It could’ve been good, it could’ve been bad, it could’ve been something between. However his Monday debut turned out, Aaron Rodgers was going to let the football world in on a little something, and that little something was inevitably going to be nothing. No matter if he threw three interceptions or three touchdowns, neither I nor anyone else would know more about this man Tuesday than we knew Sunday. We know he has talent, class, and the desire to carry himself in the vein of Favre. What we don’t know is whether these things will allow Rodgers to be Green Bay’s long-term solution at quarterback. Nothing long-term has ever been determined in the span of 60 minutes—not even by Andy Rooney.
If you consult Tony Kornheiser, however, you may be compelled to think otherwise. The PTI pioneer dissected each passing second of Packer possession as if the fate of Wisconsin’s statehood hung in the balance. He invoked Governor Palin’s convention speech when addressing Rodgers’ unveiling to the Lambeau faithful, because as we all know, the signal caller for Green Bay could very well be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office beginning January 2009. He asked of a 1st and
Perhaps it was certain that every Aaron Rodgers breath would be likened to his predecessor’s, but the extent to which Kornheiser played his game of compare and contrast was almost nauseating. As it has been for this entire ordeal (that continues despite Favre’s presence in New York), it’s unfair to play such games, not in the least because Rodgers and Favre cannot be held to the same standard. Put another way, Favre wouldn’t have played the game Rodgers played Monday night, and that is not to say Favre would have played it any better or any worse. All things considered—and I mean every last one, down to the skeptical fan in Row ZZZ—18-22 for 178 yards and a touchdown against a talented division rival is good for even an established quarterback. But what stands out most about his stat line is this: Aaron Rodgers was supposed to have the weight of the world on his shoulders, yet he threw four incompletions and zero interceptions. He was not merely efficient, he was effective; effective because he did not put his offense in harm’s way and he still managed to move the football. With the horde of talent that surrounds him, that’s all that’s necessary to get the Packers back to the playoffs.
But again, this single outing of a 16 game season provides only so much insight as to what’s in store for Rodgers. In the case of Tarvaris Jackson, one game is all the evidence we needed to see that little has changed from last year to now. Ron Jaworski complimented Jackson during Monday’s broadcast for knowing how to “win ballgames”. Ron Jaworski will know more about football than I would learn in three lifetimes, but it is exceedingly difficult for me to process the notion that Tarvaris Jackson is somehow a “winner”. He completed 58% of his passes and threw four interceptions for every three touchdowns in 2007. The Vikings won eight games despite his play, not because of it. Unless he improves his accuracy, that trend will continue. His athleticism for the position is outstanding, but then again, so is Vince Young’s. And Tarvaris Jackson isn’t as good as Vince Young. Whereas Aaron Rodgers is dealing with a wide open window, Jackson’s may be shutting rapidly. The Vikings are too loaded at other positions to experiment with him much longer; they’re not a good quarterback away from a 12 win season, they’re a decent quarterback away from a 12 win season.
Come to think of it, if they had Aaron Rodgers, maybe they’d win 13.
Or maybe they’d win 7.
Considering that Rodgers is, in fact, a Packer, it will be Green Bay waiting on pins and needles for that result. What’s important today is that he took advantage of his long-awaited chance. One game does not usher in a new era, but it does help close a chapter. For at least one night, any Brett Favre analogies are compliments and not critiques.
more
