Aaron Rodgers

Does anyone else think that A-rodg should be higher than 90? He just received an increase, but I think he deserves more. I think he should be closer to a 94. What do you guys think?

Oh, and take a look at Rodgers stats compared to the QBs that are 97-99 (ie Brady, Brees, P. Manning). He's #2 right behind Manning in Passer Rating (110.8), #2 in interceptions thrown (2), #1 in avg yds per throw, #1 in throws 40+ yds, and he did all this having been sacked the most in the NFL.

90 is good enuff for rodgers. remember manning and brady might be on the short lists of best QBs of all time and therefore they are in the 99 region. brees has been consistently great at putting up numbers in the last 5 years and is leading a undefeated team and probably the best offense in the NFL right now. rodgers is very good and even excellent but he is by no means legendary in the way that manning/brady are or currently the most prolific numbers wise the way brees is. I have no problem with rodgers being a 90 but really we're kind nitpicking here.

Dude, Kurt Warner is sitting at a 91. He blows this year, and I don't think he was even good last year. Rodgers is far better than Warner.

Either drop him down to 80 something, or put Rodgers above him. Hell, same goes for Eli Manning. He's sitting at a 90, but look at his stats, they are horrible too.

id say 93 tops for rodgers... n yea kurt should be in 80's

Stetzer wrote:

Dude, Kurt Warner is sitting at a 91. He blows this year, and I don't think he was even good last year. Rodgers is far better than Warner.

Either drop him down to 80 something, or put Rodgers above him. Hell, same goes for Eli Manning. He's sitting at a 90, but look at his stats, they are horrible too.

Last year Kurt had 500 more passing yards, 2 more TDs and only 1 more interception than Rodgers. Rodgers also gets the majority of his yardage from his receivers, who are fantastic at running after the catch.

And Eli has thrown 1 more TD this year than Rodgers with 400 fewer passing yards.

Your logic is so biased, flawed and stupid it's ridiculous.

Both QBs you mentioned are far better than Aaron Rodgers. Don't take my word for it, just take a gander at their ring finger.

hof8231 wrote:

Stetzer wrote:

Dude, Kurt Warner is sitting at a 91. He blows this year, and I don't think he was even good last year. Rodgers is far better than Warner.

Either drop him down to 80 something, or put Rodgers above him. Hell, same goes for Eli Manning. He's sitting at a 90, but look at his stats, they are horrible too.

Last year Kurt had 500 more passing yards, 2 more TDs and only 1 more interception than Rodgers. Rodgers also gets the majority of his yardage from his receivers, who are fantastic at running after the catch.

And Eli has thrown 1 more TD this year than Rodgers with 400 fewer passing yards.

Your logic is so biased, flawed and stupid it's ridiculous.

Both QBs you mentioned are far better than Aaron Rodgers. Don't take my word for it, just take a gander at their ring finger.

Lol, what? Yes, the Packers have receivers that get great YAC. Let's take a look here:

1-10 yd passes
Rodgers - 73.3% comp
E. Manning - 65.7% comp

11-20 passes
Rodgers - 63.3%
Manning - 50%

21-30 passes
Rodgers - 61%
Manning - 62.3%

31+ passes
Rodgers - 60.9%
Manning - 55.0%

Also, Rodgers has an avg 113.0 RTG when ahead / 124.2 when behind in score. Manning on the other hand is 102.9 / 73.0 avg RTG respectively. Go head compare some other stats. I don't know what the hell you are looking at. I still agree with what was said about Brady/Brees/P. Manning. Yes, they do deserve to be as high as they are with all the seasons they have under their belt, but that doesn't mean Rodgers isn't playing well especially with the offensive line he has to deal with.

http://www.nfl.com/players/elimanning/situationalstats?id=MAN473170 - Eli
http://www.nfl.com/players/aaronrodgers/situationalstats?id=ROD339293 - Rodg

Falcon_Fan727 wrote:

id say 93 tops for rodgers... n yea kurt should be in 80's

Yeah, I'd agree with 93. I don't think there are any QBs between 92-96.

lol warner hasnt done anything? greatest show on turf anyone? warner has the credentials to be around the same as rodgers. he might be having a down first few games and they dropped him from a 95 when the season started. wats the point of comparing 2 QBs over 6 games? eli won a ring and as much as i had eli since i'm from SD i still understand that he's pretty good.

