Rodgers Watch 2023

[bud fox]

Add to my previous post: the Packers with Rodgers are just an NFL Purgatory team, the only thing different about it from your usual NFL Purgatory team is Rodgers provides the delusion that you are not in purgatory but even a contender.

A few teams that have built up a good supporting cast because they didn't have an Elite QB taking up cap can maybe be legit contenders with Rodgers. The Packers are not that team.

No some teams built a good supporting cast because they didn't have to draft defense 100 years straight because continually missing on picks.

[Pckfn23]

It wasn't just the Bahk play, it was free rushers beating every position on the line at different times last season, and pushing our blockers backwards to the point that Rodgers had to reset, you keep defending this stuff as though you never even watched the games, and for you to think that doesn't have a cumulative affect on Rodgers mindset sends to me a clear message that you have no idea how that stuff works, freaking zero.

I "keep defending this stuff as though you never even watched the games?" What am I defending and when did I defend it? I have always said the pass protection was not good at times last year, so I don't think that would count as defending... If Aaron Rodgers as a seasoned MVP has issue with pressures having a cumulative affect even after several games where it should not have, then that may be a sign that it is Aaron Rodgers at that point and not the OL. I would say the evaluation of "freaking zero," is a bit off

you say you played the game, you even say you coach it, so when you down play those very critical aspect of the QB position I know your mind is biased.

People can't be critical of the QB position and if they are, they are biased?

and for a FO to make a decision to keep Rodgers is a lot different then refusing to bring in quality at any position for 2/3rds of a decade let alone a position that tends to make the difference in most games as WR does, how in thee hell anyone can support that crap and then say in the same breath, well if the FO decides to keep Rodgers it's no different then that,

Who is "supporting that crap?" It's hard to do say something in the same breath when it was never said in the first place. If others are being shunned for criticizing the front office because these people, "think you know something they[FO] don't," then it stands to reason that no one here should be criticizing the front office. That's the logic of it.

I and @go pak go are equal opportunity criticizers, horse manure, you 2 defended the OL, the WR at every turn, and when Rodgers throws 3 or 4 yrds away from the receiver, it's on the receiver, no way Rodgers is that inaccurate, and even the under thrown passes, which weren't many can be blamed on the thumb, I had to listen to you and other rag on Rodgers for 5 months, and rarely ever did you blame anyone or anything else, defense, sure, but that was so screwed up anyone that breaths did.

Repeating a fallacy does not make it true. [mention]go pak go[/mention] and myself have not defended the OL and WRs at every turn. They have gotten criticism from us as well. So, if a receiver is missed by 3-4 yards it is always on the receiver and Rodgers is in no way culpable for that miss? That's an interesting statement and one that I think should be reread. It brings a sort of perspective to what is being dealt with here.
We didn't rag on Rodgers. We pointed out bad plays along with the good. We also pointed out the bad and the good from other players and sides of the ball. It's simply false to say otherwise and easily verifiable by looking at GDTs.

Ultimately this argument continues, as it always does, because stances are being assigned to others that they do not and have had. If their stances on these subjects and the history of their stances could be acknowledged this may not have to be rehashed over and over.

[bud fox]

don't come here telling me about OL blocking, how the hell is Rodgers suppose to be able to tell if a rusher is going to break free after he has the OL man pushed back to him,

So how close does a DL need to be to the QB, according to the vaunted yoop pressure system, for him to be "pushed back to him" as opposed to not being pressured? You're all about "football IQ" so please educate us lowly plebians.

Pressure is one of the most poorly graded stats. Too subjective.

The reality is Rodgers helps his line more than any other qb. His pocket awareness and movement is second to none.

[texas]

Also, I say it every offseason but I think the ability to run/scramble is pretty much mandatory for QBs if you have any hope of winning the Super Bowl. The obvious counterexample is Brady, but Brady 1) took a half salary; 2) had the best defensive coach maybe ever for 6 of his 7 SBs; 3) was able to recruit superstars to come there and play with him to a degree that few others have.

