AAron will be talking to the Steelers today

Aaron Rodgers contract has a $10 million guarantee, which is exactly what Aaron Rodgers told Pat McAfee he would play for. I think this was the original offer Khan had made to Aaron month ago, and it was always up to Rodgers to take it or leave it, because the Steelers were not budging from their offer. I am not Khan's biggest fan, but it certainly looks like he came out a winner on this.


“ESPN sources: Steelers QB Aaron Rodgers was in the team’s training facility today to sign his one-year, $13.65 million contract that includes $10 million guaranteed and has a maximum value of $19.5 million,” Schefter wrote on Twitter. “The deal includes $5.85 million worth of playtime and team performance incentives.”

 

As compared to Wilson/Fields Rodgers had 7 more touchdowns last year

He also had 309 more yards passing

That equates to about 70 more points

Spread that evenly over last season that is 4 more wins or a 14-3 record

That’s a pretty good team

Hypotheticaly

 

Now that Rodgers is on board they may more enthusiastically pursue another WR

Potentially

 

Marino was a good quarterback from day one in the NFL, a great one by his second season. Aikman was terrible as a rookie and not much better in his second and third season. Your theory about Smith being great in part because Aikman would make defenses pay if they focused too much on the run doesn't hold up when you look at the 1990 and '91 seasons. Smith was the Rookie of the Year in 1990 despite Aikman playing poorly. Smith emerged as an elite back in 1991, leading the league with 1,563 yards rushing, even though Aikman continued to play poorly. Smith did just fine without much help from Aikman.

Your claim about Marino playing too much hero ball doesn't hold up either when you consider that he and Aikman had the exact same interception percentage for their careers. That is damn impressive for Marino given how often he had to carry the Dolphins while it was Smith carrying the Cowboys, not Aikman.

 

That would be great to see, but there aren't many options left that won't cost a great deal of that draft capital the team has been hoarding for a run at a quarterback (probably) in 2026.

 

Man. We were so close!!!!

 

Bleacher Report, Athlon Sports and a couple of other sites are reporting the Steelers are trying to get Romeo Doubs from the Packers. Doubs played his rookie year with Rodgers at Green Bay so there is a connection there.

 

Normally I think these are just clickbait but this one actually has some substance to it

Cut and paste

Each of the Green Bay Packers top six wide receivers are on their entry-level contracts as we enter the 2025 NFL season. But that situation won’t last long. After the upcoming campaign, two of the team’s wideouts could reach free agency unless GM Brian Gutekunst decides to sign them to a second contract with the team. Two additional wideouts will be in the same situation after the 2026 season. Gutekunst faces some difficult decisions regarding the two receivers who are up for extensions after 2025.

The first receiver who is entering the final year of his contract in 2025 is Romeo Doubs. The Packers selected him in the fourth round of the 2022 NFL Draft. The former Nevada star has provided the team with a solid target in his first three NFL seasons.

 

I watched Aikman evolve and become great. I watched Marino start high and level off. It is my opinion Aikman developed into the better overall QB. Stats mean nothing to the question I was asked about which I thought was better. I watched them play the game. Like I posted before, Stafford played a lot of hero ball. Roethlisberger played a lot of hero ball as well. It's not a knock. It's my observation.

 

Explain how statistics mean nothing in evaluating a quarterback? That makes no sense unless you are trying to dismiss statistics because they make your argument look terrible. which they do.

We both watched them play. You are claiming that Aiman made players around him better with no evidence to support the claim. I clearly disproved your theory that Aikman helped make Smith a great back by demonstrating that Smith was already leading the league in rushing while Aikman was playing poorly.

Our eyes can lie to us. That is why valid evaluation is only partially based on what our eyes tell us. I'm not sure how the eye test tells you Aikman was better, not when he was often a game manager while Marino was forced to carry his team and did so quite spectacularly. But if we call that even, with our eye tests telling us different things, the valid approach would be to look at the statistics. In that area, Marino blows Aikman away. It isn't close.

 

Well first, I'm not arguing. I was asked which QB I thought was better between Marino and Aikman. I answered Aikman and gave my reasons. You don't have to agree with those reasons. But you are the only one arguing.

Dan Marino came in like a shooting star but never reached the top. Aikman came in to a terrible situation and was part of building a 3-time championship team. Which career was better?

 

When you respond by making a claim that differs from someone else, you are arguing.

You are judging the two quarterbacks based on things outside of their control. By your logic, Trent Dilfer had a better career than Dan Marino, too.

Aikman played for Super Bowl Champions because he was a good quarterback who had a dominant offensive line, one of the greatest running backs of all time, and great defenses. He did not make those things happen. Those things were done for him. Marino had none of those things.

The part about dismissing statistics is pure nonsense based on a desire to stick to your guns and leave out the evidence that derails your claim.

Marino was the better player. Aikman had the better supporting cast. In both cases, it wasn't close.

 

Sorry Scribe, I'm not the one. Go argue with someone else. I've said all I'm gonna on the subject. You are literally making something out of nothing.

 

You guys are reacting to something other than the question I was asked by 43. 2 conversations.

 

Maybe not a good time to bring that up.

 

Discussion is a nice word

 

He asked Aikman or Marino. I asked for context for the question, he answered who was the better QB. I answered with my opinion on that. I watched both play the game. I have always thought Aikman was the better QB. People immediately want to think that means I have something against Marino, which is not true. If I had to pick one of those 2 QBs to be my franchise QB, I would choose Aikman. Others would choose Marino and that's fine.

The Jeff George comparison is to the physical ability was sky is the limit, but nothing really came of it.

Aikman or Marino? I would take Steve Young over both. Make that make sense.

 

Then no, we are not reacting to something different from the question you were asked. We are reacting to a response to the question of who was better, Marino or Aikman. You can't make the argument without leaving out the evidence, which is their statistics. The moment you bring that into play, Marino blows Aikman away. I think that is why you want to ignore the statistics.

I'm not saying you have something against Marino. I like both guys. I respect both guys. I have no great fondness for one over the other. If I see someone make a claim with which I disagree, I say so and explain why. That is all I am doing here, supporting my claim as you try to support yours. The difference is that I'm including all of the evidence. You are trying to shut out the evidence that doesn't fit your claim.

Again, by your logic, Trent Dilfer had a better career than Dan Marino. Do you wish to stand by that?

I would probably take Young over either of them, too. If the question is who was better at his best, I take Young because he was every bit the passer and a far more dynamic runner.

 

Your last sentence is clear evidence you have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

You argued that the difference was Aikman playing for a three-time championship team. The only factor in Aikman's favor is team success. By every other measure, Marino wins, and it isn't close. I know exactly what you are talking about. Please don't imply ignorance on my part simply because you don't like my answer. Thank you.