90 is chill for rodgers.

I guess I forgot that throwing interceptions and fumbling the ball regularly has nothing to do with anything when you have a superbowl ring. My bad.

I think he deserves a 92ish rating. but he needs to get a ring before you can put him in the same breath as Warner who has had terrific seasons. Look at his age compared to Rogers and hes still putting up stats.. As for Eli,I hate him but like someone else said gander at the ring finger and the makes up for "stats"

Ah alright. Well, by your theory, Jared Lorenzo (the pillsbury throwboy) who doesn't even play right now should be rated higher than Rodgers. He has a superbowl ring ya know. Don't forget Brad Johnson damn. He's got one too. Superbowl ring doesn't make a QB good. You have to have an offense, defense, and special teams.

Stetzer wrote:

Ah alright. Well, by your theory, Jared Lorenzo (the pillsbury throwboy) who doesn't even play right now should be rated higher than Rodgers. He has a superbowl ring ya know. Don't forget Brad Johnson damn. He's got one too. Superbowl ring doesn't make a QB good. You have to have an offense, defense, and special teams.

Yeah lets throw trent Dilfer back on the game give him a 92.Lets get rohan davey on here here since he has two.Lets all call roethlisberger better than Favre,Marino,Manning because he has more rings.Lets call Bill Russell and Robert Horry the graetest forwards ever to play basketball because of their rings.Barkley R.Miller Malone are not great no rings.Everyone ring argument is stupid and means nothing and they should leave it to ESPN(since its obviously where you got talking about rings from).That's like saying MC hammer and Vanilla Ice are top 5 for selling so many albums.


Next time someone compares QBs please don't compare what the team has done and not the player.RBerger had the second worst QB rating in SB history i guess he was the reason they won.


This is not a diss to the guy im quoting im just adding on.

Thank you for seeing my point. QBs can play average, and they can still win a Superbowl based on a good running game, defense, etc.

Wanna know the difference between the scrubs you mentioned and Eli and Kurt? The Rams and Giants won because of Eli and Kurt, not in spite of them.

And the fact you brought up the Hefty Lefty is just retarded. I clearly wasn't stating that any QB with a ring is better than any who doesn't have one asshole. I was simply saying you can't refute Manning and Warner's skill when they both got their teams to the Super Bowl and played a huge role in the winning of said Super Bowls.

Stetzer wrote:

Thank you for seeing my point. QBs can play average, and they can still win a Superbowl based on a good running game, defense, etc.

lol wait.... so your saying that the Cards went to the Superbowl last year because of their run game and defense as opposed to Warner to Fitz/Boldin? ridiculous...

we are still debating on if rodgers should be rated higher than warner right? cuz this doesnt make any sense anymore if we're still on that debate...

seriously how is 90 overall not good enough for a QB starting his second year as a starter?

huh1231 wrote:

Stetzer wrote:

Thank you for seeing my point. QBs can play average, and they can still win a Superbowl based on a good running game, defense, etc.

lol wait.... so your saying that the Cards went to the Superbowl last year because of their run game and defense as opposed to Warner to Fitz/Boldin? ridiculous...

we are still debating on if rodgers should be rated higher than warner right? cuz this doesnt make any sense anymore if we're still on that debate...

seriously how is 90 overall not good enough for a QB starting his second year as a starter?

Because he's playing better than them right now, and the stats should reflect that. They change weekly so there's no reason he can't go up higher. If he were to start playing bad, he can always be put back down. Going to the superbowl recently is the only reason Kurt Warner's or Eli Manning's rating is as high as it is. They sure as hell aren't playing well this year which is why the stats should reflect that.

