Rodgers Reconciliation Solution Thread

[Labrev]

Just bring more useless hope to my Viking brethern.

Is there any other kind??

[Raptorman]

Just bring more useless hope to my Viking brethern.

Is there any other kind??

Yup. Because Rodgers has figured out that the only way he wins another SupernBowl in Green Bay is if they put a good defense together. And he doesn’t see that happening in Green Bay. 8 times in his career in Green Bay he gave them a top 10 offense. And 3 times they have had a top 10 defense.

[Packfntk]

Just bring more useless hope to my Viking brethern.

Is there any other kind??

Yup. Because Rodgers has figured out that the only way he wins another SupernBowl in Green Bay is if they put a good defense together. And he doesn’t see that happening in Green Bay. 8 times in his career in Green Bay he gave them a top 10 offense. And 3 times they have had a top 10 defense.

They have a good defense right now. Top 10. Are they great? No. Do they have lots of talent? Yes. Are there holes? A few, but this defense is good enough to win.

[lupedafiasco]

Is there any other kind??

Yup. Because Rodgers has figured out that the only way he wins another SupernBowl in Green Bay is if they put a good defense together. And he doesn’t see that happening in Green Bay. 8 times in his career in Green Bay he gave them a top 10 offense. And 3 times they have had a top 10 defense.

They have a good defense right now. Top 10. Are they great? No. Do they have lots of talent? Yes. Are there holes? A few, but this defense is good enough to win.

The problem is, as it has been for a decade, the Packers will refuse to fix those holes for years at a time.

[Yoop]

Yup. Because Rodgers has figured out that the only way he wins another SupernBowl in Green Bay is if they put a good defense together. And he doesn’t see that happening in Green Bay. 8 times in his career in Green Bay he gave them a top 10 offense. And 3 times they have had a top 10 defense.

They have a good defense right now. Top 10. Are they great? No. Do they have lots of talent? Yes. Are there holes? A few, but this defense is good enough to win.

The problem is, as it has been for a decade, the Packers will refuse to fix those holes for years at a time.

thats because our QB is way to expensive, once we trade him for Surtain and a bunch of draft picks all the holes will be filled, and this team will be ready to rock, well maybe, urr well, possibly, well who knows

[Drj820]

Yup. Because Rodgers has figured out that the only way he wins another SupernBowl in Green Bay is if they put a good defense together. And he doesn’t see that happening in Green Bay. 8 times in his career in Green Bay he gave them a top 10 offense. And 3 times they have had a top 10 defense.

They have a good defense right now. Top 10. Are they great? No. Do they have lots of talent? Yes. Are there holes? A few, but this defense is good enough to win.

The problem is, as it has been for a decade, the Packers will refuse to fix those holes for years at a time.

You are correct that every year we enter with glaring holes and only seem to be interested in correcting the ones in the secondary. That said, we have spent so much loot on attempting to fix the secondary, yet for years everyone seemed to keep their jobs. The current staff can obviously scout OL and maybe some other positions, but we needed some accountability for all those busts, or to bring someone new in just to scout defense. The defense didnt suck for lack of trying. We just drafted tons of bust on top of someone thinking we don’t need decent ILB play to be a defense. Fire whoever thinks that please.

[lupedafiasco]

They have a good defense right now. Top 10. Are they great? No. Do they have lots of talent? Yes. Are there holes? A few, but this defense is good enough to win.

The problem is, as it has been for a decade, the Packers will refuse to fix those holes for years at a time.

thats because our QB is way to expensive, once we trade him for Surtain and a bunch of draft picks all the holes will be filled, and this team will be ready to rock, well maybe, urr well, possibly, well who knows

Even when Rodgers was on a team friendly deal the team would refuse to solve problems we saw year in and year out.

[go pak go]

The problem is, as it has been for a decade, the Packers will refuse to fix those holes for years at a time.

thats because our QB is way to expensive, once we trade him for Surtain and a bunch of draft picks all the holes will be filled, and this team will be ready to rock, well maybe, urr well, possibly, well who knows

Even when Rodgers was on a team friendly deal the team would refuse to solve problems we saw year in and year out.

Yeah. The Packers should seriously move on from Mike McCarthy and Ted Thompson.

....oh wait.

[wallyuwl]

Even when Rodgers was on a team friendly deal the team would refuse to solve problems we saw year in and year out.

When Rodgers was on a team-friendly deal, the starting quarterback wore number 4.

[NCF]

Even when Rodgers was on a team friendly deal the team would refuse to solve problems we saw year in and year out.

When Rodgers was on a team-friendly deal, the starting quarterback wore number 4.

His second contract was a very team friendly.

[Scott4Pack]

Is there any other kind??

Yup. Because Rodgers has figured out that the only way he wins another SupernBowl in Green Bay is if they put a good defense together. And he doesn’t see that happening in Green Bay. 8 times in his career in Green Bay he gave them a top 10 offense. And 3 times they have had a top 10 defense.

They have a good defense right now. Top 10. Are they great? No. Do they have lots of talent? Yes. Are there holes? A few, but this defense is good enough to win.

It was good, but still vulnerable enough to get used and abused two years in a row by two different teams. Honestly, with the draft capitol (see several other threads) we've put into the D, it should've been good enough by now.

[Drj820]

Yup. Because Rodgers has figured out that the only way he wins another SupernBowl in Green Bay is if they put a good defense together. And he doesn’t see that happening in Green Bay. 8 times in his career in Green Bay he gave them a top 10 offense. And 3 times they have had a top 10 defense.

They have a good defense right now. Top 10. Are they great? No. Do they have lots of talent? Yes. Are there holes? A few, but this defense is good enough to win.

It was good, but still vulnerable enough to get used and abused two years in a row by two different teams. Honestly, with the draft capitol (see several other threads) we've put into the D, it should've been good enough by now.

The problem with the D is not the amount of really good players. There are plenty of those. It is the amount of incompetent players mixed in with the talent. Great Defenses dont play guys like Wil Redmond in championship games, they dont pay the Dean Lowrys of the world 6 million per year, start a 5th round rookie and UDFA at ILB and think that the hole is fixed.

There is talent on the Defense, but the amount of easily exploitable holes and the amount of people for any good QB and OC to pick on during a game on the D is the problem. We dont need stars to replace the glaring holes, just competence.

[YoHoChecko]

The problem with the D is not the amount of really good players. There are plenty of those. It is the amount of incompetent players mixed in with the talent. Great Defenses dont play guys like Wil Redmond in championship games, they dont pay the Dean Lowrys of the world 6 million per year, start a 5th round rookie and UDFA at ILB and think that the hole is fixed.

There is talent on the Defense, but the amount of easily exploitable holes and the amount of people for any good QB and OC to pick on during a game on the D is the problem. We dont need stars to replace the glaring holes, just competence.

This is an excellent insight, and while I disagree with the critiques of "how acquired," I agree with the issue being weak spots and not strong spots; much like the success of our OL depending on a couple strengths and a couple non-weaknesses.

But you can get players anywhere. You can criticize the 5th and UDFA at LB but can't ignore that we also spent a 3rd and signed a scheme-familiar vet. And we paid Dean Lowry, but we drafted Montravis and developed Lancaster to his greatest potential (which was low) and brought in Snacks when we needed something more immediate.

The problem is not that we aren't putting the resources toward it it's that we're missing on the players in terms of competence. The busts haven't failed to be great, they've often failed to be good--or been so inconsistent that the highs don't make up for the lows (King, Montravis)

[Yoop]

The problem with the D is not the amount of really good players. There are plenty of those. It is the amount of incompetent players mixed in with the talent. Great Defenses dont play guys like Wil Redmond in championship games, they dont pay the Dean Lowrys of the world 6 million per year, start a 5th round rookie and UDFA at ILB and think that the hole is fixed.

There is talent on the Defense, but the amount of easily exploitable holes and the amount of people for any good QB and OC to pick on during a game on the D is the problem. We dont need stars to replace the glaring holes, just competence.

This is an excellent insight, and while I disagree with the critiques of "how acquired," I agree with the issue being weak spots and not strong spots; much like the success of our OL depending on a couple strengths and a couple non-weaknesses.

But you can get players anywhere. You can criticize the 5th and UDFA at LB but can't ignore that we also spent a 3rd and signed a scheme-familiar vet. And we paid Dean Lowry, but we drafted Montravis and developed Lancaster to his greatest potential (which was low) and brought in Snacks when we needed something more immediate.

The problem is not that we aren't putting the resources toward it it's that we're missing on the players in terms of competence. The busts haven't failed to be great, they've often failed to be good--or been so inconsistent that the highs don't make up for the lows (King, Montravis)

yep, can't hide weak defensive positions, OC study your weaknesses as well as your strengths, and will figure out how to exploit them as long as they have players to exploit them with, and the better teams do, if ya can't stop the run with DL and lbers, then ya have to add safety help, now your more vulnerable to the pass, or if ya have a kimpy edge corner (King) they will target him, it's really hard to field a defense with all competent players.

[go pak go]

The problem with the D is not the amount of really good players. There are plenty of those. It is the amount of incompetent players mixed in with the talent. Great Defenses dont play guys like Wil Redmond in championship games, they dont pay the Dean Lowrys of the world 6 million per year, start a 5th round rookie and UDFA at ILB and think that the hole is fixed.

There is talent on the Defense, but the amount of easily exploitable holes and the amount of people for any good QB and OC to pick on during a game on the D is the problem. We dont need stars to replace the glaring holes, just competence.

This is an excellent insight, and while I disagree with the critiques of "how acquired," I agree with the issue being weak spots and not strong spots; much like the success of our OL depending on a couple strengths and a couple non-weaknesses.

But you can get players anywhere. You can criticize the 5th and UDFA at LB but can't ignore that we also spent a 3rd and signed a scheme-familiar vet. And we paid Dean Lowry, but we drafted Montravis and developed Lancaster to his greatest potential (which was low) and brought in Snacks when we needed something more immediate.

The problem is not that we aren't putting the resources toward it it's that we're missing on the players in terms of competence. The busts haven't failed to be great, they've often failed to be good--or been so inconsistent that the highs don't make up for the lows (King, Montravis)

It's been a problem that has plagued the Packers honestly my whole life and I for the life of me cannot figure out why the Packers struggle with it so much. No matter the DC, no matter the assistant coaches, no matter the system, no matter the resources devoted....we just always have the same issues year after year.

[NCF]

The problem with the D is not the amount of really good players. There are plenty of those. It is the amount of incompetent players mixed in with the talent. Great Defenses dont play guys like Wil Redmond in championship games, they dont pay the Dean Lowrys of the world 6 million per year, start a 5th round rookie and UDFA at ILB and think that the hole is fixed.

There is talent on the Defense, but the amount of easily exploitable holes and the amount of people for any good QB and OC to pick on during a game on the D is the problem. We dont need stars to replace the glaring holes, just competence.

This is an excellent insight, and while I disagree with the critiques of "how acquired," I agree with the issue being weak spots and not strong spots; much like the success of our OL depending on a couple strengths and a couple non-weaknesses.

But you can get players anywhere. You can criticize the 5th and UDFA at LB but can't ignore that we also spent a 3rd and signed a scheme-familiar vet. And we paid Dean Lowry, but we drafted Montravis and developed Lancaster to his greatest potential (which was low) and brought in Snacks when we needed something more immediate.

The problem is not that we aren't putting the resources toward it it's that we're missing on the players in terms of competence. The busts haven't failed to be great, they've often failed to be good--or been so inconsistent that the highs don't make up for the lows (King, Montravis)

It's been a problem that has plagued the Packers honestly my whole life and I for the life of me cannot figure out why the Packers struggle with it so much. No matter the DC, no matter the assistant coaches, no matter the system, no matter the resources devoted....we just always have the same issues year after year.

I feel like the point is a little bit overstated. Will Redmond was not a preferred player. Raven Greene was. I feel like every team has those problems due to injuries. Dean Lowry is a different story. The troubling part with him is apparently continuing to double-down on his spot. Honestly, he has a place in this league. He has a role that he can probably excel at, but Pettine didn't play it. I don't know that Barry will, either, but if not, why is he still on our roster? I definitely don't have an answer for that one.

[Drj820]

The problem with the D is not the amount of really good players. There are plenty of those. It is the amount of incompetent players mixed in with the talent. Great Defenses dont play guys like Wil Redmond in championship games, they dont pay the Dean Lowrys of the world 6 million per year, start a 5th round rookie and UDFA at ILB and think that the hole is fixed.

There is talent on the Defense, but the amount of easily exploitable holes and the amount of people for any good QB and OC to pick on during a game on the D is the problem. We dont need stars to replace the glaring holes, just competence.

