What to do with Aaron (with season now in dumpster)?

[Pckfn23]

For me, it was not that the offense would be better without Adams, it was that it could be different in a way that might be beneficial, if certain things happened (in no order):

1) More use of running backs
2) More use of tight ends (contingent on Tonyan)
3) Getting back to LaFleur's intended scheme (think 2019 style)
4) Rodgers playing within the above scheme
5) The defense being top 10 or better
6) OL plays up to their talent (contingent on Bakh and Jenkins)

Had some combination of those happened, there would have been less pressure on Rodgers, and this team would likely have a winning record. Additionally, a team with a strong running game and defense would, in theory, be better suited for the playoffs. Unfortunately, things did not work out and we've basically got a worst-case scenario going on.

Exactly! That was the actual thought process. Very well said.

[Drj820]

i mean any offense could be better if they mastered a list of 6+ things. haha

That isnt even realistic though, so I would prefer to have a guy who helps cover up blemishes. His name was Davante Adams.

[Labrev]

easiest way to win is no top secret, a good defense, a good OL, a good QB and good receivers and you'll contend every year,

Of course!!! Because as we all know, NFL teams have unlimited money to pay for a good defenders, good O-Lineman, a good QB (definitely not an expensive position to pay for), and good plural-receiver receivers!

No wait, actually, those are all free! How silly of me.

Thanks, yoop. I was so blind to the need for great players in football!

you have Lupe syndrome, never said they all had to be all pro, we have had some very good teams over the last decade, who stopped us, stupid ego centric players doing stupid stuff, as I said GOOD players, not great at every position, stars here and there along with more average players win freaking SB's every year, Philly is 9-0, I rest my case.

I never said all-pro either. I said "good." That's right, good players are also expensive, even if they're not all-pro.

You didn't think MVS was good enough to pair next to Adams. KC gave him $10m. Where are these "good" players you want that will not break the bank to field all at once? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer).

stars here and there along with more average players win freaking SB's every year, Philly is 9-0, I rest my case.

Oh, we can just name a random teams as proof for our position? Cool. The Patriots won six SuperBowls, I rest my case.

Philly is starting a QB on a rookie deal for crying out loud. You don't think THAT makes life much easier for them to build a well-rounded roster, especially compared to a team like us where that one guy takes up like half our cap space??

[bud fox]

Packers simply undervalued the wr position.

Murphy did an interview where he basically said you don't need good wrs with Rodgers.

This is a position in which the top players make 30m and plenty over 20m. A position which a lot of first round capital is used.

This is true for everyone but the Packers. Rodgers ability blinded management to the fact that the wr position is important

[Yoop]

For me, it was not that the offense would be better without Adams, it was that it could be different in a way that might be beneficial, if certain things happened (in no order):

1) More use of running backs
2) More use of tight ends (contingent on Tonyan)
3) Getting back to LaFleur's intended scheme (think 2019 style)
4) Rodgers playing within the above scheme
5) The defense being top 10 or better
6) OL plays up to their talent (contingent on Bakh and Jenkins)

Had some combination of those happened, there would have been less pressure on Rodgers, and this team would likely have a winning record. Additionally, a team with a strong running game and defense would, in theory, be better suited for the playoffs. Unfortunately, things did not work out and we've basically got a worst-case scenario going on.

well we know it all starts up front, we had success running earlier because DC's had respect for Rodgers and our passing ability, when it became clear Rodgers and the receivers where inconsistent to down right terrible DC focused on stopping the run and forcing us to pass, and naturally it became harder to run, couple that with depletion with OL blocking ability and everything became harder to do, we started the season Capable of checking off everything on your list, imo a little more luck with the OL and all the rest do better, minus that and everything becomes worse.

[Yoop]

Of course!!! Because as we all know, NFL teams have unlimited money to pay for a good defenders, good O-Lineman, a good QB (definitely not an expensive position to pay for), and good plural-receiver receivers!

No wait, actually, those are all free! How silly of me.

Thanks, yoop. I was so blind to the need for great players in football!

you have Lupe syndrome, never said they all had to be all pro, we have had some very good teams over the last decade, who stopped us, stupid ego centric players doing stupid stuff, as I said GOOD players, not great at every position, stars here and there along with more average players win freaking SB's every year, Philly is 9-0, I rest my case.

