

Press-Gazette

Sounds like someone needs to change his chosen avatar before it's too late (and another once promising career is ruined).

May I suggest the one of Nall with the pancake on his head?

The avatar is meant to imply anyone but Rodgers.

I would rather have less points and three more wins. Wasn't it Vince who said stats are for losers.

quote:

Originally posted by the-icon:
The avatar is meant to imply anyone but Rodgers.

I would rather have less points and three more wins. Wasn't it Vince who said stats are for losers.

QB was the least of our worries last year. Defense, Special teams and our running game were much more shaky

If stats are for losers then that must be you icon since you were the 1st to post stats in this thread that were about the Packers.

the-icon is doing just fine. As long as he keeps rooting against Rodgers, I for one, feel just fine about that. Thank you very much.

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:
the-icon is doing just fine. As long as he keeps rooting against Rodgers, I for one, feel just fine about that. Thank you very much.

What the hell did Brohm do to you?

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:
the-icon is doing just fine. As long as he keeps rooting against Rodgers, I for one, feel just fine about that. Thank you very much.

Any real Packer fan wouldn't root against Rodgers. Icon = Troll .. always has been .. always will be.

quote:

Originally posted by Goalline:
What the hell did Brohm do to you?

I think you should ask icon that question.

quote:

Originally posted by the-icon:
stats are for losers.

Especially when those stats make your stats meaningless.

If I were starting an NFL franchise, I'd pay off the commissioner first, and get him on my side. May as well start at the beginning.

quote:

Originally posted by the-icon:
I would rather have less points and three more wins.

You would like the Packers to score fewer points, and win more games? Which would mean that the Packer defense would have to play better, no? I think everybody here on the forum besides you is pointing to the defense as the primary reason for our 6-10 record last year.

Jesus, Icon, I'm glad you're on this forum. I do a really good job of sticking my foot in my mouth, but no matter how bad I get, I can always say "hey, at least I'm not the-Icon!"