Depends on what you mean by "work". Jake Plummer, Trent Green, Drew Brees...I mean, there are plenty of QB's that found more success at later stops in their career.
Aaron Rodgers
- Thread starter Prime Time
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
LazyWinker
Pro Bowler
If Rodgers has a weakness it's that he will hold on to the ball for a long time and doesn't mind taking a sack. That may be because he has confidence that he can find an open receiver on 3rd and infinity. Seems like he converts a 3rd and 20 every game.
Rodgers is awesome, but I can't agree with using Cal as proof he is smart... Unless it's Stanford or Ivy League or something, we can't just generalize choice of college for athletes meaning anything about their intelligence -- and even those schools have their share of idiots. I think we should just observe Rodgers' words and actions and conclude he's intelligent.
And funny how everyone knows Rodgers was a 49er fan (and Tom Brady). Media loves to mention that little trivia when the QB is successful, but of course you never hear something like "Ryan Leaf grew up a 49er fan" -- not saying he is because I don't know, but I'm sure that if he was the media would never say it since mentioning all the crappy QBs that loved Joe Montana would make the 49ers look bad somehow.
Krapperdouche, of course, grew up a Packers fan, but I guess they'll take Rodgers instead.
Well, one of the reasons they mention Cal with respect to student athletes is that there is much less wiggle room with respect to grades than at private institutions.
Cal-Berkeley and Stanford don't really have a competitive dynamic in that regard because Stanford's academic requirements are higher than Cal-Berkeley's
However, with respect to other rivalries in CA like UCLA/USC... UCLA often has missed out on athletes that USC could take because the UC system has rules they can't bend in admitting student athletes that USC can as part of its private admission process.
Not saying that the UC system is the greatest, but it's pretty dang good for most student athletes and it's better than most state systems around the country.
Cal-Berkeley and Stanford don't really have a competitive dynamic in that regard because Stanford's academic requirements are higher than Cal-Berkeley's
However, with respect to other rivalries in CA like UCLA/USC... UCLA often has missed out on athletes that USC could take because the UC system has rules they can't bend in admitting student athletes that USC can as part of its private admission process.
Not saying that the UC system is the greatest, but it's pretty dang good for most student athletes and it's better than most state systems around the country.
The fact that this was even possible, makes me shed a few tears, and has me thinking what could have been. Oh well, everything happens for a reason, and we are finally trending up!!!
There are so many what ifs with this franchise. Unfortunately, we just had a terrible front office created by terrible ownership.
And this is why we can't have nice things. 
alm:
I thought we had the NCAA forum so we didn't have to talk about that stuff here anymore and to make it easier for me to not have to see Winston stuff anymore.
At any rate....
Rodgers is supreme. He's got the rocket arm, plus the Manning diagnostic skills of the defenses, the legs of a more mobile QB, and that knack for pulling 3rd and Mt. Everest out of his asshole.
I'd trade my life nut for him as QB.
Well....if I was already married with kids anyway.
alm:I thought we had the NCAA forum so we didn't have to talk about that stuff here anymore and to make it easier for me to not have to see Winston stuff anymore.
At any rate....
Rodgers is supreme. He's got the rocket arm, plus the Manning diagnostic skills of the defenses, the legs of a more mobile QB, and that knack for pulling 3rd and Mt. Everest out of his asshole.
I'd trade my life nut for him as QB.
Well....if I was already married with kids anyway.
And this is why we can't have nice things.
I thought we had the NCAA forum so we didn't have to talk about that stuff here anymore and to make it easier for me to not have to see Winston stuff anymore.
At any rate....
Rodgers is supreme. He's got the rocket arm, plus the Manning diagnostic skills of the defenses, the legs of a more mobile QB, and that knack for pulling 3rd and Mt. Everest out of his arsehole.
I'd trade my life nut for him as QB.
Well....if I was already married with kids anyway.
Interesting. The peanuts I have just allow me to snack at midnight. I'm surprised you'd trade peanuts that give life for anything.
It's like a senzu beans, dude. You can get a whole bag if you know who to bribe and what fish to trade. And the life nut is worth much more than my left nut anyways.
Though, I do have to give up the chance for cyborg kids that don't cry and have pre-cognition so I can make the millions on sports betting.
It's hard not to think that Rodgers would've been ruined if his career was as horribly mismanaged as the 49ers did to Smith.
Actually Gannon had already "come back " in KC Mac, and they screwed the pooch there in favor of Elvis Grbac ,Gannon had them in the playoffs while Elvis had left the building due to injury ,but they went back to Grbac and Gannon escaped to Oakland
BTW for those who think Austin Davis is too small he and Rogers are the same size. I felt compelled to say this
Oh great, this again. Davis isn't too small to succeed. But his size is an issue because he doesn't know how to compensate for it. Rodgers(who is about a half inch taller...not that it matters) and Brees are two examples of QBs who do know how to.
The thing about being 6'2" or shorter is that it can get difficult to see over the line and see those defenders in 5 or so yards in front of the LOS. You have to be good at maneuvering the pocket to find throwing lanes. Davis is terrible at that.
R E L A XHi jrry,the places I've seen the two listed have them the same height AND weight ,I agree Rogers has amazing pocket presence and so does Breese ,Davis doesn't but can develop it and has some intangibles that are worth noting ,was a hot commodity for a while got hit by some elite defenses and struggled in no small part because the whole team was struggling, and not worse than most Qb's with the sort of experience he has.
I expressed my reservations about Davis until i saw how he would do against the elite defenses and IMO he acquitted himself well against the best one , Seattle.
FWIW all QB's have to have throwing lanes except maybe Brock Osweiler who if the Broncos have to play at anytime will be their undoing.
BTW I was listening to XM this evening ,they were talking about what MAY be going on in Denver with their sudden preoccupation with running the ball, Gil Brandt said that Manning no longer throws every pattern before games ,he doesn't even throw on Weds. any more ,the arm might be going .
I swear reading that's like being punched in the stomach. Sooo painful. Yeah, history would have been drastically changed by that one decision had they taken him. Which demonstrates how the rules fly out the window with QBs. If you scout one and think he can be that guy for you, take him when you feel you need to. Period. Because you just don't know which other team might reach for that position, it is just that necessary.
As to his position in history for me he is the best I've seen since John Elway. And Elway in my estimation remains the greatest QB to play the game. Rodgers has similarities to him with his mix of intelligence/mobility/cannon arm. But Elway was better, IMO.