And I think Rodgers could run, he just doesn't. We're not talking a run-first or 10 runs per game type of guy, but we're talking a guy who can pick up a couple first downs with his feet every playoff game, which, given our slim losing playoff margins and the notable instances of misfiring on passes when the outside was wide open to take off, had Rodgers been able to do for the past decade, would be the difference between 1 SB appearance and probably like 3 or 4. Simply had he been more prone to taking the easy 7-10 yards on a run rather than going for the 25-yd downfield throw to Davante (or whatever).

[Labrev]

don't come here telling me about OL blocking, how the hell is Rodgers suppose to be able to tell if a rusher is going to break free after he has the OL man pushed back to him,

So how close does a DL need to be to the QB, according to the vaunted yoop pressure system, for him to be "pushed back to him" as opposed to not being pressured? You're all about "football IQ" so please educate us lowly plebians.

Pressure is one of the most poorly graded stats. Too subjective.

The reality is Rodgers helps his line more than any other qb. His pocket awareness and movement is second to none.

Holy &%$@, Rodgers fans really have no clue about their favorite player.

Rodgers is notoriously one of the most difficult QBs to block for because he has historically held onto the ball for a very long time, scrambling around and looking for shot plays, which leads to longer blocking and often times holding. His legs allowed him to buy more time, but the idea that he's an OL-friendly QB in a broad sense is outrageously incorrect.

This is not even some haterz take or whatever, it's just a fact. Countless former OL teammates of him have attested to this. And because he's arguably the best off-script QB of all time, for years nobody could argue with it, but as he has aged and been losing his legs, it's caught up and made his play way less effective.

Honestly you guys...

[bud fox]

So how close does a DL need to be to the QB, according to the vaunted yoop pressure system, for him to be "pushed back to him" as opposed to not being pressured? You're all about "football IQ" so please educate us lowly plebians.

Pressure is one of the most poorly graded stats. Too subjective.

The reality is Rodgers helps his line more than any other qb. His pocket awareness and movement is second to none.

Holy &%$@, Rodgers fans really have no clue about their favorite player.

Rodgers is notoriously one of the most difficult QBs to block for because he has historically held onto the ball for a very long time, scrambling around and looking for shot plays, which leads to longer blocking and often times holding. His legs allowed him to buy more time, but the idea that he's an OL-friendly QB in a broad sense is outrageously incorrect.

And because he's arguably the best off-script QB of all time, for years nobody could argue with it, but as he has aged and been losing his legs, it's caught up and made his play way less effective.

Honestly you guys...

Wrong.

If you mean the plays last longer than yes, but he makes it easy on the oline with his pocket movement.

[Labrev]

At this point, being a Rodgerz haterz is just a reflection of actually accurately and factually knowing Rodgers as a player, not an emotional pathology like the opposite stance is.

Rodgers fanboys will just insist whatever is convenient to their mindless worship of the guy. You can say Rodgers wears #12 and they will attack you and say he wears #999 but you are trying to short-change him with a much smaller number. It's absurd.

>"Rodgers is a pocket passer!" No, his career highlight reel revolves around off-script scramble drill plays "Rodgers has not had many injuries over his career!" ... takes just totally out-of-touch with reality.

[Captain_Ben]

I at least can understand why Rodgers would have so many homers, given his career accomplishments.

I am perplexed as to how some are already all over "our next future HOF QB" Jordan Love's nuts, however.

[bud fox]

At this point, being a Rodgerz haterz is just a reflection of actually accurately and factually knowing Rodgers as a player, not an emotional pathology like the opposite stance is.

Rodgers fanboys will just insist whatever is convenient to their mindless worship of the guy. You can say Rodgers wears #12 and they will attack you and say he wears #999 but you are trying to short-change him with a much smaller number. It's absurd.

>"Rodgers is a pocket passer!" No, his career highlight reel revolves around off-script scramble drill plays "Rodgers has not had many injuries over his career!" ... takes just totally out-of-touch with reality.

Not sure what to say if you don't think Rodgers is good in the pocket.

Makes sense why Rodgers is blamed so much on the forum.

[Pckfn23]

I am perplexed as to how some are already all over "our next future HOF QB" Jordan Love's nuts, however.

Who is "all over "our next future HOF QB" Jordan Love's nuts?"

[bud fox]

I am perplexed as to how some are already all over "our next future HOF QB" Jordan Love's nuts, however.

Who is "all over "our next future HOF QB" Jordan Love's nuts?"

If you advocate for Love over Rodgers you are over his nuts.

Pushing for a guy with one terrible start over 4 time mvp and back to back only 2 seasons ago.

Only logical reason could be that you're all over his nuts.

[Yoop]

Repeating a fallacy does not make it true. @go pak go and myself have not defended the OL and WRs at every turn. They have gotten criticism from us as well. So, if a receiver is missed by 3-4 yards it is always on the receiver and Rodgers is in no way culpable for that miss? That's an interesting statement and one that I think should be reread. It brings a sort of perspective to what is being dealt with here.
We didn't rag on Rodgers. We pointed out bad plays along with the good. We also pointed out the bad and the good from other players and sides of the ball. It's simply false to say otherwise and easily verifiable by looking at GDTs.

Ultimately this argument continues, as it always does, because stances are being assigned to others that they do not and have had. If their stances on these subjects and the history of their stances could be acknowledged this may not have to be rehashed over and over.

game day thread??????? will show that you are quick to blame players that did nothing wrong, and you do it a lot, I read the GDT's to
almost every time I criticized the OL last year I could count on you bringing some stat to show the OL did OK, same with RB yac, it was like clockwork from you, reality, the OL blocking sucked, no one is making up how poorly Myers did as a run blocker, he also got pushed around in pass pro too, same with Runyan, I tend to lay some of the blame for them on the coaching, because the whole OL play declined from the season prior and we didn't have our 2 best OL players in 2021. and stats show that our RB's where among tops in the league for yards after contact, yet I remember us having a argument about that, basically you have made a argument out of just about every opinion I have, thing is I'am rarely wrong.

you've defended the receiver situation, just as GPG, Labrev and all Rodgers raggers have , if you'd just admit the frailty of your opinions it would be so much easier to have a civil conversation, but when you become so stubborn as to not accept those reality's and just blame Rodgers for not seeing someone open like a Lazard who doesn't get open often enough, or MVS who does actually screw up routes and can't recover to get to the pitch point, or receivers that do fail to catch balls, and act so sure it's Rodgers fault for that and other questionable fails then the conversation just becomes frustrating, you guys cut Rodgers no slack, just because the FO gave him to much money, ya can't expect him to make up for the failures of others, or be even as good as he has been in the past, when others are not, it's not reasonable.

put last years Rodgers back on the 2020 team and imho we are back to 13-3, and I simply can not say that concerning Love, point is imo you've degraded Rodgers in order to make Love more favorable, but thats another topic.

[Pckfn23]

I am perplexed as to how some are already all over "our next future HOF QB" Jordan Love's nuts, however.

Who is "all over "our next future HOF QB" Jordan Love's nuts?"

If you advocate for Love over Rodgers you are over his nuts.

Pushing for a guy with one terrible start over 4 time mvp and back to back only 2 seasons ago.

Only logical reason could be that you're all over his nuts.

I would say that's some weird logic to determine people are "all over [his] nuts.". I would like to trade Rodgers, but I also don't know if Love is a starting QB, yet.

[Labrev]

Wrong.

If you mean the plays last longer than yes, but he makes it easy on the oline with his pocket movement.

Pocket movement is useful to avoiding sacks.

It does not make the actual job of blocking easier for the OL. It only means that if they get beaten, Rodgers might evade the rusher anyway and the OL's stats do not look as bad because they don't give up a sack on that play...

... but Rodgers more than made up for that by taking a lot of sacks on many other plays due to holding onto the ball for a long time. Sacks are to Rodgers what INTs were to Favre.

Not sure what to say if you don't think Rodgers is good in the pocket.

It's not about him being good/bad in the pocket. I once said something about Rodgers's penchant for scrambling, which anyone with very basic knowledge of his career knows is true because those off-script scramble plays are how he made a name for himself.

But some Rodgers fanboy interpreted it as an attack(!) on him and told me no, Rodgers is a "pocket passer," which, no he is not, not in that sense of the word that he prefers to stand back in the pocket and fire like Brady or a Manning (owing in part to the fact that those two never had Rodgers's mobility in the first place). His preference is to extend the take the shot play because his career highlights have come predominantly off of improvisation, not sitting back and playing point guard.

