Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Yes, Rodgers is in sync with both Nelson and Cobb. I would agree that Cobb is underrated now; he's a really smart receiver. Nelson is starting to get his due, but the fact that has had no Pro Bowl or All Pro notice to this point is evidence that he has been underrated nationally. He's been this good for years.

Matt's point about decreased defensive options is well taken. Obviously under 1970s rules, all pass stats would decline, but I think that both Rodgers and Nelson have the size and toughness to still be among the top performers in that environment, too.

Personally, I love the way Jordy snatches the ball out of the air.

Reaser wrote:Brown is my favorite to watch this season. Excellent football player. There's also Dez, Julio, Demaryius Thomas to go with the guys you listed. Young guys like Hilton, plus it's going to be exciting to see how the great rookies progress over the years, Watkins, Evans, Beckham and so on.

If there's a GB WR underrated I would think it would be Cobb, since Nelson is getting the attention - as he should - but Cobb moves the chains and has had some great catches this season.

It's a cynical take but I've thought since roughly their SB year that the Packers were merely just the best at taking advantage of the era of no pass defense allowed. In the context of the times their passing game is impressive to say the least, especially vertically. Though watching Nelson, a great straight line runner, run unmolested and Rodgers who's accurate anyways and is even more so since he's not allowed to be touched, complete passes for long gains isn't as impressive - to me - as it would be if it were being done in a different era. Not their fault or a complaint reserved just for them, and good for them for being the or among the best at taking advantage of it, but it's not as impressive as playing defense in an era where you're essentially not allowed to play defense, or being a running team in an era where the easy way is to throw the ball every play and take advantage of the era. It's all cheapened, in a way, for me.

What is happening to the Cardinals is another example of why maybe it is a good thing that quarterbacks can't get touched much. So, when you point out that Rodgers doesn't get touched because of the rules, I am not sure that that is a bad thing.

If the Seahawks had to start 4 QBs this year, they likely would not get the 1 seed. I have seen my team have multiple ruined seasons due to quarterback injuries.

King Kong wrote:What is happening to the Cardinals is another example of why maybe it is a good thing that quarterbacks can't get touched much. So, when you point out that Rodgers doesn't get touched because of the rules, I am not sure that that is a bad thing.

I have seen my team have multiple ruined seasons due to quarterback injuries.

Palmer was injured planting, not because he was hit on his knee.

Rodgers missed almost half the regular season just last year, Packers still made the playoffs and despite their record were one of the better teams in the playoffs.

Teams that have ruined seasons because of one injury aren't really teams and are too dependent on one player. Which this era gives them a built in excuse to be.

I realize many want real football to be played - and I don't just mean with ridiculous scores and offensive stats - like a video game with the injuries turn OFF. So all the 'best' players can be on the field every week. That's all fine and good but it goes against real life, it goes against football's inherent war of attrition, most importantly it goes against football being a TEAM sport.

Then there's the issue of "best" ... if players couldn't get injured and only the "best" stayed on the field then Kurt Warner would have never seen the field, so one of the best would likely have never got his chance. Who knows if or when Tom Brady would have ever got in a game, certainly wouldn't have started in the Patriots first SB win, one of the best would have still been a 6th rounder on the bench. Jim Plunkett probably would have been a bust who finished out his career watching form the sidelines as a backup in a 'sport' that would no longer have a need for backups if starters couldn't get injured. No one would know who Earl Morrall is, and so on.

If one wants a sterilized game, played by robots who can't get injured, then that's what they like. Personally, I like the sport of football, greatest team sport in the world.

Reaser wrote:Eric's column on pick 6's had a lot of interesting information.

re: Nelson being underrated. Maybe 3-4 years ago? He had all those stats in 2011 so I would assume most became aware of him then, if they weren't already - especially as Ron points out, he was or should have been a known player at and coming out of K-State.

Suppose it depends on who one has conversations with about football or where one consumes their football 'news' on whether he's overrated/underrated or not. Probably would agree media wise, he's somewhat underrated, but it's not like he's been unknown. Perhaps the thinking is that he's getting talked about more because he's having his best season - though the drop in Buffalo was bad.

Yes, he had a great year in 2011, but he was only a starter for half the season, he had about half the number of receptions as the league leader, and he didn't make the Pro Bowl while Greg Jennings did.

