Dubz - I can't argue with anything you said, except what I recall from the draft, when the 49ers took Smith, and indicated that they believed Rodgers lacked the arm strength and mobility that Smith had. In fact, that statement, along with the views of a lot of people was that Rodgers wasn't as good. He dropped to the Packers, and regardless of what anyone indicates, the Wolf/Holmgren tandem did know how to find good QBs. Look at the cadre that ran through GB.
At the time the Packers took Rodgers, they pretty much indicated that he was the heir apparent to Favre, and that's exactly why they picked him in the first round. You don't pick back ups in the 1st round.
Of course the media surrounding football has a tendency to "write their own story," and that's kind of what happened with Rodgers. The arm strength, mobility, all issues, yet, if you looked at his play from HS through college, he had decent wheels, and could throw the ball on the move. That's why I thought from day one that he would be Favre's replacement, because the things I saw wrong (I did miss a couple of them), was all coachable. All too often, the media gets on the band wagon of running QBs because they're "different." We saw that for years in the NFL, and it's why guys who have failed miserably keep getting the call in the first round, and flunk the test, on the field.
The issue surrounding the benching of Favre, in favor of Brunell was more of a "threat" to get him in line, to do what he was supposed to on the field. He was a loose cannon, and in all honesty, never did change. That's why we lost some games we really should have won. He thought he was Superman. If he had benched him, it would have been one game, maybe two, and a different Favre with a new attitude, might have stepped up. You're never too good, nor too important, that if you don't do what's best for the team. Sadly enough, Holmgren eventually let him get away with way too much.
My problem with Hundley is that he had absolutely no field vision in college. He was not a good passer, he was good in the short game, and a great runner. That's what the Packers saw. Mobility. They should have looked at the whole package, related to the Packer offense, not get a big head thinking they could teach field smarts. It don't happen. It's instincts.
The 49ers chose Smith based on one year of solid work at a school that played half their schedule against teams that were pretty weak to be honest. New Mexico, Wyoming, Air Force, and Nevada-Las Vegas as an example. His competition level wasn't there. He did get good press from his two bowl wins against Pittsburgh and Southern Mississippi, but neither were powerhouse teams. Rodgers, on the other hand, played better teams throughout his two years in D1.
I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder, but to be honest, I just never saw Hundley as the guy to back Rodgers. I didn't feel he had the vision to play the position. On the Smith vs Rodgers issue, I always felt Rodgers was better, and laughed when I saw the 9ers pass on him. I told my son, who was watching with me; "They'll be sorry for this one. This guy has played against crappy teams, Rodgers didn't."
Anyhow, that's my take on it all. Like I said, I don't really disagree with you. We see the same things, and mostly about the same.
