[stick56]

I cant help but to continually contrast/ compare these two teams.

So this post will attempt to do a bit more of it.

Heres a nice article on Manning and the Colts season:

http://www.greenbayp...0388/1954/PKR03


"Thursday's win over Jacksonville made it eight straight for the Colts — a stretch during which Manning has led six winning drives in the fourth quarter and thrown for 16 touchdowns against only three interceptions, two of which came in his only poor outing Nov. 30 in soggy Cleveland. He's done it with the NFL's 31st-ranked running game and a mediocre defense that's played most of the season without Pro Bowl safety Bob Sanders."

Sanders has missed nine games.

Theyve had plenty of other injuries to starters as well including to both starting corners one who was injured in game four and didnt return until game 11.

The other was injured in game seven and is on IR.

Lost their starting MLB in game 12.

Shuffling along the offensive line due to injury, HB/RB injuries, DL and LB injuries.

OTOH they have had a relatively easy schedule the last six games after beating NE at home and Ptitt away.

And with exception of Cincinnatti the games have been very close including a fourt quarter comeback against lowly Jacksonville Thursday.

http://www.colts.com...m?page=schedule

However unlike the Packers theyve found ways to win close games.

My main point however is that Rodgers shouldnt really be compared to Brett as much as he should to Peyton.

And even then the real comparison comes down to can, or more importantly now, WILL he be able to carry this team on his back if required?

While sitting for four years may have helped him it also may have shortened for better or worse his time to prove himself.

BTW my comments are not to knock Rodgers in any way.

Ive liked him since he was drafted and had been calling for more playing time since in addition to a more competive TC atmosphere between he and Brett.

However the scenario has played out how it has to many peoples dismay on a variety of levels and differing perspectives.

The Packers and Rodgers IMHO will next season be at a cross-roads ie will they embark on a road of pereniall playoff appearances or not.

The Sherman (Vandermouse still blaming Sherman four years later for Packer woes), Farve, injury, officiating and scheduling excuses have got to be put to rest by any and all who use them.

http://www.greenbayp...0391/1954/PKR03

"Thompson was charged with cleaning up after Mike Sherman,"

What? Sherman never had a losing season until TT arrived. TT extended Sherman before firing him. HMMMMMMMMMM.

"If Thompson gets no credit for the 2007 season, then why must he absorb all the blame for 2008?"

And crying about TT not getting credit for last season???? He got it all including a huge extension and NFL Excecutive of the Year for crying out loud.

The TT and Packer apologists must come back to the facts and reality.

TT from my studies is and remains a Polian acolyte. Its time for him to determine which part/parts of Polians philosophy he is failing on.

To me it comes down to leadership and the Packers while not wholly bereft of it are sorely lacking an optimum amount.

The REAL issue now is:

Will Rodgers and the Packers rise to a new level or wallow in an excuse ridden mediocrity in the future?

[The GM]

I cant help but to continually contrast/ compare these two teams.

My main point however is that Rodgers shouldnt really be compared to Brett as much as he should to Peyton.

Will Rodgers and the Packers rise to a new level or wallow in an excuse ridden mediocrity in the future?

Are your seriously comparing a first year starting QB to a first ballot HOFer in Peyton Manning?

Rodgers progress will take time, I think we all expect bigger things next year, but this is a work in progress. Neither Favre or Manning were instant successes making the playoffs the first year. They both progressed year by year guiding their teams further each year. I expect Rodger to be better next year and continually improve. I also expect Brian Brohm to be the most improved player on this team, he clearly wasnt prepared coming into camp, and an offseason with McCarthy is needed. He's a much better player than he showed in camp. Reminds me of Favre's story in Atlanta, came in as a rookie, goofing around, not taking it seriously. He doesn't have nearly the tools Favre had, but I'd be seriously disappointed if he's not the #2 next year. Hate to see him go to another team and suddenly "develop". He needs to put the time in this offseason in GB.

[BFavre4MVP]

Alright, let's compare them for a moment.

