Mr Bad Example

People already have.

3 different GMs, too. I don't know that the Rodgers pick was gutsy - he was a TREMENDOUS value at that spot - but when The Face of the Franchise unretired and said "hey, I can come back!", saying "nah we cool" when the player replacing him has less than a game of good film took some stones. Especially since Favre in '07 would've had a shot at MVP in most any other year (unless a player literally cured cancer patients on the field there was no chance for anyone to beat Brady's 50 td 16-0 season)

My standard is "4+ yrs of dominance." I'm not overly familiar with Newton but I feel like he's gotta be close, though I am willing to bend on dominance a little due to his status as being a unicorn - utterly unique player.

I think he was a hot young gun who put up numbers due to high volume, but never really got much better than he was early on. Definitely a HoVG caliber player.

I feel not good enough for long enough.

I think you have in who deserves to be in on offense (I actually don't know that Reed belongs) - maybe one or two of the OLs. Where it swings is on D, with maybe Bennett and Talley making it in as well.

If Ken Anderson gets a ring, he vaults up in the conversation for "Best QB of the 70s" (we all know it's Staubach, but Anderson seems to be the "yeah but" guy in the conversation even though he's really #2, 3 at worst). Boomer, I used to regard him as on the bubble but I think his career lacks that consistent stretch and he's in the top tier in the Hall of Very Good

It's one of those interesting bits that Pats in 78 and one of those early 70s Dolphins teams were absolute road-grading rushing attacks, but no one on either team knocked your socks off statistically because the Phins were spliting the work 3 ways and the Pats had a backfield with like 5 people getting significant carries.

I didn't have any issue with Favre....I thought he was being a bit of a diva but I was hoping he'd do well in NY. Then everything good he did became a referendum on how Aaron Rodgers was a mistake, and I started thinking "wait, what did Rodgers do wrong?" Of course, once he engineered his trade to the Vikings (I am still unsure how the NFL allowed that particular thing to happen without even a raised eyebrow) I was soured on him. But I think Rodgers might play QB better than anyone I've ever seen. And I certainly don't want Love to suck, no matter how this whole thing goes dow

The "ideal" (which I don't know that there is an ideal, really) is that Rodgers has another injury where he misses some time, and Love comes in and looks fantastic, the Rodgers comes back, leads GB to a SB, asks for/gets a trade somewhere in the AFC, then Love takes over and GB doesn't miss a beat going back-to-back. Then Rodgers retires after a successful last hurrah wherever he lands and becomes the next Trebek.

No, see that short-circuits the ability to complain about things without having to make sense of any of it.

Eddie Lacy was great athlete when he was picked - fast, had some quicks to him, nice bowling-ball running style. The problem was 3 yrs into his career he began to physically resemble a bowling ball.

It's a pretty rare feat, but I think historically backs who gulp that level of rare air step back a bit the following year - Henry should still have a nice robust total (like 1300-1500 yds) but won't be back in the 2k range until the year after.

I've always suspected the people who run the site are Quakers.

Personally, I feel like putting draft picks into a binary is just dumb. I usually throw "useful" in there as well...I don't know what we'd expect from, say, Williams and Martinez but they were definitely pluses on the roster. Absent analysis about where they were picked, they were definitely "useful" players even if someone doesn't want to grade them as "hits." Certainly a long ******* way away from a "bust" which is a player whose contribution ranges from negligible to negative, and even then I feel like an injury bust is less egregious than someone who just sucks.