Aaron Rodgers thread 3000

[Yoop]

the season last year ended with Rodgers trying to find a target from the 8 yrd line, 3 times and we kicked a FG, we had lost our #1 RB, had our #1 receiver draped all game, and had no one really ever get open on schedule on those 3 plays, yet it's the contention around here that a quality slot receiver was never missed last year at any time, sorry again no sale.

[NCF]

the season last year ended with Rodgers trying to find a target from the 8 yrd line, 3 times and we kicked a FG, we had lost our #1 RB, had our #1 receiver draped all game, and had no one really ever get open on schedule on those 3 plays, yet it's the contention around here that a quality slot receiver was never missed last year at any time, sorry again no sale.

Who is contending this? Of course a quality slot receiver would help us. I'm super excited we added Amari Rodgers. You have to spread the blame, though. Your hero didn't come through. The receivers didn't get open. The play calls could have been better. They could have went for it. Not everything that everyone types is a blast at Aaron Rodgers. He is, IMO, as much to blame as anyone else, though. It is a team effort and in the end the offense didn't put the ball in the end zone like they had so many times before. &%$@ happens.

[YoHoChecko]

the season last year ended with Rodgers trying to find a target from the 8 yrd line, 3 times and we kicked a FG, we had lost our #1 RB, had our #1 receiver draped all game, and had no one really ever get open on schedule on those 3 plays, yet it's the contention around here that a quality slot receiver was never missed last year at any time, sorry again no sale.

There is literally not a single contention that we couldn't use a better slot receiver and everyone loves the Amari Rodgers pick.

But your insistence on not pointing out that not once, but twice, inside the ten yard line, the Packers/Rodgers were unable to get a TD without including that Rodgers, the QB, had, ya know, something to do with that (and your decision to ignore that we had one of the top red zone TD rates ALL SEASON last year) show that you have emotionally bound yourself to blindspots in your critique. There's nothing objective happening anymore.

Maybe a better receiver would have gotten a TD there. But a better decision by our QB, better ball placement on a couple throws, no drops by Adams... it's fine if you want to say that the red zone possession(s) would have yielded TDs with a better slot receiver. But you also have to acknowledge that they easily could and should have yielded TDs with the players who actually existed on our team at the time, regardless of any sort of imaginary couterfactual anyone wants to type up

[Acrobat]

the season last year ended with Rodgers trying to find a target from the 8 yrd line, 3 times and we kicked a FG, we had lost our #1 RB, had our #1 receiver draped all game, and had no one really ever get open on schedule on those 3 plays, yet it's the contention around here that a quality slot receiver was never missed last year at any time, sorry again no sale.

There is literally not a single contention that we couldn't use a better slot receiver and everyone loves the Amari Rodgers pick.

But your insistence on not pointing out that not once, but twice, inside the ten yard line, the Packers/Rodgers were unable to get a TD without including that Rodgers, the QB, had, ya know, something to do with that (and your decision to ignore that we had one of the top red zone TD rates ALL SEASON last year) show that you have emotionally bound yourself to blindspots in your critique. There's nothing objective happening anymore.

Maybe a better receiver would have gotten a TD there. But a better decision by our QB, better ball placement on a couple throws, no drops by Adams... it's fine if you want to say that the red zone possession(s) would have yielded TDs with a better slot receiver. But you also have to acknowledge that they easily could and should have yielded TDs with the players who actually existed on our team at the time, regardless of any sort of imaginary couterfactual anyone wants to type up

If the front office was better, Rodgers would have ran it in for a TD.

[go pak go]

And what really sucks is if the Packers came off a SB winning season, I think the Packers would have a higher ability to say "okay. we got our ring" and it would be easier to move on.

The allure of getting that 2nd ring is definitely burdensome.

Winning the Super Bowl last year would have eliminated all of this. Rodgers wouldn't be acting this way, but if he were we could move on. But it just erases the whole narrative that "planning ahead cost us in the short term." The fan base is both spoiled by success, but also gut-wrenchingly wounded by the near-misses and "just a couple plays" that allows anyone to take a single change, a single swapped draft pick, a single player decision, a single pass, a single blown coverage, a single play call, a single FG decision.... and say "this is why we don't have a ring."

Because the team has been SO close SO often that any one thing really might change it. It muddies the big picture by zooming in super tightly on every pixel. That's as true, seemingly, for Rodgers as it is for the fans. Everyone can pick a different pixel to focus on, but the narrative won't TRULY change until the big picture has another Lombardi in it; and that is an extremely high bar with very little room for error. It just begs for high tensions.

Yup. And it makes people super, super emotional because everyone knows how close the Packers have been the last 13 years. Only the Buffalo Bills in the 90s and Vikings in the 70's have been as consistently amazing with little hardware to show for it.

And you don't have to read very far into a Packers fan's brain of how well we are coping with it. The answer is not good.

[Acrobat]

And what really sucks is if the Packers came off a SB winning season, I think the Packers would have a higher ability to say "okay. we got our ring" and it would be easier to move on.

The allure of getting that 2nd ring is definitely burdensome.

Winning the Super Bowl last year would have eliminated all of this. Rodgers wouldn't be acting this way, but if he were we could move on. But it just erases the whole narrative that "planning ahead cost us in the short term." The fan base is both spoiled by success, but also gut-wrenchingly wounded by the near-misses and "just a couple plays" that allows anyone to take a single change, a single swapped draft pick, a single player decision, a single pass, a single blown coverage, a single play call, a single FG decision.... and say "this is why we don't have a ring."

Because the team has been SO close SO often that any one thing really might change it. It muddies the big picture by zooming in super tightly on every pixel. That's as true, seemingly, for Rodgers as it is for the fans. Everyone can pick a different pixel to focus on, but the narrative won't TRULY change until the big picture has another Lombardi in it; and that is an extremely high bar with very little room for error. It just begs for high tensions.

Yup. And it makes people super, super emotional because everyone knows how close the Packers have been the last 13 years. Only the Buffalo Bills in the 90s and Vikings in the 70's have been as consistently amazing with little hardware to show for it.

And you don't have to read very far into a Packers fan's brain of how well we are coping with it. The answer is not good.

Yeah I'd say the only team that has come close recently from a frustration standpoint would be the Indianapolis Colts in the 2000's, even though they did get one championship.

[go pak go]

Winning the Super Bowl last year would have eliminated all of this. Rodgers wouldn't be acting this way, but if he were we could move on. But it just erases the whole narrative that "planning ahead cost us in the short term." The fan base is both spoiled by success, but also gut-wrenchingly wounded by the near-misses and "just a couple plays" that allows anyone to take a single change, a single swapped draft pick, a single player decision, a single pass, a single blown coverage, a single play call, a single FG decision.... and say "this is why we don't have a ring."

Because the team has been SO close SO often that any one thing really might change it. It muddies the big picture by zooming in super tightly on every pixel. That's as true, seemingly, for Rodgers as it is for the fans. Everyone can pick a different pixel to focus on, but the narrative won't TRULY change until the big picture has another Lombardi in it; and that is an extremely high bar with very little room for error. It just begs for high tensions.

Yup. And it makes people super, super emotional because everyone knows how close the Packers have been the last 13 years. Only the Buffalo Bills in the 90s and Vikings in the 70's have been as consistently amazing with little hardware to show for it.

And you don't have to read very far into a Packers fan's brain of how well we are coping with it. The answer is not good.

Yeah I'd say the only team that has come close recently from a frustration standpoint would be the Indianapolis Colts in the 2000's, even though they did get one championship.

Very good point. I absolutely forgot the 2000's Colts. Probably the best comparison for us honestly as we both did get a ring.

[Pckfn23]

McNabb Eagles.

[Yoop]

the season last year ended with Rodgers trying to find a target from the 8 yrd line, 3 times and we kicked a FG, we had lost our #1 RB, had our #1 receiver draped all game, and had no one really ever get open on schedule on those 3 plays, yet it's the contention around here that a quality slot receiver was never missed last year at any time, sorry again no sale.

There is literally not a single contention that we couldn't use a better slot receiver and everyone loves the Amari Rodgers pick.

But your insistence on not pointing out that not once, but twice, inside the ten yard line, the Packers/Rodgers were unable to get a TD without including that Rodgers, the QB, had, ya know, something to do with that (and your decision to ignore that we had one of the top red zone TD rates ALL SEASON last year) show that you have emotionally bound yourself to blindspots in your critique. There's nothing objective happening anymore.

Maybe a better receiver would have gotten a TD there. But a better decision by our QB, better ball placement on a couple throws, no drops by Adams... it's fine if you want to say that the red zone possession(s) would have yielded TDs with a better slot receiver. But you also have to acknowledge that they easily could and should have yielded TDs with the players who actually existed on our team at the time, regardless of any sort of imaginary couterfactual anyone wants to type up

every time I've mentioned that our chances would have been better last year with a quality slot receiver I've been bombarded with this, " we had the #1 offense in the league", as though our offense couldn't have been any better, or that having that guy wouldn't have translated to a even more potent offense in that 3 downs from the 8 situation I just mentioned, I get so tired of people telling me stuff I know not to be true.

and here you go with this better decision making defense again, what part of Adams double and triple covered, and no one else getting open on schedeule in a red zone don't you get? easy to say Rodgers should have done any number of things, but reality is he had been under a heavy pass rush all game, and the only player to actually get separation was MVS and he did that 20 yrds or more down field, Tampa took away small ball, that translates to very difficult to score from the red zone, and people think Rodgers could have just waltzed in from the 8, another very iffy proposition because that very talented rangy ILB of Tampa's was sitting right there waiting for him to try, a guy like Randle Cobb changes the outcome of that game, nothing anyone can say would change my mind about that.

[Yoop]

the season last year ended with Rodgers trying to find a target from the 8 yrd line, 3 times and we kicked a FG, we had lost our #1 RB, had our #1 receiver draped all game, and had no one really ever get open on schedule on those 3 plays, yet it's the contention around here that a quality slot receiver was never missed last year at any time, sorry again no sale.

There is literally not a single contention that we couldn't use a better slot receiver and everyone loves the Amari Rodgers pick.

But your insistence on not pointing out that not once, but twice, inside the ten yard line, the Packers/Rodgers were unable to get a TD without including that Rodgers, the QB, had, ya know, something to do with that (and your decision to ignore that we had one of the top red zone TD rates ALL SEASON last year) show that you have emotionally bound yourself to blindspots in your critique. There's nothing objective happening anymore.

Maybe a better receiver would have gotten a TD there. But a better decision by our QB, better ball placement on a couple throws, no drops by Adams... it's fine if you want to say that the red zone possession(s) would have yielded TDs with a better slot receiver. But you also have to acknowledge that they easily could and should have yielded TDs with the players who actually existed on our team at the time, regardless of any sort of imaginary couterfactual anyone wants to type up

again we where minus the red zone players that made us so good down there all season, A Jones was injured, and Adams had two and 3 guys covering his every move, and no one else got open fast enough that Rodgers didn't have to start paying attention to pass rushers, that they did a split second later when Rodgers was manuevering to avoid the rush has to be taken into consideration.

[go pak go]

How good would life be if you had someone advocated for you like yoop does for Rodgers?

[NCF]

How good would life be if you had someone advocated for you like yoop does for Rodgers?

Pretty damn good.

[salmar80]

How good would life be if you had someone advocated for you like yoop does for Rodgers?

I wish my mom believed in me, or even in God, like yoop believes in AR.

[go pak go]

How good would life be if you had someone advocated for you like yoop does for Rodgers?

I wish my mom believed in me, or even in God, like yoop believes in AR.

Oh my gosh. Could you imagine being a teacher of a helicopter parent's kid on the same level of yoop for Rodgers?

Like imagine how petrified you would be giving that kid a B- on a paper. Cripes. Even on a scan-tron multiple quiz test where the answers are as black and white as it gets.

[lupedafiasco]

Yoop just respects greatness.

Meanwhile this board will typically stick it out for failing prospects like Dumbarious, King, Datone Jones, and even when TT was letting the team erode people were still on his side. Even Bustin Harrell had his supporters for years back on the old planet site when it was clear he wasnt gonna cut it.

Rodgers has back to back season with 25+ TDs and <5 INTs and everyone was ready to call him finito.

[Yoop]

How good would life be if you had someone advocated for you like yoop does for Rodgers?

I wish my mom believed in me, or even in God, like yoop believes in AR.

Rodgers doesn't need my defense, most football players agree with his position, and everyone while they may not admit it know he's been probably the best throwing QB ever, we won 15 games in 011, minus a good run game or defense, we lost in the playoffs because of those short comings.

I support Rodgers because it's very likely I will never see another Packer QB as good, never been just about winning to me, that is so shallow, fans that don't connect to players on the teams they support are the real losers.

[go pak go]

Yoop just respects greatness.