Manning's first year as a starter: 56.7 comp. pct. 3739 yards, 26 total TD (26 pass), 31 total turnover (28 INT, 3 fumble), 71.2 QB rating; 3-13 record

Rodgers' first year as a starter: 63.5 comp. pct. 3470 yards, 27 total TD (23 pass, 4 run), 21 total turnover (12 INT, 9 fumble), 91.8 QB rating; 5-9 record (14 games)

See how ridiculous that looks? Furthermore, see how ridiculous this entire premise is? The Colts are a team with an established identity and a solid core of veterans. We're not there yet. Next year will be the year that dictates where the Thompson/McCarthy regime is headed.

[stick56]

You missed this apparently:

"My main point however is that Rodgers shouldnt really be compared to Brett as much as he should to Peyton.

And even then the real comparison comes down to can, or more importantly now, WILL he be able to carry this team on his back if required?"

"a solid core of veterans"

No more so than the Packers. Check out the roster as I have and the starters as I have and did in particular when they played each other.

"Furthermore, see how ridiculous this entire premise is?"

Not at all.

But your attack is.

"Next year will be the year that dictates where the Thompson/McCarthy regime is headed."

Absolutely as I stated:

"The Packers and Rodgers IMHO will next season be at a cross-roads ie will they embark on a road of pereniall playoff appearances or not."

But you didnt even read the post. But just went into attack mode. Typical.

"Are your seriously comparing a first year starting QB to a first ballot HOFer in Peyton Manning?"

Absolutely.

"Neither Favre or Manning were instant successes making the playoffs the first year. They both progressed year by year guiding their teams further each year. I expect Rodger to be better next year and continually improve. "

Absolutely see my quote above.

Or better yet and both of you go back and reread the post.

[The GM]

"The Packers and Rodgers IMHO will next season be at a cross-roads ie will they embark on a road of pereniall playoff appearances or not."

Disagree, next year is always important, but they could go 9-7 and not make the playoffs. Is this the road to doom and gloom? No? The NFL is cyclical, Look at the Saints last year they were a doormat, this year they are a contender, Look at the Seahawks, won the division the last 4-5 years, this year, doormats. The hope is this team will make the moves that need to be made, and will progress, but if it isnt in 2009, Im not throwing my hands up. Heck, Rodgers could go down in 2009, does that mean we quit on 2010? 2009 needs to be a year of progression, but I dont view it as a crossroad.

[BFavre4MVP]

You missed this apparently:

"My main point however is that Rodgers shouldnt really be compared to Brett as much as he should to Peyton.

And even then the real comparison comes down to can, or more importantly now, WILL he be able to carry this team on his back if required?"

"a solid core of veterans"

No more so than the Packers. Check out the roster as I have and the starters as I have and did in particular when they played each other.

"Furthermore, see how ridiculous this entire premise is?"

Not at all.

But your attack is.

"Next year will be the year that dictates where the Thompson/McCarthy regime is headed."

Absolutely as I stated:

"The Packers and Rodgers IMHO will next season be at a cross-roads ie will they embark on a road of pereniall playoff appearances or not."

But you didnt even read the post. But just went into attack mode. Typical.

"Are your seriously comparing a first year starting QB to a first ballot HOFer in Peyton Manning?"

Absolutely.

"Neither Favre or Manning were instant successes making the playoffs the first year. They both progressed year by year guiding their teams further each year. I expect Rodger to be better next year and continually improve. "

Absolutely see my quote above.

Or better yet and both of you go back and reread the post.

Actually, it's very rare I go into attack mode. It's not my style. Unless something is completely way out there.

I read the entire post again (for the 4th or 5th time now) at your request. I still don't see it. If Manning progressed year by year, then shouldn't we be comparing him to Manning (or Favre, or whoever) on a year by year basis, not Rodgers' first year to Manning's tenth of a record shattering NFL career?

That's what I THOUGHT you were getting at, then you start referencing the current Colts roster situation, complimented by quotes like this:

However unlike the Packers theyve found ways to win close games.

