Compare and contrast QB play...

by tempchad on Sep 9, 2008 1:38 PM CDT Comment 20 comments

Quarterback A: 13/21 150 yards 0 tds 0 ints

Quarterback B: 18/22 178 yards 1 tds 0 ints

To me those numbers a very similar, yet QB A is getting no love and QB B is getting praised.

Why?

And did you know....

"Your FanPost must be at least 75 words long. Right now it's only 41 words long. If you just have a quote, link, video or photo you'd like to share with the community, try creating a FanShot instead."

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Because ESPN is stupid

It’s all part of the Favre story they’ve been playing all summer. It has nothing to do with Rodgers.

by Arbusto on Sep 9, 2008 1:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Because no oveweight

sports journalist has a crush on Orton yet.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by Adam T on Sep 9, 2008 2:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i was listening to Tirico and Van Pelt this morning

don’t ask why…

but they just kept praising Rodgers and I can’t understand why. Short of a punt return for a td, the pack probably loses.

by tempchad on Sep 9, 2008 2:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Because he's good.

by tyger1147 on Sep 9, 2008 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

how can you say that?

he has started one game as a pro and had marginally better numbers than Kyle Orton.

by tempchad on Sep 9, 2008 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because I'm smart?

And they’re more than “marginally better”. 5 more completions in only one more attempt is a big deal. And his numbers are better across the board. He was much more efficient. Oh, and he ran for 35 yards and rushed for a TD.

by tyger1147 on Sep 9, 2008 5:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rogers

also had a 70 yard TD pass called back on a penalty (and it wasn’t like the penalty enabled the TD to happen, it was a dumb penalty).

Anyone who says Orton and Rogers performances are comparable didn’t watch one of the games. Orton did fine, but as usual for him, mostly what he did is not lose the game.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Sep 9, 2008 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

rogers td throw

wasn’t all that smart but was a bullet that i haven’t seen orton ever make.

by mike b on Sep 9, 2008 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ive seen

Grossman make that throw…just saying

I think we should hold off on ordaining him, just yet.

by Santos Sorrow on Sep 9, 2008 6:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

my point isn't that Kyle Orton is good

my point is that Aaron Rodgers hasn’t proven anything, yet.

It will take one efficient game before I think he can be a top quality starting qb. Let us remember that Minnesota got torched through the air all last year but Rodgers managed only 178 yards.

Also running for 35 yards is not impressive and the rushing td is even less. They bears could have qb sneaked one too.

by tempchad on Sep 9, 2008 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yup

Orton could have gotten a TD on the hole that Mckie ran thru. A couple passes could have been td’s coulda shoulda……Do need more from Orton.

one game yes but packrodgers looked good.

how did you like the draft?

hit him in his earhole

by draftday on Sep 9, 2008 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But they didn't, and that's the point.

Orton wasn’t asked to do too much, and he succeeded in that.

Rodgers was asked to do more, and he did.

by tyger1147 on Sep 10, 2008 8:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

not much more. very little more. 28 yards more

and orton could have easily had 2 td also.

by tempchad on Sep 10, 2008 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

but he didn't

And rodgers did

that’s the point. isn’t it about production and not what someone coulda-shoulda-woulda?

by tyger1147 on Sep 10, 2008 4:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes. and my point is that rodgers didn't do much more than orton

by tempchad on Sep 10, 2008 7:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The lack of TD production

wasn’t necessarily his fault. If Rodgers was a Bear I think he wouldn’t have passed for any TD’s in that game either. Des Clark messed up a TD for Orton and he was said to be visibly upset on the sideline. Orton can’t do more than he is allowed to do, which is very little. Finally, if Orton had GB’s Offensive Line, Running Game and Receivers it would be a little easier to compare the two.

by dakoose on Sep 13, 2008 11:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well i understand why

i mean for most of the summer farve had his own ticker on espn at all times. rodgers is following greatness, greatness that wanted to come back. you have to assume a team is going to put the players on the field that give them the best chance to win and this case this decision to go with rodgers is pushing the limit on that line of thinking. so from that side i understand why they are praising him. with all that pressure of replacing farve, he held up pretty nicely and his stats would have been a hell of alot better had he not had a touchdown called back.

no matter what orton does this year, he will not get the same praise if our d continues to perform like that, even if his numbers are exactly the same as rodgers.

by rahulsriram on Sep 9, 2008 6:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

shit forgot to hit reply button

was replying to tempchad tirico radio comment.

by rahulsriram on Sep 9, 2008 6:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I've got Rodgers on my fantasy bench. 20 Points this week.

I think Orton and Rodgers are similar players. I think Rodgers is more INT prone but takes more risks than Orton and those risks pay off. I would rather have Rodgers because Orton is a little excessive in his safeness. A little risk is good for scoring points. Of course, Rodgers has a much better offensive situation so please keep that in mind all year guys and again this was one game. Let’s see who is better after 4 games. Or even better 6. It took Rex that many to show us his alter ego.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Sep 9, 2008 10:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs