Rumor: RW asking to be the highest paid player in history

[theincrediblesok]

/quote]


You mean like Rodgers went 2-2 to start 2014 LOL nice try again.

Go back and look at the stats starting with the Thanksgiving game where Flynn was substituting.. It was even worse in the couple games prior when they had Tolzein and Wallace....

http://www.nfl.com/schedules/2013/REG/PACKERS

I wish we had some play-callings like the Packers, they know how to get their guys open by scheme. One thing for sure is Brett and Rodgers do make their own QB, but how many of those other WR goes to teams that have a good or an elite QB, they usually go to teams who offered them huge amount of money, which is usually a rebuilding team.

So James Jones would have led the league in Touchdowns again in Seattle or NYG?[/quote]

Who knows, but Raiders like to sling the ball around all over the place and their WR will get touches, not so much here in Seattle. I would say no for the Giants too, but playing opposite Beckham he might of been intriguing though. If given to Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is another story, but it still comes down to what if.

 

[ptisme]

[/quote]

Who knows, but Raiders like to sling the ball around all over the place and their WR will get touches, not so much here in Seattle. I would say no for the Giants too, but playing opposite Beckham he might of been intriguing though. If given to Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is another story, but it still comes down to what if.[/quote]


Here's what it comes down to: without Rodgers there is only one player on the Packers you need to account for: Eddie Lacy... James Jones is just a guy....

 

[Anthony!]

.

Dude you can say what you want, but all you have done is make my point over and over again. Did you watch what Flynn did with those same players in 2011 enough said thanks for playing.[/quote]

I was referring to 2013... Please share with me the monster numbers our skill position players put out in ONE game where Matt Flynn made a deal with the devil....[/quote]


Oh I get it you want to pick and choose the games, years etc to make your point but not allow others to do the same. Yeah I proved my point yes Rodgers does make others better, but they were very good already. Also Wilson makes those around him better. So thanks again you have proved my point.

 

[Anthony!]

Who knows, but Raiders like to sling the ball around all over the place and their WR will get touches, not so much here in Seattle. I would say no for the Giants too, but playing opposite Beckham he might of been intriguing though. If given to Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is another story, but it still comes down to what if.[/quote]


Here's what it comes down to: without Rodgers there is only one player on the Packers you need to account for: Eddie Lacy... James Jones is just a guy....[/quote]

That is an opinion

Lets see in 2013 without Rodgers

Nelson avg 63 yards a game(over the 8 games). Hmm so if he did that for 16 games that would be over 1000 yards and that without Rodgers Hmm. a 1000 yard WR with no Rodgers that pretty much shows he is very very good even without Rodgers.

 

[ptisme]

.

Dude you can say what you want, but all you have done is make my point over and over again. Did you watch what Flynn did with those same players in 2011 enough said thanks for playing.

I was referring to 2013... Please share with me the monster numbers our skill position players put out in ONE game where Matt Flynn made a deal with the devil....[/quote]


Oh I get it you want to pick and choose the games, years etc to make your point but not allow others to do the same. Yeah I proved my point yes Rodgers does make others better, but they were very good already. Also Wilson makes those around him better. So thanks again you have proved my point.[/quote]



That's really annoying....
Please pick out a game... Any game.... In the Aaron Rodgers era, that he hasn't played and a skill position player dominated....

 

[theincrediblesok]

Who knows, but Raiders like to sling the ball around all over the place and their WR will get touches, not so much here in Seattle. I would say no for the Giants too, but playing opposite Beckham he might of been intriguing though. If given to Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is another story, but it still comes down to what if.[/quote]


Here's what it comes down to: without Rodgers there is only one player on the Packers you need to account for: Eddie Lacy... James Jones is just a guy....[/quote]

I'm not disagreeing with you when it comes to the eliteness of Rodgers. I love the way that Rodgers play. Peyton Manning in 2013 had 4 Receivers with 10+ TD each, and their RB Moreno also had 10TD, it does come down to the QB, but it also helps that those receivers are pretty good in their own right, and some of those players benefits from playing across another good players. Packers are known to train up WRs, just as the Seahawks are known to train up CBs.

 

[ptisme]

.[/quote]

That is an opinion

Lets see in 2013 without Rodgers

Nelson avg 63 yards a game(over the 8 games). Hmm so if he did that for 16 games that would be over 1000 yards and that without Rodgers Hmm. a 1000 yard WR with no Rodgers that pretty much shows he is very very good even without Rodgers.[/quote]


LOL, That would have put him at number 25 in the league.... The epic fail continues

 

[ptisme]

.[/quote]

I'm not disagreeing with you when it comes to the eliteness of Rodgers. I love the way that Rodgers play. Peyton Manning in 2013 had 4 Receivers with 10+ TD each, and their RB Moreno also had 10TD, it does come down to the QB, but it also helps that those receivers are pretty good in their own right, and some of those players benefits from playing across another good players. Packers are known to train up WRs, just as the Seahawks are known to train up CBs.[/quote]



How many elite skill position players did Denver have the year prior to the arrival of Peyton Manning?