I never said all-pro either. I said "good." That's right, good players are also expensive, even if they're not all-pro.

You didn't think MVS was good enough to pair next to Adams. KC gave him $10m. Where are these "good" players you want that will not break the bank to field all at once? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer).

stars here and there along with more average players win freaking SB's every year, Philly is 9-0, I rest my case.

Oh, we can just name a random teams as proof for our position? Cool. The Patriots won six SuperBowls, I rest my case.

Philly is starting a QB on a rookie deal for crying out loud. You don't think THAT makes life much easier for them to build a well-rounded roster, especially compared to a team like us where that one guy takes up like half our cap space??

NE won 6 SB's mostly with Average talent, KC has a more expensive QB then Rodgers, yet replace receivers in a instint if one should leave with a ready to play vet, we draft raw not ready to play rookies and expect the same success, it's not about what you pay the QB as much as it is the focus point of the resources you have to spend, if almost every high draft pick goes to defense obviously the positions that score points will suffer.

I keep saying it to the point of redundancy yet it just doesn't get through to you, defense beyond simply top 15 or so is near impossible to sustain, ( what do you think I make this &%$@ up) talent in this FA era goes out the door faster then you can replace it, not to mention injury's or decline in play, and if you pay attention you will see QB's dissecting positional weakness game in game out, so when you put all your top resources into building a unit so good, the rest of the team suffers, what is it about that is so hard for people to understand, it's been on display right here all season, I get it it's so much easier to just blame the QB

[go pak go]

you have Lupe syndrome, never said they all had to be all pro, we have had some very good teams over the last decade, who stopped us, stupid ego centric players doing stupid stuff, as I said GOOD players, not great at every position, stars here and there along with more average players win freaking SB's every year, Philly is 9-0, I rest my case.

I never said all-pro either. I said "good." That's right, good players are also expensive, even if they're not all-pro.

You didn't think MVS was good enough to pair next to Adams. KC gave him $10m. Where are these "good" players you want that will not break the bank to field all at once? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer).

stars here and there along with more average players win freaking SB's every year, Philly is 9-0, I rest my case.

Oh, we can just name a random teams as proof for our position? Cool. The Patriots won six SuperBowls, I rest my case.

Philly is starting a QB on a rookie deal for crying out loud. You don't think THAT makes life much easier for them to build a well-rounded roster, especially compared to a team like us where that one guy takes up like half our cap space??

NE won 6 SB's mostly with Average talent, KC has a more expensive QB then Rodgers, yet replace receivers in a instint if one should leave with a ready to play vet, we draft raw not ready to play rookies and expect the same success, it's not about what you pay the QB as much as it is the focus point of the resources you have to spend, if almost every high draft pick goes to defense obviously the positions that score points will suffer.

I keep saying it to the point of redundancy yet it just doesn't get through to you, defense beyond simply top 15 or so is near impossible to sustain, ( what do you think I make this &%$@ up) talent in this FA era goes out the door faster then you can replace it, not to mention injury's or decline in play, and if you pay attention you will see QB's dissecting positional weakness game in game out, so when you put all your top resources into building a unit so good, the rest of the team suffers, what is it about that is so hard for people to understand, it's been on display right here all season, I get it it's so much easier to just blame the QB

And yet every year, especially from 2011 - 2014, we had the most explosive and historic NFL offenses in the history of the game and it still won the same amount of trophies as the 2022 Packers will.

And those years it was "well it was a bad defense"

Your type of team has been had on the Packers. Many times. And it failed to win the trophy every year.

[bud fox]

And yet every year, especially from 2011 - 2014, we had the most explosive and historic NFL offenses in the history of the game and it still won the same amount of trophies as the 2022 Packers will.

And those years it was "well it was a bad defense"

Your type of team has been had on the Packers. Many times. And it failed to win the trophy every year.

2011 - giants scored 37 points
2012 - 49ers scored 45 points
2013 - kaep couldn't be stopped running.
2014 - seahawks scored special teams and B-o-s-t-ic-k


His name is banned on the forum lol

[Drj820]

And yet every year, especially from 2011 - 2014, we had the most explosive and historic NFL offenses in the history of the game and it still won the same amount of trophies as the 2022 Packers will.

And those years it was "well it was a bad defense"

Your type of team has been had on the Packers. Many times. And it failed to win the trophy every year.