Again, this is not love or hate, this is just basic knowledge of the player in question.

Actually I'm pretty sure that was you who said that lol.

[YoHoChecko]

How are we back to the old argument here? It seemed like everyone was talking about here we are now and what to do next and suddenly it's a point-by-point "does the board hate Rodgers" debate?

Rodgers is out of his darkness. He'll likely chill for a few days and digest. He'll talk to the team. We'll know before free agency (3 weeks!) what his intentions are, and we'll have tons of arguments based on that.

But, like, we all sort of know this debate. Now we're not even debating about Rodgers, but debating about what the debates about Rodgers have been about?

[Yoop]

So how close does a DL need to be to the QB, according to the vaunted yoop pressure system, for him to be "pushed back to him" as opposed to not being pressured? You're all about "football IQ" so please educate us lowly plebians.

Pressure is one of the most poorly graded stats. Too subjective.

The reality is Rodgers helps his line more than any other qb. His pocket awareness and movement is second to none.

Holy &%$@, Rodgers fans really have no clue about their favorite player.

Rodgers is notoriously one of the most difficult QBs to block for because he has historically held onto the ball for a very long time, scrambling around and looking for shot plays, which leads to longer blocking and often times holding. His legs allowed him to buy more time, but the idea that he's an OL-friendly QB in a broad sense is outrageously incorrect.

This is not even some haterz take or whatever, it's just a fact. Countless former OL teammates of him have attested to this. And because he's arguably the best off-script QB of all time, for years nobody could argue with it, but as he has aged and been losing his legs, it's caught up and made his play way less effective.

Honestly you guys...

weak, your creating your own narrative, Rodgers wont extend plays unless no one separates, your confusing yourself into thinking we've had receivers that separate, and that has been the heart of my argument for years, we actually havn't had them except for Adams, and one of him has not been enough, look what not having him was like, we had spurts of excellence from WAtson, less from Doubs, and steady Eddie from Lazard, 780 yrds, and he was our most productive receiver, and you wonder why Rodgers didn't do well, thats not a good situation for any QB.

[bud fox]

Wrong.

If you mean the plays last longer than yes, but he makes it easy on the oline with his pocket movement.

Pocket movement is useful to avoiding sacks.

It does not make the actual job of blocking easier for the OL. It only means that if they get beaten, Rodgers might evade the rusher anyway and the OL's stats do not look as bad because they don't give up a sack on that play...

... but Rodgers more than made up for that by taking a lot of sacks on many other plays due to holding onto the ball for a long time. Sacks are to Rodgers what INTs were to Favre.

Not sure what to say if you don't think Rodgers is good in the pocket.

It's not about him being good/bad in the pocket. I once said something about Rodgers's penchant for scrambling, which anyone with very basic knowledge of his career knows is true because those off-script scramble plays are how he made a name for himself.

But some Rodgers fanboy interpreted it as an attack(!) on him and told me no, Rodgers is a "pocket passer," which, no he is not, not in that sense of the word that he prefers to stand back in the pocket and fire like Brady or a Manning (owing in part to the fact that those two never had Rodgers's mobility in the first place). His preference is to extend the take the shot play because his career highlights have come predominantly off of improvisation, not sitting back and playing point guard.

Again, this is not love or hate, this is just basic knowledge of the player in question.

Actually I'm pretty sure that was you who said that lol.

Mahomes and Lawrence are the only qbs that played 17 games with less sacks than Rodgers.

Rodgers allows his tackles to give up a quick outside rush because they know he will step up. He bounces around the pocket when he sees potential pressure.

I don't know what to say but you are wrong on this. This is why he is a 50m qb this is why he is 4 time mvp. These things should add up if you don't actually recognise it when watching the game.

