jason_taylor
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Messages
- 4,336
- Reaction score
- 9
DreamWeaver said:
i agree alone with brown
Benson & Rodgers - Potential Busts?
- Thread starter TXFinFan
- Start date
i agree alone with brown
Clark Kent
Man of Steel
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 2,945
- Reaction score
- 4
TXFinFan said:
Do you go hunting for this sutff?
Benson is the closest thing to sure a thing. Doesn't explode through the holes? WTF? He is dominate for the first 15 yards because he's so explosive and elusive. Doesn't love football? Where do people get this **** from? Oh yeah, guilty by association (Ricky Williams).
*Officer Barbrady* Nothing to see here folks
General Tso
Seasoned Veteran
TXFinFan said:
Not sure what this guy's basing his opinions on. He says he's concerned that Rodgers weighs 195 pounds, but he's 220+. He also says Rodgers doesn't throw the deep ball well, but Rodgers has one of the best arms in the draft and was definately accurate on deep passes (in games, college all star challenge, workouts, etc).
Also, I think at worst Benson will be a better than average starter... don't see him being a bust.
DonShula84
Sporty Don
I couldnt agree more with what he said about Edwards. I think he has the most potential to be a bust in the entire draft. Stay away from this guy please!!!
I completely agree with his assessment of Aaron Rodgers
In fact, I wrote something very similar to this opinion from Michael Ventre here last week; " But Rodgers doesn’t throw downfield nearly as well as he throws short. In a ball-control offense, where he is asked to peck his way downfield with quick throws to sure-handed receivers, he’ll do very well. But when he has to take a deep drop, look downfield and deliver while a pass rush looms, he’s only average."
Precisely! And buyer beware. I attended the USC/Cal game last season and was not impressed with Rodgers' dink-and-dunk mentality at all. There were receivers breaking semi-open on mid-to-deep routes all day, and Rodgers refused to pull the trigger. It was baffling to my friends and I at first, then became laughable as the game went on. That performance by Rodgers could not be more overrated, despite the completion percentage. Remember, he put up a whopping 17 points.
Cal's offense is not nearly as pro-similar as many posters here continue to assert. It is based on gimmick plays with motion influence that spring RBs and WRs into the clear by huge margin. Rodgers thrived by dumping off to RBs who would gain big yardage, or hitting WRs cruising into the open. Against USC, when suddenly the WRs were not 5 yards clear, he wouldn't even go there and defaulted to the short junk all day. A year earlier, Cal sprung WRs into the clear vs. USC in Berkeley during the first half and Rodgers took advantage. I think they had 21 points at halftime. But once 'SC adjusted in the 2nd half, Rodgers threw the short crap repeatedly. In fact, other than the overtimes in 2003, Cal didn't score much against USC in Rodgers' final 6 quarters against the Trojans.
In the NFL, Rodgers will be a decent pocket QB who lacks outstanding athletic ability and feel. He is overly mechanical and his passes don't vary enough in pace and loft. I'm going to keep repeating this stuff for one reason: it's true.
In fact, I wrote something very similar to this opinion from Michael Ventre here last week; " But Rodgers doesn’t throw downfield nearly as well as he throws short. In a ball-control offense, where he is asked to peck his way downfield with quick throws to sure-handed receivers, he’ll do very well. But when he has to take a deep drop, look downfield and deliver while a pass rush looms, he’s only average."
Precisely! And buyer beware. I attended the USC/Cal game last season and was not impressed with Rodgers' dink-and-dunk mentality at all. There were receivers breaking semi-open on mid-to-deep routes all day, and Rodgers refused to pull the trigger. It was baffling to my friends and I at first, then became laughable as the game went on. That performance by Rodgers could not be more overrated, despite the completion percentage. Remember, he put up a whopping 17 points.
Cal's offense is not nearly as pro-similar as many posters here continue to assert. It is based on gimmick plays with motion influence that spring RBs and WRs into the clear by huge margin. Rodgers thrived by dumping off to RBs who would gain big yardage, or hitting WRs cruising into the open. Against USC, when suddenly the WRs were not 5 yards clear, he wouldn't even go there and defaulted to the short junk all day. A year earlier, Cal sprung WRs into the clear vs. USC in Berkeley during the first half and Rodgers took advantage. I think they had 21 points at halftime. But once 'SC adjusted in the 2nd half, Rodgers threw the short crap repeatedly. In fact, other than the overtimes in 2003, Cal didn't score much against USC in Rodgers' final 6 quarters against the Trojans.
In the NFL, Rodgers will be a decent pocket QB who lacks outstanding athletic ability and feel. He is overly mechanical and his passes don't vary enough in pace and loft. I'm going to keep repeating this stuff for one reason: it's true.