Well, if we're in a similar situation 9 years from now, and Rodgers is one of the elite passers in the NFL, I'll be sure to come back to this thread. Until then, I don't see the connection.

[stick56]

Im not sure how I confused people on the AR issue.

So Ill try to clarify.:

I began quite early with this quote:

""Thursday's win over Jacksonville made it eight straight for the Colts — a stretch during which Manning has led six winning drives in the fourth quarter and thrown for 16 touchdowns against only three interceptions, two of which came in his only poor outing Nov. 30 in soggy Cleveland. He's done it with the NFL's 31st-ranked running game and a mediocre defense that's played most of the season without Pro Bowl safety Bob Sanders."


And now I will continue with this:

http://www.jsonline....ts/packers.html

"Green Bay - To be absolutely clear, Bears coach Lovie Smith was not talking about the Packers when he made the following quotes. Wasn't even taking a backhanded shot at his rivals. But the quotes definitely translated to the Packers nonetheless.

In answering a question about how his quarterback, Kyle Orton, has done since returning from injury, Smith said the following:

"I think eventually you judge quarterbacks by what they're able to do at the end of football games..."

He was then asked when evaluating a quarterback, how important those two-minute situations are:

"Very important. Very important. You remember what happened at the end. It's what have you done for me lately, period. The season is that way. At the end of the game, you judge most quarterbacks by what they're able to do at the end of the game. Most games end up being won or lost at the end of the football game. A lot of things happen in the first three quarters, it's what you do at the end. And Kyle has really stepped up at the end of some games."

Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers has not been able to deliver a win at the end of the game on a few occasions this season."

As before Im not trying to knock AR.

But ALL quarterbacks are judged on the their abilities to carry a team and win close games games late despite such things as "the NFL's 31st-ranked running game and a mediocre defense ."

Whether they be Manning, Rodgers or Orton.

Maybe my point got lost somehow in my comparison of the Packers and Indy as whole.

Very similar teams very young as a whole and including starting units. They both have a smattering of veterans surrounded by a plethora of young players.

To reiterate:

That Indy has:

""a solid core of veterans"

Actually:

"No more so than the Packers. Check out the rosters as I have and the starters as I have and did in particular when they played each other."

Yet the Colts even with injuries, among other issues mentioned above, as I have pointed out previously are in the play-offs again and the Packers facing a very disappointing ending to the season.

If my premises are "ridiculous" and have no "connection" my most humble apologies.

From my perspective and research this is not so but so be it.

The reality though is that Indy who IMHO the Packers are closely modeled on are making a playoff run yet again despite many of the same deficiencies the Packers suffer from and the Packers alas are not.

And apparently mediocrity is not only to be condoned but embraced as inevitable.

I stand by my statement that next season is a "crossroads" for AR and the Packers franchise.

Missing the playoffs next season for whatever excuse(s) will only breed further failure barring extreme measures being taken.

To be sure its a team game but the road to greatness or something less begins with TT, MM and AR in that order make no mistake.

All excuses or blamegame stuff notwithstanding.

[BFavre4MVP]

I see where you're coming from, but what's the variable here? A quarterback who has multiple pro bowl appearances, is climbing up the all time touchdown list, and will likely be a top 5 all time QB when all is said and done. The variable on our side is a first year starter who has shown flashes of brilliance and plenty of upside. There's your difference. They have a bona fide future hall of famer, we have, for all intents and purposes, a rookie.

As far as my "veterans" comment... I'd argue that Sanders, Freeney, and Mathis are experienced playmakers that are better than any player on our defense, save Kampman. Not to mention an experienced offensive line signal calling veteran in Jeff Saturday at one of the more vastly underrated positions in football.

The "ridiculous" comment, which was a bit overblown and I apologize for, came more as a matter of comparing the 2008 Packers to the 2008 Colts who, despite their rosters holding some similarities, differ in one key area: the combination of ability and experience of their offensive leader. And that's not even a knock on Rodgers' ability. There's a handful, or less, QBs that I would take talent-wise over Manning in the history of football.