2011 - giants scored 37 points
2012 - 49ers scored 45 points
2013 - kaep couldn't be stopped running.
2014 - seahawks scored special teams and B-o-s-t-ic-k


His name is banned on the forum lol

shame we couldnt at least make all sides of the ball "not a liability". Notice I didnt say we needed to make all sides great. We needed to not have the WORST STs in the league last year. We needed a defense who could hold a team under-lets say 30???? in the january weather. This year, we didnt need multiple HOFers at WR, but maybe something more than Watkins and the rookies.

Point being, for some weird reason this org has gone all in one of side of the ball while neglecting the others. Back in the day the O was loaded, then every good draft pick went to the D, then the STs was completely forgotten as we promoted from within on an awful unit. Its weird how we play whack a mole to fix something, while just completely ignoring other aspects.

I think a strategy of nothing great, but nothing awful...all while having the best QB in the league would be better than "amazing offense, terrible D"

[Captain_Ben]

And yet every year, especially from 2011 - 2014, we had the most explosive and historic NFL offenses in the history of the game and it still won the same amount of trophies as the 2022 Packers will.

And those years it was "well it was a bad defense"

Your type of team has been had on the Packers. Many times. And it failed to win the trophy every year.

2011 - giants scored 37 points
2012 - 49ers scored 45 points
2013 - kaep couldn't be stopped running.
2014 - seahawks scored special teams and B-o-s-t-ic-k


His name is banned on the forum lol

shame we couldnt at least make all sides of the ball "not a liability". Notice I didnt say we needed to make all sides great. We needed to not have the WORST STs in the league last year. We needed a defense who could hold a team under-lets say 30???? in the january weather. This year, we didnt need multiple HOFers at WR, but maybe something more than Watkins and the rookies.

Point being, for some weird reason this org has gone all in one of side of the ball while neglecting the others. Back in the day the O was loaded, then every good draft pick went to the D, then the STs was completely forgotten as we promoted from within on an awful unit. Its weird how we play whack a mole to fix something, while just completely ignoring other aspects.

I think a strategy of nothing great, but nothing awful...all while having the best QB in the league would be better than "amazing offense, terrible D"

I think the best teams do have blue chip playmakers, but perhaps more importantly, they don't suck in any facet of the game. Like those New England teams. Of course there were the Moss's and Gronks, etc. But they were consistent in all 3 phases. It's those guys that aren't the big names who just show up and "do their job" who make the difference.

The closest we came to that IMO was 2014. But one quarter of stupidity can ruin everything, as we learned firsthand. HAHA giving up the lob up in the endzone, Peppers telling the DB to slide after making the INT, and $%&#. That's a level of stupidity that really cannot be made up.

Yes AR could have played better in these games, but come on people. Be honest here. He has had to deal with a WHOLE lot of stupid over the years.

[Drj820]

2011 - giants scored 37 points
2012 - 49ers scored 45 points
2013 - kaep couldn't be stopped running.
2014 - seahawks scored special teams and B-o-s-t-ic-k


His name is banned on the forum lol

shame we couldnt at least make all sides of the ball "not a liability". Notice I didnt say we needed to make all sides great. We needed to not have the WORST STs in the league last year. We needed a defense who could hold a team under-lets say 30???? in the january weather. This year, we didnt need multiple HOFers at WR, but maybe something more than Watkins and the rookies.

Point being, for some weird reason this org has gone all in one of side of the ball while neglecting the others. Back in the day the O was loaded, then every good draft pick went to the D, then the STs was completely forgotten as we promoted from within on an awful unit. Its weird how we play whack a mole to fix something, while just completely ignoring other aspects.

I think a strategy of nothing great, but nothing awful...all while having the best QB in the league would be better than "amazing offense, terrible D"

I think the best teams do have blue chip playmakers, but perhaps more importantly, they don't suck in any facet of the game. Like those New England teams. Of course there were the Moss's and Gronks, etc. But they were consistent in all 3 phases. It's those guys that aren't the big names who just show up and "do their job" who make the difference.

The closest we came to that IMO was 2014. But one quarter of stupidity can ruin everything, as we learned firsthand. HAHA giving up the lob up in the endzone, Peppers telling the DB to slide after making the INT, and $%&#. That's a level of stupidity that really cannot be made up.

Yes AR could have played better in these games, but come on people. Be honest here. He has had to deal with a WHOLE lot of stupid over the years.

great post. the best teams do have some stars, but more importantly they dont have anything that automatically sabotages themselves. Weve always had a side of the ball do that for us and we knew it going in.

[go pak go]

I think a strategy of nothing great, but nothing awful...all while having the best QB in the league would be better than "amazing offense, terrible D"

You are describing 2015.

[Yoop]

I never said all-pro either. I said "good." That's right, good players are also expensive, even if they're not all-pro.

You didn't think MVS was good enough to pair next to Adams. KC gave him $10m. Where are these "good" players you want that will not break the bank to field all at once? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer).




Oh, we can just name a random teams as proof for our position? Cool. The Patriots won six SuperBowls, I rest my case.

Philly is starting a QB on a rookie deal for crying out loud. You don't think THAT makes life much easier for them to build a well-rounded roster, especially compared to a team like us where that one guy takes up like half our cap space??

NE won 6 SB's mostly with Average talent, KC has a more expensive QB then Rodgers, yet replace receivers in a instint if one should leave with a ready to play vet, we draft raw not ready to play rookies and expect the same success, it's not about what you pay the QB as much as it is the focus point of the resources you have to spend, if almost every high draft pick goes to defense obviously the positions that score points will suffer.

I keep saying it to the point of redundancy yet it just doesn't get through to you, defense beyond simply top 15 or so is near impossible to sustain, ( what do you think I make this &%$@ up) talent in this FA era goes out the door faster then you can replace it, not to mention injury's or decline in play, and if you pay attention you will see QB's dissecting positional weakness game in game out, so when you put all your top resources into building a unit so good, the rest of the team suffers, what is it about that is so hard for people to understand, it's been on display right here all season, I get it it's so much easier to just blame the QB

And yet every year, especially from 2011 - 2014, we had the most explosive and historic NFL offenses in the history of the game and it still won the same amount of trophies as the 2022 Packers will.

And those years it was "well it was a bad defense"

Your type of team has been had on the Packers. Many times. And it failed to win the trophy every year.

those weren't just average defenses, and your help making my point is appreciated, those where well below average, and do to injury we lost whole position groups of starter talent almost every season, and of course we had some of the worst ST's year in year out.

so it's not just average, just better then worst in the league or close to it would have helped those great passing teams.
and as we know, getting in the PO's is the first step, after that teams that are at least good at teams, defense and passing and Running do best, Balance offense is hard to defend, to often we've been out of balance, just as we are this year, no better example of that then 2011

[LombardiTime]

If only Gutey had spent the resources he spent on Love for WR help or maybe even drafted a playmaker at 12 instead of busticles rashan Gary after pouring 100m into the position weeks before

The two biggest blunders IMO was not taking DK over Savage and then taking Love instead of Higgins or Pittman.

The DK one to me was obvious. I thought he was easily a top 10 talent. I wouldn’t have taken him 12 because I thought Jeff Simmons was a top 5 talent but to not take DK in the 20s for a team in desperate need of receivers is fireable. It inly makes it worse we took Savage who I thought was a major reach in the 20s. I felt he was a round 2 safety and certainly not the best in his class.

The Love pick to me is still the most fireable offense. Not only was the pick bad but the timing of it made zero sense.

The Love pick has been debated to death and there is nothing new to discuss unless and until he gets on the field (or does not get on the field) at some point this season.

But the Savage pick is gaining traction as a topic of discussion and not in a good way for the Packers.

That Savage is playing poorly in year four is almost universally accepted by Packer fans. He avoids contact and has not made a big play in a long time. Most would prefer to move on Savage and few would contend he has proven worthy of his first round selection. That the Packers picked up his fifth year option despite their tight salary cap is just salt in the wound.

But the fact the Packers traded two 4th round picks to move up from 30 to 21 to take Savage has not been talked about much. Investing two 4th rounders and a late first rounder on a player is a hefty commitment of resources. With Savage playing so poorly that investment really has not paid off and it is not even close.

Finally, the fact that not only DK Metcalf but also Deebo Samuel and AJ Brown were also right there for the Packers to stay at 30 and select (they went 36, 51, and 64) is really painful when we see all three of them make big play after big play each week and the Packers are featuring Alan Lazard, Sammy Watkins, and Randall Cobb.