Edit: Also, I didn't say either of those teams made it because of their run game or defense. I was just stating a general fact that teams can get to the superbowl with an average QB as long as the rest of their team is playing well. A superbowl ring alone doesn't mean you're good.

As a Green Bay native I feel the need to speak up. Just so you know, I knew Rodgers was the man as soon as we drafted him. He was going to take Favre's place. I had no problem with it, in fact I loved it. Rodgers gave us a better chance at winning. Favre has clearly been mentally fatigued down the stretch each of the last five seasons. If we would have kept Favre, Rodgers would have wanted out and probably would have signed with the Vikings and then we would have had to see the Vikings win for the next 12 seasons. Favre would have been killed by that Vikings defense 4 weeks ago if we still had him. I guess what I want to say is that Rodgers needs to be at least a 92 overall but am happy with a 90.

Stetzer wrote:

huh1231 wrote:

Stetzer wrote:

Thank you for seeing my point. QBs can play average, and they can still win a Superbowl based on a good running game, defense, etc.

lol wait.... so your saying that the Cards went to the Superbowl last year because of their run game and defense as opposed to Warner to Fitz/Boldin? ridiculous...

we are still debating on if rodgers should be rated higher than warner right? cuz this doesnt make any sense anymore if we're still on that debate...

seriously how is 90 overall not good enough for a QB starting his second year as a starter?

Because he's playing better than them right now, and the stats should reflect that. They change weekly so there's no reason he can't go up higher. If he were to start playing bad, he can always be put back down. Going to the superbowl recently is the only reason Kurt Warner's or Eli Manning's rating is as high as it is. They sure as hell aren't playing well this year which is why the stats should reflect that.

Edit: Also, I didn't say either of those teams made it because of their run game or defense. I was just stating a general fact that teams can get to the superbowl with an average QB as long as the rest of their team is playing well. A superbowl ring alone doesn't mean you're good.

so he's played well for the season of 6 games and because of that he's been going up. warner and eli played well for an entire season and playoffs combined with their overall career and previous success which is y their ratings are higher. sure if rodgers keeps playing well his ratings should go up but i feel for right now he's fine where he is. i'm not sure if i misunderstood ur initial post. did you mean that he should be higher right now or do you mean that if he continues to play well he should eventually go up to 92ish? if it's the latter i have no problem with that.

u didnt directly say that it was their defense/running game that got them to the superbowl but u were using it as a way to prove that aaron rodgers should be rated higher than them. this implies that you feel that it was their D/run game that got them to the big game right? or else why would u use this to prove you point? so are u saying that you brought this up for no reason and it's not related to the debate at all?

rodgers hasnt even come close to deserving a higher rating. i'm not saying hes not good, but u cant just go throwing every players a 99 rating when they havnt proven anything. if that was the case, jon kitna deserves a 99 rating, he was like top 5 in passing stats when he was in DET. nothing to complain about a 90 rating. 8th in NFL. qbs #1 stat is wins. which he dosnt have a lot of. i personally think hes more of a 87-89 overall.

AFew88 wrote:

rodgers hasnt even come close to deserving a higher rating. i'm not saying hes not good, but u cant just go throwing every players a 99 rating when they havnt proven anything. if that was the case, jon kitna deserves a 99 rating, he was like top 5 in passing stats when he was in DET. nothing to complain about a 90 rating. 8th in NFL. qbs #1 stat is wins. which he dosnt have a lot of. i personally think hes more of a 87-89 overall.

You see your argument and everyone else argument is flawed.If its about wins,a body of work, stats for years,and consistency why in the hell Brett Favre isn't a 99.That's right hes an exception to the rule.Look I'm all for making the Giants a better team than the Packers but Eli/Warner>Rodgers isn't correct.