 

[Anthony!]

.

Dude you can say what you want, but all you have done is make my point over and over again. Did you watch what Flynn did with those same players in 2011 enough said thanks for playing.

I was referring to 2013... Please share with me the monster numbers our skill position players put out in ONE game where Matt Flynn made a deal with the devil....

Oh I get it you want to pick and choose the games, years etc to make your point but not allow others to do the same. Yeah I proved my point yes Rodgers does make others better, but they were very good already. Also Wilson makes those around him better. So thanks again you have proved my point.[/quote]



That's really annoying....
Please pick out a game... Any game.... In the Aaron Rodgers era, that he hasn't played and a skill position player dominated....[/quote]

I already did dude plenty of them 2011 Flynn, want more no problem . In fact let me help

2011 Flynn 480 yards 6 tds, Nelson 162 yards 3 tds, and 2 others had over 80 yards which is very very good for a WR in one game

2013 Boykin 112 yards receiving
2013 Nelson 117 yards Receiving
2013 Lacy 110 yards Rushing
2013 Lacy 141 yard rushing
2013 Flynn 299 yards 4 tds

Enough said

 

[Anthony!]

Who knows, but Raiders like to sling the ball around all over the place and their WR will get touches, not so much here in Seattle. I would say no for the Giants too, but playing opposite Beckham he might of been intriguing though. If given to Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is another story, but it still comes down to what if.

Here's what it comes down to: without Rodgers there is only one player on the Packers you need to account for: Eddie Lacy... James Jones is just a guy....[/quote]

I'm not disagreeing with you when it comes to the eliteness of Rodgers. I love the way that Rodgers play. Peyton Manning in 2013 had 4 Receivers with 10+ TD each, and their RB Moreno also had 10TD, it does come down to the QB, but it also helps that those receivers are pretty good in their own right, and some of those players benefits from playing across another good players. Packers are known to train up WRs, just as the Seahawks are known to train up CBs.[/quote]

No one is disagreeing with him about the eliteness of Rodgers, just disagreeing with him that the rest of the offensive weapons are nothing without Rodgers.

 

[ptisme]

.[/quote]

I'm not disagreeing with you when it comes to the eliteness of Rodgers. I love the way that Rodgers play. .[/quote]


Then let me ask you this: Is Russel Wilson worthy of being paid what Rodgers is? Would Seattle's recievers have better numbers with 12 throwing them the ball? Does Wilson present as big of a challenge to the entire field as Rodgers such that you'd make him the highest paid player in the league?

 

[Hawkpower]

.

Yeah, the jury is still out on our FO :roll:

I don't think the jury is still out on a FO that's been to back to back SB's and won one of them[/quote]

Sorry the jury is still out when it comes to dealing with offensive FAs. They have done a great job of taking care of the defense, but out side of Lynch they have not had any other high caliber/franchise level talent to deal with till now, SO yes the jury is still out.[/quote]




The FO's job is to put teams on the field that can get to a Super Bowl.

They have done that in back to back years.

To say the jury is out just because they havent signed your favorite player YET is beyond absurd.

 

[Anthony!]

.

That is an opinion

Lets see in 2013 without Rodgers

Nelson avg 63 yards a game(over the 8 games). Hmm so if he did that for 16 games that would be over 1000 yards and that without Rodgers Hmm. a 1000 yard WR with no Rodgers that pretty much shows he is very very good even without Rodgers.[/quote]


LOL, That would have put him at number 25 in the league.... The epic fail continues[/quote]


Dude the gold standard for a WR is 1000 yards nice try though come again when you have something real, you just failed badly. I suppose next you will say 1000 yard rusher is not good either.

 

[Anthony!]

.

I'm not disagreeing with you when it comes to the eliteness of Rodgers. I love the way that Rodgers play. Peyton Manning in 2013 had 4 Receivers with 10+ TD each, and their RB Moreno also had 10TD, it does come down to the QB, but it also helps that those receivers are pretty good in their own right, and some of those players benefits from playing across another good players. Packers are known to train up WRs, just as the Seahawks are known to train up CBs.[/quote]



How many elite skill position players did Denver have the year prior to the arrival of Peyton Manning?[/quote]

Dude give it a break, go back to the GB board were they will buy your BS. We agree Rodgers is elite, and that he makes others better, but that does not mean those people are not already very good, and we have shown plenty of proof and facts to show that.

 

[ptisme]

.[/quote]

I already did dude plenty of them 2011 Flynn, want more no problem . In fact let me help

2011 Flynn 480 yards 6 tds, Nelson 162 yards 3 tds, and 2 others had over 80 yards which is very very good for a WR in one game

2013 Boykin 112 yards receiving
2013 Nelson 117 yards Receiving
2013 Lacy 110 yards Rushing
2013 Lacy 141 yard rushing
2013 Flynn 299 yards 4 tds

Enough said[/quote]





Like I said, The one game in Flynn's career that got him paid when he made the deal with the devil... In 2013 nelson had one good game where he went over 100 in the absence of Rodgers... The rest was meh.... As for Boykin, he's a good receiver, says: Nobody....

 

[Hawkpower]

.

I'm not disagreeing with you when it comes to the eliteness of Rodgers. I love the way that Rodgers play. .[/quote]


Then let me ask you this: Is Russel Wilson worthy of being paid what Rodgers is? Would Seattle's recievers have better numbers with 12 throwing them the ball? Does Wilson present as big of a challenge to the entire field as Rodgers such that you'd make him the highest paid player in the league?[/quote]


I know you arent asking me, but 99% of Seahawk fans know that Rodgers is in a class above RW.

Wilson is probably knocking at the door at the tier just below him, mostly because of his legs and moxie, but he doesnt threaten with his arm (yet) like Rodgers can.

That being said, I think Rodgers is a douche, but he is REALLY good

 

[Anthony!]

.

Yeah, the jury is still out on our FO :roll:

I don't think the jury is still out on a FO that's been to back to back SB's and won one of them

Sorry the jury is still out when it comes to dealing with offensive FAs. They have done a great job of taking care of the defense, but out side of Lynch they have not had any other high caliber/franchise level talent to deal with till now, SO yes the jury is still out.[/quote]




The FO's job is to put teams on the field that can get to a Super Bowl.

They have done that in back to back years.

To say the jury is out just because they havent signed your favorite player YET is beyond absurd.[/quote]

The jury is out on if they can keep the pieces that got us there together. This include son offense of which the jury is out. As has been pointed out they have never had to deal with this situation with a franchise QB. So the jury is still out. We will see.

 

[Anthony!]

.

I already did dude plenty of them 2011 Flynn, want more no problem . In fact let me help

2011 Flynn 480 yards 6 tds, Nelson 162 yards 3 tds, and 2 others had over 80 yards which is very very good for a WR in one game

2013 Boykin 112 yards receiving
2013 Nelson 117 yards Receiving
2013 Lacy 110 yards Rushing
2013 Lacy 141 yard rushing
2013 Flynn 299 yards 4 tds

Enough said[/quote]





Like I said, The one game in Flynn's career that got him paid when he made the deal with the devil... In 2013 nelson had one good game where he went over 100 in the absence of Rodgers... The rest was meh.... As for Boykin, he's a good receiver, says: Nobody....[/quote]


Dude you said find games were an offensive skill position had a good game I did, your wrong, trying to come up with BS to ignore it changes nothing you were wrong. You know it is funny I only went back to 2011. So Rodgers was a fulltime starter, starting in 2008. In that time he has missed a total of 11 games. In 7 of those games at least 1 player had what would be considered by an expert as a very good game. HMM Again Rodgers is great and he does make others better but some of them are already very very good. Lets put it this way Rodgers can take a 1000 yard WR and make him a 1200+ yard WR. The WR is very very good, but Rodgers makes him better.

 

[Anthony!]

.

I'm not disagreeing with you when it comes to the eliteness of Rodgers. I love the way that Rodgers play. .

Then let me ask you this: Is Russel Wilson worthy of being paid what Rodgers is? Would Seattle's recievers have better numbers with 12 throwing them the ball? Does Wilson present as big of a challenge to the entire field as Rodgers such that you'd make him the highest paid player in the league?[/quote]


I know you arent asking me, but 99% of Seahawk fans know that Rodgers is in a class above RW.

Wilson is probably knocking at the door at the tier just below him, mostly because of his legs and moxie, but he doesnt threaten with his arm (yet) like Rodgers can.

That being said, I think Rodgers is a douche, but he is REALLY good [/quote]


Wilson does not have the weapons Rodgers does nor does he play in a system built around him. So it is not apples to apples. I do agree Rodgers is s step up form Wilson, mainly he has been doing it longer. That said Wilson is not far behind.

 

[ptisme]

.

I'm not disagreeing with you when it comes to the eliteness of Rodgers. I love the way that Rodgers play. .

Then let me ask you this: Is Russel Wilson worthy of being paid what Rodgers is? Would Seattle's recievers have better numbers with 12 throwing them the ball? Does Wilson present as big of a challenge to the entire field as Rodgers such that you'd make him the highest paid player in the league?[/quote]


I know you arent asking me, but 99% of Seahawk fans know that Rodgers is in a class above RW.

Wilson is probably knocking at the door at the tier just below him, mostly because of his legs and moxie, but he doesnt threaten with his arm (yet) like Rodgers can.

That being said, I think Rodgers is a douche, but he is REALLY good [/quote]



We're in agreement on this 100 percent..... Wilson needs to be paid where he belongs: In that next tier.. You can't let the tail wag the dog...

BTW, Rodgers does a ton of really cool stuff with underprivileged kids, above an beyond... Good guy IMO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoVnMB8LFgo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx-M8QL0Dgg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJLjo6IFuQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgVpnjev79Q

http://fox6now.com/2014/05/06/supportin ... e-tuesday/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUqm8E3Sj60