Reaser wrote:

King Kong wrote:What is happening to the Cardinals is another example of why maybe it is a good thing that quarterbacks can't get touched much. So, when you point out that Rodgers doesn't get touched because of the rules, I am not sure that that is a bad thing.

I have seen my team have multiple ruined seasons due to quarterback injuries.

Palmer was injured planting, not because he was hit on his knee.

My reaction to that? "Oh, c'mon! You think I don't know that?"


You completely missed the point.

Will respond to the rest later. I didn't even read any of it yet.

Gotta say I'm with Reaser (and Jack Lambert) on this.

Staying healthy is luck, and a skill. There's a reason Bob Sanders had a short career, Troy Polamalu has had a precipitous decline, etc., etc. That said, you get a Martin Gramaticca blowing out an ACL jumping to celebrate a made FG. But it's all part of the game. Having good backups is important, and part of having a great team. Borland has stepped in excellently for an injured Patrick Willis this year, too bad Aldon was up to no good and Bowman got injured as well.

All that said, I think I'd trade more physical play allowed between Widouts and DB's for where we are now on hitting the QB. To me that has changed the game more, though it's really hard to allocate out the impact of the two.

NWebster wrote:I think I'd trade more physical play allowed between Widouts and DB's for where we are now on hitting the QB. To me that has changed the game more, though it's really hard to allocate out the impact of the two.

For sure, and the physical play between WR/DB is really two-parts, before and after the pass. So the last (third) part of that is on the back end of the play; not being allowed to hit the receivers as or even after the ball arrives. So it's really a 3-step process: QB's with no worries, WR's running free, and WR's with no fear, especially in the middle of the field. Which the latter has probably had the biggest impact of them all, the middle of the field is free reign now.

Exactly on Borland, also.

Underrated no more. Jordy is a Pro Bowler. Goes good on the football resume with his consensus All-America selection and of course scoring the first TD for his team in their Super Bowl win.

Reaser wrote: Palmer was injured planting, not because he was hit on his knee.

Rodgers missed almost half the regular season just last year, Packers still made the playoffs and despite their record were one of the better teams in the playoffs.

Teams that have ruined seasons because of one injury aren't really teams and are too dependent on one player. Which this era gives them a built in excuse to be.

I realize many want real football to be played - and I don't just mean with ridiculous scores and offensive stats - like a video game with the injuries turn OFF. So all the 'best' players can be on the field every week. That's all fine and good but it goes against real life, it goes against football's inherent war of attrition, most importantly it goes against football being a TEAM sport.

Then there's the issue of "best" ... if players couldn't get injured and only the "best" stayed on the field then Kurt Warner would have never seen the field, so one of the best would likely have never got his chance. Who knows if or when Tom Brady would have ever got in a game, certainly wouldn't have started in the Patriots first SB win, one of the best would have still been a 6th rounder on the bench. Jim Plunkett probably would have been a bust who finished out his career watching form the sidelines as a backup in a 'sport' that would no longer have a need for backups if starters couldn't get injured. No one would know who Earl Morrall is, and so on.

If one wants a sterilized game, played by robots who can't get injured, then that's what they like. Personally, I like the sport of football, greatest team sport in the world.

Like it or not, you have to admit the sport suffers when good quarterbacks get injured. Granted, for some of us, it might be fun to watch a garbage man such as Ryan Lindley or Craig Whelihan or Rick Mirer perform. I would rather have seen the Cardinals face the Seahawks with Carson Palmer in action as opposed to Drew Stanton and Lindley (and Logan Thomas for a play).

I do not want QBs to wear special jerseys in games. I don't want an NFL where someday QBs truly cannot be touched (unless they break off and decide to run). What I am merely putting forth here is that I understand why the league wants to protect quarterbacks as much as possible.

I contend Brady would have eventually started because Drew Bledsoe was junky. Maybe you are right about Warner and Plunkett. We will never know. But, again, this wasn't my point. My point is that I understand why the league wants to protect quarterbacks. I don't have an issue with it.

It didn't matter what happened to Palmer. He could have been doing something naked on a corner in Winslow, Arizona in July and been suspended for a full season by Roger Goodell. He could have been injured while getting speared by Tim McDonald Jr. while Mark Barron took out his knee. He could have been injured freakishly without being touched while trying to avoid Barron. It is all the same for the sake of my argument. The league has suffered a bit because a key quarterback went down. Maybe it is just me. Maybe others find quarterbacks being lost for the season to be a cool thing.