Its as simple as this Madden has their favorites.Cowboys being the favorite.T.O was like a 96 speed last year and without playing a down for Buffalo he drops to a 88.Marion Barber can't be tackled F.Jones is top 8 RB on the game.Miles Austin gets a higher speed than Greg Jennings.Their corners and hard to beat and they glitch around a lot.Why is the Raiders top 5 teams on the game.Pitt's Limas Sweed catches everything.Ea has Favorites.

tell rodgers to win some playoff games first, then lets see what happens with his ratings. otherwise, i dont even think hes better than phillip rivers, who has literally been carrying his team on his arm

Madden ratings are supposed to be based on last season, not on their whole career. Therefore, I'd give a 92 or 93 to Rodgers.

Oh, and their OL deserves mid 60's right now lol.

A Packering Ape wrote:

AFew88 wrote:

rodgers hasnt even come close to deserving a higher rating. i'm not saying hes not good, but u cant just go throwing every players a 99 rating when they havnt proven anything. if that was the case, jon kitna deserves a 99 rating, he was like top 5 in passing stats when he was in DET. nothing to complain about a 90 rating. 8th in NFL. qbs #1 stat is wins. which he dosnt have a lot of. i personally think hes more of a 87-89 overall.

You see your argument and everyone else argument is flawed.If its about wins,a body of work, stats for years,and consistency why in the hell Brett Favre isn't a 99.That's right hes an exception to the rule.Look I'm all for making the Giants a better team than the Packers but Eli/Warner>Rodgers isn't correct.

Its as simple as this Madden has their favorites.Cowboys being the favorite.T.O was like a 96 speed last year and without playing a down for Buffalo he drops to a 88.Marion Barber can't be tackled F.Jones is top 8 RB on the game.Miles Austin gets a higher speed than Greg Jennings.Their corners and hard to beat and they glitch around a lot.Why is the Raiders top 5 teams on the game.Pitt's Limas Sweed catches everything.Ea has Favorites.

lol are u seriously suggesting a conspiracy theory for madden ratings? now who's retarded... u see how everyone that isnt a packers fan disagrees with u and everyone taht is a packers fan agrees? i think u need to wake up and stop being such a homer.

Whoa stop the train

Message to A Packering Ape:
BILL RUSSEL IS THE GREATEST FORWARD OF ALL TIME.

OK, I'm done
Pardon the interruption

huh1231 wrote:

A Packering Ape wrote:

AFew88 wrote:

rodgers hasnt even come close to deserving a higher rating. i'm not saying hes not good, but u cant just go throwing every players a 99 rating when they havnt proven anything. if that was the case, jon kitna deserves a 99 rating, he was like top 5 in passing stats when he was in DET. nothing to complain about a 90 rating. 8th in NFL. qbs #1 stat is wins. which he dosnt have a lot of. i personally think hes more of a 87-89 overall.

You see your argument and everyone else argument is flawed.If its about wins,a body of work, stats for years,and consistency why in the hell Brett Favre isn't a 99.That's right hes an exception to the rule.Look I'm all for making the Giants a better team than the Packers but Eli/Warner>Rodgers isn't correct.

Its as simple as this Madden has their favorites.Cowboys being the favorite.T.O was like a 96 speed last year and without playing a down for Buffalo he drops to a 88.Marion Barber can't be tackled F.Jones is top 8 RB on the game.Miles Austin gets a higher speed than Greg Jennings.Their corners and hard to beat and they glitch around a lot.Why is the Raiders top 5 teams on the game.Pitt's Limas Sweed catches everything.Ea has Favorites.

lol are u seriously suggesting a conspiracy theory for madden ratings? now who's retarded... u see how everyone that isnt a packers fan disagrees with u and everyone taht is a packers fan agrees? i think u need to wake up and stop being such a homer.

LOL you didnt respond to anything i said.How is my saying madden has favorites anyway at all a conspiracy suggestion.Look at what i wrote about the players and tell me im wrong about them.Thats like saying if Rock Band had a favorite Band it would be a conspiracy because they keep putting out their DLC only no.People can have favorites.