e_smith_1992 Wrote:UofMemphis Wrote:HLT 2011 Wrote:e_smith_1992 Wrote:Ohhhhhh when Aaron Rogers screws up...... Packer fans will go bezerk!
Getcha popcorn!
It's going to really suck to be Aaron Rodgers in the 2008 season. The guy has done nothing wrong, and before he's even had a chance to play one down as the Packers' starting quarterback, he's been villified by Packer fans.
Nothing short of the Packers repeating exactly what they did last season, or going even further, will get Rodgers out of this shadow he's been thrown into.
uh, excuse me...i'm a Packer fan...we try to make at LEAST 1 game a year...i think Brett's acting like a child, and needs to decide what he wants to do, and stick with it...Aaron Rogers has been great through the whole thing, and i'm glad to see the Packers management has his back.
not ALL Green Bay fans will be mad at Aaron.
Go Tigers!!!
Drew
This is a message board... not a forum... you typed that as if we were on the sports reporters and you just had to get your 2 cents in.
I'll say the packers have a running game, good receivers, decent corners... if they at least make the playoffs that'll be good. But as high as A.R. was drafted and has sat behind #4, he should be good n ready to go next month, but as i've already forestated.... when he screws up, he'll hear it from the fans.
I'm still intrigued by something, and i'll ask the 1 game a year GBP fan: If the management didn't want B.F. & didn't think he was good enough to play in G.B. ........ why didn't they allow him to go to Minn or Chi-Town ???? 
Because what may not be good enough for GB may still be a drastic improvement for another team. Why help improve a team in your own division? Unless they give you something worthwhile in return. The argument that "if we don't want him then we'll just give him to whoever and it doesn't matter" is flawed. I don't understand what's so confusing about not trading him to Minn or Chicago, even if they don't want him in GB. Someone please help me understand the point of that argument?
He's good enough to not be released. GB would acknowledge that.
He's good enough that he has trade value. GB would acknowledge that.
He's good enough to be better than what Chicago currently has. GB would acknowledge that.
He's good enough to be better than what Minnesota currently has, at least in the immediate term. GB would acknowledge that likelihood.
How does the above mean he should start FOR GB?!! Whether he starts for GB should rest SOLELY on what goes on in the Packer organization, plain and simple, and what goes on in the other three teams in the NFC North does not measure significantly in that. And, for the record, based purely on what's been seen publicly, I think Favre should start over Rodgers. I just see nothing illogical with the argument that, if he's not good enough to start for GB, or at least too much of a headache to start for GB, we will not trade him in-division.
I sense behind the scenes something that has ripped the ties between the team and Favre, and many fans are clearly sick of his waffling. One thing's for sure, Rodgers will be given the benefit of the doubt at least in the beginning for how he's not perpetuated this controversy. He's the only party with only one misstep. Everyone else has had numerous...
I don't want to root for GB, but I may have to this year, somewhat. At least against the Titans :)
/
NTR: Brett Favre will still wear green in 2008...