[Pckfn23]

Repeating a fallacy does not make it true. @go pak go and myself have not defended the OL and WRs at every turn. They have gotten criticism from us as well. So, if a receiver is missed by 3-4 yards it is always on the receiver and Rodgers is in no way culpable for that miss? That's an interesting statement and one that I think should be reread. It brings a sort of perspective to what is being dealt with here.
We didn't rag on Rodgers. We pointed out bad plays along with the good. We also pointed out the bad and the good from other players and sides of the ball. It's simply false to say otherwise and easily verifiable by looking at GDTs.

Ultimately this argument continues, as it always does, because stances are being assigned to others that they do not and have had. If their stances on these subjects and the history of their stances could be acknowledged this may not have to be rehashed over and over.

game day thread??????? will show that you are quick to blame players that did nothing wrong, and you do it a lot, I read the GDT's to
almost every time I criticized the OL last year I could count on you bringing some stat to show the OL did OK, same with RB yac, it was like clockwork from you, reality, the OL blocking sucked, no one is making up how poorly Myers did as a run blocker, he also got pushed around in pass pro too, same with Runyan, I tend to lay some of the blame for them on the coaching, because the whole OL play declined from the season prior and we didn't have our 2 best OL players in 2021. and stats show that our RB's where among tops in the league for yards after contact, yet I remember us having a argument about that, basically you have made a argument out of just about every opinion I have, thing is I'am rarely wrong.

you've defended the receiver situation, just as GPG, Labrev and all Rodgers raggers have , if you'd just admit the frailty of your opinions it would be so much easier to have a civil conversation, but when you become so stubborn as to not accept those reality's and just blame Rodgers for not seeing someone open like a Lazard who doesn't get open often enough, or MVS who does actually screw up routes and can't recover to get to the pitch point, or receivers that do fail to catch balls, and act so sure it's Rodgers fault for that and other questionable fails then the conversation just becomes frustrating, you guys cut Rodgers no slack, just because the FO gave him to much money, ya can't expect him to make up for the failures of others, or be even as good as he has been in the past, when others are not, it's not reasonable.

put last years Rodgers back on the 2020 team and imho we are back to 13-3, and I simply can not say that concerning Love, point is imo you've degraded Rodgers in order to make Love more favorable, but thats another topic.

I thought I only criticized Rodgers and defended all other players?? Nope, I didn't bring some stat to show the OL did OK, especially early in the year and the OL did not suck all year.

What does Myers doing poorly in the run game have to do with pass blocking?

What does YAC from our RBs have to do with Rodgers? Again, that argument is being misconstrued. I argued Dillon was not particularly good after contact, but Jones was.

I have defended the receiver situation? This keeps being said, but it simply isn't true and no proof has even been brought.

Why does someone have to submit to your narrative for you to have a civil conversation?

You bring about all these examples, but they either mis-characterize the argument being made or misremember the play entirely. There are times that Rodgers screws up. Is it fair to call him out for it?

What would real help is to just read what is being typed, not into it as if there is some ulterior motive. There isn't.

[Pckfn23]

But, like, we all sort of know this debate. Now we're not even debating about Rodgers, but debating about what the debates about Rodgers have been about?

It's ALWAYS what it devolves into as there is no room for nuance in the eyes of some.

[Labrev]

Mahomes and Lawrence are the only qbs that played 17 games with less sacks than Rodgers.

Rodgers allows his tackles to give up a quick outside rush because they know he will step up. He bounces around the pocket when he sees potential pressure.

I don't know what to say but you are wrong on this. This is why he is a 50m qb this is why he is 4 time mvp. These things should add up if you don't actually recognise it when watching the game.

One season with relatively fewer sacks does not detract from what's historically true about him over the span of his career.

He does step up in the pocket, yes, that is one thing he does that makes it easier for 2 of the 5 starting OL, albeit something pretty much every QB does if they are any good. They still tend to have to block for him for a pretty long time, which is a tall order against NFL-caliber defenders.

If I am wrong then tell Rodgers's former OL teammates that did the actual blocking for him that they are also wrong, they have routinely attested to the fact that the way he plays lends itself to an extra level of difficulty.

If for some reason you are truly invested in pushing back against this (true) narrative, it would make way more sense to counter with "Yeah, and if you look at the plays he made from doing so, it was worth it" ... than to insist on something with no basis in reality. God you guys are so bad at this I have to do the work for you.