[LombardiTime]

2011 - giants scored 37 points
2012 - 49ers scored 45 points
2013 - kaep couldn't be stopped running.
2014 - seahawks scored special teams and B-o-s-t-ic-k


His name is banned on the forum lol

shame we couldnt at least make all sides of the ball "not a liability". Notice I didnt say we needed to make all sides great. We needed to not have the WORST STs in the league last year. We needed a defense who could hold a team under-lets say 30???? in the january weather. This year, we didnt need multiple HOFers at WR, but maybe something more than Watkins and the rookies.

Point being, for some weird reason this org has gone all in one of side of the ball while neglecting the others. Back in the day the O was loaded, then every good draft pick went to the D, then the STs was completely forgotten as we promoted from within on an awful unit. Its weird how we play whack a mole to fix something, while just completely ignoring other aspects.

I think a strategy of nothing great, but nothing awful...all while having the best QB in the league would be better than "amazing offense, terrible D"

I think the best teams do have blue chip playmakers, but perhaps more importantly, they don't suck in any facet of the game. Like those New England teams. Of course there were the Moss's and Gronks, etc. But they were consistent in all 3 phases. It's those guys that aren't the big names who just show up and "do their job" who make the difference.

The closest we came to that IMO was 2014. But one quarter of stupidity can ruin everything, as we learned firsthand. HAHA giving up the lob up in the endzone, Peppers telling the DB to slide after making the INT, and $%&#. That's a level of stupidity that really cannot be made up.

Yes AR could have played better in these games, but come on people. Be honest here. He has had to deal with a WHOLE lot of stupid over the years.

Could not agree more with your all 3 phases of the game statement and I never understood why, with Rodgers at QB, GB failed at Defense and Special Teams.

In 2014, we watched the worst Special Teams in the NFL coordinated by a guy who got fired after the year and never coached in the NFL again not only get fooled for a fake field goal touchdown but then botch an onside kick in one of the all time worst Special Teams playoff performances in NFL history. That awful performance against Seattle may have been surpassed in the latest playoff loss to SF last January.

For years, Green Bay inexplicably almost took pride in its disdain for Special Teams.

Meanwhile, over in New England, Bill Belichick never subscribed to the Packer approach to Special Teams and instead emphasized the contributions of guys like Larry Izzo, Nate Ebner, and especially Matthew Slater to the team's success.

When New England won the Super Bowl in 2014, the Patriots had the third ranked Special Teams in the NFL.

https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/cowbo ... -rankings/

That the Patriots featured top 10 defenses year after year with Brady at QB while the Packers did not has been discussed ad nauseam.

Rodgers deserves criticism for the fact he never returned to a second Super Bowl in Green Bay.

Those responsible for the play of the Packers' defense and special teams since 2010 deserve even more.

[Yoop]

shame we couldnt at least make all sides of the ball "not a liability". Notice I didnt say we needed to make all sides great. We needed to not have the WORST STs in the league last year. We needed a defense who could hold a team under-lets say 30???? in the january weather. This year, we didnt need multiple HOFers at WR, but maybe something more than Watkins and the rookies.

Point being, for some weird reason this org has gone all in one of side of the ball while neglecting the others. Back in the day the O was loaded, then every good draft pick went to the D, then the STs was completely forgotten as we promoted from within on an awful unit. Its weird how we play whack a mole to fix something, while just completely ignoring other aspects.

I think a strategy of nothing great, but nothing awful...all while having the best QB in the league would be better than "amazing offense, terrible D"

I think the best teams do have blue chip playmakers, but perhaps more importantly, they don't suck in any facet of the game. Like those New England teams. Of course there were the Moss's and Gronks, etc. But they were consistent in all 3 phases. It's those guys that aren't the big names who just show up and "do their job" who make the difference.

The closest we came to that IMO was 2014. But one quarter of stupidity can ruin everything, as we learned firsthand. HAHA giving up the lob up in the endzone, Peppers telling the DB to slide after making the INT, and $%&#. That's a level of stupidity that really cannot be made up.

Yes AR could have played better in these games, but come on people. Be honest here. He has had to deal with a WHOLE lot of stupid over the years.

Could not agree more with your all 3 phases of the game statement and I never understood why, with Rodgers at QB, GB failed at Defense and Special Teams.

