That narrative may have been media driven. I had heard for a long time that Scott McCloughan preferred Alex Smith and it came out later that Mike Nolan (head coach at the time) was really turned off by Rodgers' interviews. Which is one of the points of evidence that leads me to question how much importance we should put on "intangibles". Ultimately what matters most is whether a guy can play or not.
I remember hearing that Rodgers was very abrasive in his interviews, as well. But I agree...can he BALL??
I should amend that and say what matters is whether a guy can play or not and whether or not he's committed to being the best and working for it. I agree with evaluating intangibles to the extent that they cover those aspects of a player: commitment and work ethic. But I question when you start to ding a guy because you felt he was "abrasive". Here is another great example of when I think the process goes too far: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/49ers-Shrink-Takes-Stafford-Off-Draft-Board-.html Mike Singletary and the 49ers took Matt Stafford off their draft board because they had him do a session with their team psychologist and Stafford refused to talk about his parents' divorce. Yeah. That happened. Good luck coaching...well, whatever the hell it is you're coaching nowadays, Mike Singletary.
I pushed hard for Gurley, but not over Parker. There's some Michael Irvin toughness to him, mixed with Lynn Swann-like grace. He gonna be better than Chambers. I don't know, I've never seen a dude like this, though...
My memory is a bit different. I remember Alex Smith and Rodgers being neck and neck until their pro days. I remember stories about Alex Smith getting a round of applause from all the attendees, which apparently, was unheard of. Then came the hyperbole about the best pro day ever (which seemingly occurs every year now). From that point on, Alex Smith was pretty certain to go #1 overall. Then, that put us in a position for Rodgers, who had a good pro day, but not a great one. And it raised questions. As the draft drew closer, Aaron Rodgers stock was seemingly falling. 1). Rumored attitude issues during interviews. In truth, Rodgers doesn't really hide his... swagger. 2). Robotic throwing motion and some mechanics issues that some believed limited his ability to make every throw. Related to his pro day results. Jeff Tedford really did goof up his throwing motion, so this was true IMO. It took Rodgers awhile to rebuild his mechanics in GB. 3). Jeff Tedford had produced two mega busts in Smith and Harrington, and there was concern Rodgers was next in line. In truth, neither Smith or Harrington were very well prepared for the NFL, so this one may have merit. The #2 overall pick doesn't usually sit three years and learn, as Rodgers did behind Favre.
Yeah, really the Teford thing was #1 of what everyone was talking about. "Rodgers is great, BUT he's a Tedford product........"
It was for me. So much of evaluation is translating what the prospect did in college to the pros and he was difficult to do that with. Everything seemed so robotic to me. That's what all the Tedford products looked like. Looking at him now, Rodgers seems so natural, but that's not what he was coming out. I really believe that if he'd been drafted by Miami and forced to play immediately that he would have failed here. I think he benefited greatly from that time on the bench where he had time to let things become second nature with being dissected by the fans and media every week.
Yup he was very very lucky to not have to go to a sucky team forced to play him early. Wouldn't have worked out.
I disagree. He ABSOLUTELY benefited from sitting behind Brett Favre for 3 years. But, he had/has that attitude like all the great ones do. He doesn't know how to fail... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've heard the same said about a lot of players. Tim Tebow, Mr. Intangibles comes to mind immediately. Steve Young was a failure until Bill Walsh untapped his potential in his WCO. The list could go on and on. Green Bay was the perfect spot for Rodgers. And Mike McCarthy deserves a lot of credit for rebuilding Rodgers from a mechanical standpoint. Not to mention he's played with a lot of talent in Green Bay from the beginning. A lot of favorable things broke his way, and that can't be ignored. Let's say Rodgers is traded to Oakland in 2007. Does Aaron Rodgers still succeed as the Raiders organization continues to define ineptitude? Hard to say. Same could be said for a lot of players throughout NFL history. Serendipity is a variable that does exist, IMO.
I never liked Tim Tebow. I even got into a mild argument at work with one of my co-workers about it before he was drafted. I've never been wrong about a QB in the draft. I'm not great at evaluating every position, but QB is my strong suit. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why is a guy like Aaron Rodgers lucky to go to a system and sit, meanwhile Tanny started right away and improved. What made Rodgers likely to fail if he started right away, and Tanny someone who benefits from starting right away. 2005 is a team that had Chris Chambers, Marty Booker, Randy McMichael, Ricky Williams and Wes Welker. Is that worse than having Hartline your #1 WR? Is Tanny a better talent coming out than Rodgers?
Tannehill came in to the EXACT same system he played in college. But he too would have benefitted sitting a few years behind a HoF QB.
Yes it's the exact system but we already said he only started 18 games even in College, and now it's NFL quality defenders. I'm not saying Tanny was put in the wrong situation, I'm questioning why do we assume Rodgers would have turned into Joey Harrington if forced to start right away. If we're going to wipe 3 years away when comparing, is 3 years sitting on the bench behind a HOF QB better than 3 years of running it against live bullets? I would think the latter is always going to be beneficial unless the player in question is mentally weak. And we know Rodgers isn't that. If Derek Carr improves this year we'll know that hypothesis is BS because I don't think there has been a worse situation in the history of the NFL than the one he was placed in last year. That team was terrible with terrible coaching decisions to boot. He had decent blocking but they kept the best runner on the bench and they just got rid of their #1 WR that's how bad that team was.
Intangibles (noun) A way to say that a player is superior (or inferior) to his actual level of production based on something you are unable to describe, quantify or show any correlation to reality. Used by sportswriters to sound objective when they're really making stuff up on the fly.
Disagree. Do sportswriters use it to explain stuff they don't get? Yes. Does it exist? Sure does. Intangibles or lack thereof is Ryan Leaf.
