Madden NFL 11 Player Ratings: Top Players at Each Position (K0ACHK)

[Franchise-Star-21]

Quote: Originally Posted by salbowski

You don't need a HB to fumble, you have Aaron Rodgers. He's fumbled 20 times in the last 2 years.

Oh man thats Hilarious man ....... Learn your NFL Facts first please.

[salbowski]

Quote: Originally Posted by Franchise-Star-21

Oh man thats Hilarious man ....... Learn your NFL Facts first please.

That's just embarrassing. No, I don't mean the 20 fumbles, nor your random capitalization, just the irony.

[steelers1]

Quote: Originally Posted by salbowski

That's just embarrassing. No, I don't mean the 20 fumbles, nor your random capitalization, just the irony.

Hahaha... somebody needs to check the prescription on those green and gold glasses these Packers fans are wearing. First comparing Ryan Grant to Adrian Peterson, now denying fumble stats that are in plain black and white on any stat website on the internet.

Honestly though, sacks lead to fumbles, and just about every QB who is sacked 35+ times fumbles around 10 times. Of course guys like Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Cassel, and others take unnecessary sacks, but Rodger's fumbles per carry/sack aren't really out of the ordinary at all.

Adrian Peterson gets his 'fumbling reputation' mostly from fumbling at bad times and big games. He fumbles quite a bit for a running back, but he makes up for it tenfold with his production. I'd gladly take his 7 fumbles (only about 3 or 4 more than the average back) if I could get the nearly 2000 total yards and 20 TDs he brings to the table. Anybody who would take Ryan Grant over AD is either a homer or just dumb.

Grant's a good running back and all, but half the time he doesn't more than 15 or 16 carries. I've had him on my fantasy team before and it is annoying. Seemed like every other game he'd have like 50 yards. Way too inconsistent and not the gamebreaker that AD is.

[Franchise-Star-21]

You do understand the reason i said Check your Facts ( Random Cap for you ..yupp ).. Is because the Packers have had probably the worst O-Line in football the last 2-3 years , and to put up the numbers that A-ROD indeed did is just beast . So take your NFL stats page ..which you prob need to make points outta here because thats not what i wasn talking about. You have no right to come at Rodgers , especially with the numbers he puts up with that pathetic o-line.

And same situation with AD, i never said Grant is a RB ...are you crazy?

Please dont take out your Ben R/ The hole Steelers Org. downfall anger on A-ROD .

[steelers1]

Quote: Originally Posted by Franchise-Star-21

You do understand the reason i said Check your Facts ( Random Cap for you ..yupp ).. Is because the Packers have had probably the worst O-Line in football the last 2-3 years , and to put up the numbers that A-ROD indeed did is just beast . So take your NFL stats page ..which you prob need to make points outta here because thats not what i wasn talking about. You have no right to come at Rodgers , especially with the numbers he puts up with that pathetic o-line. And same situation with AD, i never said Grant is a RB ...are you crazy? Please dont take out your Ben R/ The hole Steelers Org. downfall anger on A-ROD .

First of all, Grant is a RB. But I was referring to a different delusional Packers fan with that comment.

Secondly, I don't really know what you are talking about with the Steelers downfall thing or how that had anything to do with my post.

Thirdly, I think your 'fact' being about the O-line is weak.

The 'Fact' is that Aaron Rodgers holds the ball too long. I've heard it about Big Ben for years, and when I watch Rodgers play I can't help but wonder why no one ever says it about him.

The 'worst offensive line' argument is weak because Brett Favre in '07 took a whopping 15 sacks on 550 dropbacks with basically the same group. The last time Brett took more than 26 sacks in Green Bay was 2000. That goes to show the right QB can make an offensive line look better or worse. The offensive linemen haven't really changed much since 2007, but went from allowing 15 sacks in 07 to 34 in 08 to 50 in 09.

Even back when Favre was in GB and Rodgers would play mop up every now and then he took sacks. He was sacked 13% of the time (9 times in 68 dropbacks) while Favre was there compared to Favre's 3%. The line did pretty good in pass protection with Favre in there, and as soon as a new QB comes in it turns into the worst line in the league?

I'm not saying it's a great offensive line, but Rodger's makes it look worse, and brings a lot of the hits on himself. His numbers are impressive, though, given that he is often under pressure, and I'm in no way saying that Rodgers isn't one of the top passers in the league.

[YeahDonnie]

There should be a "whining like a bitch" rating and Tom Brady should get a 99.

[GreenReign86]

The arguement on Favre taking less sacks then Rodgers is rather a weak one. Favre instead of getting hit just throws it up for grabs thus throwing a ton of INT's. Whereas, instead of risking it Rodgers takes the sack, as opposed to just throwing the ball wildly into the air hoping for a miracle. I would rather have a QB take a sack then throw an INT any day of the week. Oh, and it is a different OL the last couple seasons. Clifton, and Tauscher have both been hurt off and on. We have had guys like Allan Barbre start, it has been a total mess. Anyone that has watched the Packers the past 2 seasons knows that Rodgers has maybe 2-3 seconds to throw before he is on the ground or running for his life.

[Franchise-Star-21]

Quote: Originally Posted by steelers1

First of all, Grant is a RB. But I was referring to a different delusional Packers fan with that comment. Secondly, I don't really know what you are talking about with the Steelers downfall thing or how that had anything to do with my post. Thirdly, I think your 'fact' being about the O-line is weak. The 'Fact' is that Aaron Rodgers holds the ball too long. I've heard it about Big Ben for years, and when I watch Rodgers play I can't help but wonder why no one ever says it about him. The 'worst offensive line' argument is weak because Brett Favre in '07 took a whopping 15 sacks on 550 dropbacks with basically the same group. The last time Brett took more than 26 sacks in Green Bay was 2000. That goes to show the right QB can make an offensive line look better or worse. The offensive linemen haven't really changed much since 2007, but went from allowing 15 sacks in 07 to 34 in 08 to 50 in 09. Even back when Favre was in GB and Rodgers would play mop up every now and then he took sacks. He was sacked 13% of the time (9 times in 68 dropbacks) while Favre was there compared to Favre's 3%. The line did pretty good in pass protection with Favre in there, and as soon as a new QB comes in it turns into the worst line in the league? I'm not saying it's a great offensive line, but Rodger's makes it look worse, and brings a lot of the hits on himself. His numbers are impressive, though, given that he is often under pressure, and I'm in no way saying that Rodgers isn't one of the top passers in the league.

The O-line arguement is not weak , not at all . Fact is, skill wise, it is not the same group . Tauscher and Clifton at RT and LT 3 years older and battered with injuries, is not the same, and not even talking about the young carousel they at at Gaurd and Center. So not the same.
Yes, Arod holds onto the ball a couple of times, but you cannot use that point and take away from the O-line.

Underneath Favre, Our O-Line was actually very good, Back with Ahman Green at RB, we had a top 5 OL at the time. But now it is a completely different story.

If you watch ANY packers game you would understand the situation. Up until maybe week 12, our OL was just terrible to be honest. Then they started getting it together "somewhat". But all in all, the OL is actually a very big difference.

But hey , even if "its the same line" ,
Arods 7 INT's vs. Favre's 29
.