Meanwhile this board will typically stick it out for failing prospects like Dumbarious, King, Datone Jones, and even when TT was letting the team erode people were still on his side. Even Bustin Harrell had his supporters for years back on the old planet site when it was clear he wasnt gonna cut it.

Rodgers has back to back season with 25+ TDs and <5 INTs and everyone was ready to call him finito.

The only truth in this is I did defend and promote Kevin King after his 2019 season as a solid #2 CB alongside Jaire.

But I still stand by that after his 2019 season. Even now I feel King is an average #2/#3 outside CB.

[NCF]

Rodgers has back to back season with 25+ TDs and <5 INTs and everyone was ready to call him finito.

I think very few were willing to call him done.

[NCF]

Rodgers and/or Funchess (depending) would seem to fit that bill.

[YoHoChecko]

There's this big, stupid dichotomy on this board that's bubbling into absurdity in light of the Rodgers situation.

In Group A, you have people like [mention]Yoop[/mention] and [mention]lupedafiasco[/mention], but not only them, who believe that

• a) A great QB is the key to winning Super Bowls, SO much so that...

• b) Any team with a great QB should win multiple Super Bowls with a mere baseline competence in team building

In Group B you have people, like myself, who believe that...

• a) Winning a Super Bowl is a very difficult accomplishment EVEN IF you have a great QB, and

• b) compared to other teams, ours has shown enough competence to give our great QB a reasonable shot at multiple championships.

For Group A, any failure to win Super Bowls stems from the inability of the team to practice competent team building around their great QB.

For Group B, a close failure to win a Super Bowl indicates that any one of a thousand things might have improved our chances, including better play at key moments by that great QB.

Group A sees any blame assigned to the QB as heretical, salacious, and ungrateful for the rare experience of rooting for a team with such a great QB.

Group B sees any blame assigned to the team for incompetence as excuse-making for a QB who in certain scenarios could have been the difference between a Super Bowl win or loss.

I believe that group A is fundamentally incorrect on their worldview (that's why I'm a member of Group B)... Group A operates from a worldview of infallibility. The Great QB is almost entirely infallible AND the front office can reasonably be expected to operate infallibly, if competent. By that I mean that each instance of error by the front office or coaches, instead of being seen as a product of randomness and uncertainty in the world is thus seen as evidence of incompetence. Meanwhile, each poor throw, poor decision, or poor season by the Great QB is seen as proof that the team around him has let him down.

THAT SAID, Group A and Group B can both benefit from easing back from the harshness of worldview enough to recognize, as [mention]NCF[/mention] did, that we BOTH believe that....

• that Aaron Rodgers is, in fact, a Great QB.

• the team and players around the QB matter.

• the Packers are a whisper away from having won more Super Bowls in the past decade and it has been incredibly frustrating.

But Group A, as a member of Group B I want you to know, truly and earnestly: I believe that Aaron Rodgers is a great QB. And I believe that the front office has made mistakes. So from here on out, don't straw man me. Don't try to say everyone is trying to throw Rodgers under the bus. Myself and [mention]Pckfn23[/mention] were probably among Rodgers' harshest critics in 2018 and EVEN THEN, the criticism was mistaken to mean that Rodgers isn't great. But even then it meant that Rodgers was not playing up to his greatness. That was the frustration. If Kirk Cousins was putting up the same numbers as 2017-18 Rodgers (and he was, by the way), we'd be like "wow, he's really making the most out of his relatively limited skillset!" But when Rodgers holds the ball so long he takes 50 sacks in a season despite decent blocking, we freely criticize.

Because there are times when Rodgers doesn't play up to his greatness. Those times are not ALL times when the team has let him down. I think we can all agree that the receiver and coaching situation in 2018 was untenable. They were not good enough. But that does not mean we have to disagree that SOMETIMES, Rodgers himself makes errors and bad decisions. I don't expect Rodgers to be infallible. I can forgive these errors. I can overlook them and be grateful for all the good plays. But simply pointing out that a QB is fallible is NOT grounds for these ridiculous straw man attacks that we just don't recognize greatness.

We, in Group B, recognize fallibility, both in the front office and in the QB. We EXPECT fallibility from all people. So when we see it from Rodgers and we point it out, that is not a crushing insult to Rodgers. But when we see it in the front office and you point it out, that is also not the crushing insult to the front office you want it to be.