This is an excellent insight, and while I disagree with the critiques of "how acquired," I agree with the issue being weak spots and not strong spots; much like the success of our OL depending on a couple strengths and a couple non-weaknesses.

But you can get players anywhere. You can criticize the 5th and UDFA at LB but can't ignore that we also spent a 3rd and signed a scheme-familiar vet. And we paid Dean Lowry, but we drafted Montravis and developed Lancaster to his greatest potential (which was low) and brought in Snacks when we needed something more immediate.

The problem is not that we aren't putting the resources toward it it's that we're missing on the players in terms of competence. The busts haven't failed to be great, they've often failed to be good--or been so inconsistent that the highs don't make up for the lows (King, Montravis)

It's been a problem that has plagued the Packers honestly my whole life and I for the life of me cannot figure out why the Packers struggle with it so much. No matter the DC, no matter the assistant coaches, no matter the system, no matter the resources devoted....we just always have the same issues year after year.

I know this thread is now veering away from Rodgers reconciliation...but maybe not because maybe this is a top thing he is mad about

But I would agree with you overall YoHo, but also push back just a little bit. I think it does matter where you get the guys from that you want to use to fill holes. Kirksey was not a good option. He allowed the FO to say they tried to replace Blake on paper, but myself and others screamed that the guy has been injury plagued for years and we opined there was 0 chance he would last the full season.

In terms of the DL, the Packers havent addressed the position in the draft in earlier than the 5th round since 2017 when they drafted Montravious.

For those two major holes we have, that just isnt good enough effort to me. Even Snacks and others are just throwing mud at the wall and hoping something sticks as we pour through the waiver wire.

I guess I am just suggesting those arent efforts that have much chance at success anyways. They just allow the FO to claim they tried.

I also wonder who is ever held accountable for all the defensive whiffs. Was it TT? Okay well now he is gone. But there have been whiffs even in the Gutey regime. Gutey is doing decent enough overall to not get fired, but do we have scouts that just search for defensive talent? If so, are they ever replaced? Do they need some help? Just seems the scouting dept on the defensive side needs some more resources sent their way or someone might need to hit the unemployment line.

[YoHoChecko]

I feel like the point is a little bit overstated. Will Redmond was not a preferred player. Raven Greene was. I feel like every team has those problems due to injuries. Dean Lowry is a different story. The troubling part with him is apparently continuing to double-down on his spot. Honestly, he has a place in this league. He has a role that he can probably excel at, but Pettine didn't play it. I don't know that Barry will, either, but if not, why is he still on our roster? I definitely don't have an answer for that one.

I agree it is overstated.

Our secondary was a long-standing problem when we kept drafting busts and disappointments. In 18 we added Jaire, in 19 we added Savage and Amos. Our safety spot, long a weakness, became a strength. Our secondary as a whole, despite a weak spot here and there, is a strength. We did that fix over a 2-year span.

EDGE rusher became a weakness when Perry didn't live up to the big contract and Clay declined. In 19 we added the Smiths and Gary. We had one of the most disruptive pass rushes in the league that year, and while it took a step back, it certainly isn't a weakness. We transformed a weakness into a strength or at least competence.

Our RB room was a weakness heading into the '17 draft and we got Aaron Jones and Jamaal Williams in one fell swoop and we decided to keep that strength a strength by drafting Dillon and retaining Jones.

This team under Gutey has aggressively moved to improve weaknesses. We haven't gotten to all of them. In 201 we thought we could improve WR depth with 3 Day Three picks, given that we had a #1 and just needed depth. Only MVS proved to be a valuable contributor, and more of a #3 than a #2, so it still feels unresolved.

ILB has been a weakness as long as most of us can remember. But a) if you have a lot of roster holes to fill (and we did in 2017-18), you have to prioritize, and b) throwing a 3rd, a 5th, and a couple free agents at a fairly low-value position should produce the baseline of competency we seek there.

[Yoop]

In terms of the DL, the Packers havent addressed the position in the draft in earlier than the 5th round since 2017 when they drafted Montravious.

we got lucky with Clark when we took him late 20's, I hate drafting DT late first round, most take about 3 years to play up to draft status then cost to much to resign, still gotta have them so teams have to gamble and take them.

[NCF]

Some good stuff in here.