It is sad that for my morning sports radio, I have only two options. One is local Chicago radio, pumping their chests while talking about how great every local team is when they win, only to tear them to pieces when they lose. Since I am not a huge fan of any local team, I usually tune to option B, which is generally more vanilla and even more frustrating.
Mike and Mike in the Morning.
Day after day, I tune into them, hoping that this will be the day that they can complete an entire show without me shaking my head about something was said by them. Today, sadly, was not the day.
The Packers were having their “two a day” treatment, Mike and Mike’s effort to look at what each NFL teams needs were heading into the offseason, a few player questions, and finally whether their stock was rising or falling. As I sat with baited breath, my entire life’s existence depending on what analysis the two Mikes would add to the Packers, the two a day started with the following question:
“What part of Aaron Rodgers game needs improvement?”
Attempting to keep an open mind, I waited patiently for their first answer. The head shaking began with the answer of “He holds onto the ball too long.”
Really? Ok Mikes, explain.
After attempting to convince me (and everyone else listening) that because of holding onto the ball too long, Rodgers is concussion prone, the head shaking began.
If memory serves, Rodgers suffered two concussions in 2010. One was against the Redskins, on the last play on offense for the Packers that day. OK, fine, I’ll give you that one. The second one was against the Lions, running in the open field. Last time I checked, a quarterback cannot throw the ball past the line of scrimmage, so I don’t think the one against the Lions tackle was a case of him holding onto the ball too long. It was more a case of Rodgers doing what he does best-creating plays. On this particular play, it cost him, but that is not the point.
Remember, they said he holds onto the ball too long. So I interpret this as they are not looking at the facts. What they are doing is relying on their writers to give them information to read. I guess the information they received today was from 2009, when it was clear that Rodgers was holding onto the ball too long. I could point out that he cut his sacks from 50 in 2009 to 31 in 2010, but why bother? They are who they are.
In the future, if you are going to do an analysis on the Packers, please get a clue, and know what you are talking about.
Filed Under: John Rehor