In 2014, we watched the worst Special Teams in the NFL coordinated by a guy who got fired after the year and never coached in the NFL again not only get fooled for a fake field goal touchdown but then botch an onside kick in one of the all time worst Special Teams playoff performances in NFL history. That awful performance against Seattle may have been surpassed in the latest playoff loss to SF last January.

For years, Green Bay inexplicably almost took pride in its disdain for Special Teams.

Meanwhile, over in New England, Bill Belichick never subscribed to the Packer approach to Special Teams and instead emphasized the contributions of guys like Larry Izzo, Nate Ebner, and especially Matthew Slater to the team's success.

When New England won the Super Bowl in 2014, the Patriots had the third ranked Special Teams in the NFL.

https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/cowbo ... -rankings/

That the Patriots featured top 10 defenses year after year with Brady at QB while the Packers did not has been discussed ad nauseam.

Rodgers deserves criticism for the fact he never returned to a second Super Bowl in Green Bay.

Those responsible for the play of the Packers' defense and special teams since 2010 deserve even more.

come on guys, it is so much easier to just blame the QB, these mundane conversations about last in the league special teams and bottom 3rd defenses has been analyzed as less of a issue any 1st ballot 50 mil. quarterback is expected to over come those minor issues

whats most insane about all of this are the high draft picks donated towards having a good to great defense, we are on our 3rd DC in 5 years and with basically the same talent the defense has declined during the 2nd season of the last 2, I complained of a talent issue during Capers last few seasons, these two had better talent yet we see and hear players complain about scheme, Johnny Gray steps in for Pettine and the defense does great, we should have given this gig to Gray 5 years ago

[TheSkeptic]

It seems to me that those who say that it was not the QB's fault when the ST had a beyond horrible game were saying that it was Love's fault when he had to start vs the Chiefs and the ST had a beyond horrible game. But all people remember is that the Packers lost and Love could not deal with the pressure of being put in horrible starting position behind in the score

[Yoop]

It seems to me that those who say that it was not the QB's fault when the ST had a beyond horrible game were saying that it was Love's fault when he had to start vs the Chiefs and the ST had a beyond horrible game. But all people remember is that the Packers lost and Love could not deal with the pressure of being put in horrible starting position behind in the score

Rodgers over came pressure and won despite lousy special teams for years, special team didn't cause Love to freeze in the pocket, forget his progression and act like a HS QB

[Captain_Ben]

It seems to me that those who say that it was not the QB's fault when the ST had a beyond horrible game were saying that it was Love's fault when he had to start vs the Chiefs and the ST had a beyond horrible game. But all people remember is that the Packers lost and Love could not deal with the pressure of being put in horrible starting position behind in the score

Ok in theory we could bench Rodgers and play Love. What I believe would happen in that scenario is that Love's presence on the field would drag this team down into an abyss of suck, the depths of which we did not know were possible. And bringing it back to your post, no I would not blame Love in that situation. I would blame whomever decided to play him when we have a healthy Rodgers. Love is just doing the best that he can, which is all that can be asked of him. The thing is, we already know that he is bad. Inserting bad QB into bad roster w/dumb coaching is not going to result in improved level of play. It's common sense, come on man.

[AmishMafia]

It seems to me that those who say that it was not the QB's fault when the ST had a beyond horrible game were saying that it was Love's fault when he had to start vs the Chiefs and the ST had a beyond horrible game. But all people remember is that the Packers lost and Love could not deal with the pressure of being put in horrible starting position behind in the score

Ok in theory we could bench Rodgers and play Love. What I believe would happen in that scenario is that Love's presence on the field would drag this team down into an abyss of suck, the depths of which we did not know were possible. And bringing it back to your post, no I would not blame Love in that situation. I would blame whomever decided to play him when we have a healthy Rodgers. Love is just doing the best that he can, which is all that can be asked of him. The thing is, we already know that he is bad. Inserting bad QB into bad roster w/dumb coaching is not going to result in improved level of play. It's common sense, come on man.

But again, is Love really a step down from Rodgers' level of play? Love will likely improve and Rodgers isn't.

NFL Radio had a bit on the Packers and how terrible Rodgers is playing and that there is a complete lack of leadership on the field. Said the fact that he is publicly blaming others when many of their issues is at the QB position has created a very negative culture.

I think we are a better team without Rodgers at this point.