Aaron Rodgers thread 3000

[go pak go]

I think my looooong post yesterday trying to boil down the disagreement was good, but also, maybe it's much simpler than that.

For some people, when a star player makes a blunder, like Jones' fumble or Adams' drop or Rodgers' missed throws, that player has "earned" the right/ability to make a mistake through his high-level play at other times. The more important mistakes are those by the JAGs around him, proving that they need better players.

For others, when a star player makes a blunder, you're more disappointed because you expect more from your star players. Sure, EQ dropped a 2-pointer; he's our WR5 for a reason. But in big moments, stars need to perform.

And that's really it. For some people, mistakes by stars don't matter; it's the rest of the guys who need to step up. And for others, you can't fill a whole roster with stars, so when some JAGs don't make plays, there's no disappointment; but when stars fail to rise to the occasion, that's the focus.

This couldn't be more spot on.

[Yoop]

Pettine needed to give King over the top support, not just once, but at least twice that we know of, sure you can probably think of situations in other games that compare, but two wrongs don't make it right, the firing of Pettine, or his not being resigned had plenty to do with those brain farts, your just doing what you always do now, muddying up context, when Capers screwed up you blamed Capers, but since you and others want to shade blame to our best players, well we can't blame Pettine, that would lesson the culpability to blame Rodgers, (disrupted almost constantly the whole game) Adams (double and triple covered constantly, 11 catches on 14 targets for 65 yards and almost zero yac) and Aaron Jones who fumbled twice, with the second one being a game ender, never mind that he never had a open lane to run through since the blocking was so putrid.

Seriously why do you do this? It's exactly what BF00 was talking about. I mean you can see below I flat out and blank out stated that Kevin King and our tackles were the largest liabilities in the game. Which is something however that you don't spend much time talking about. No instead you keep rehashing it was the GM's fault due to not bringing in a slot WR to help Rodgers out when inside the 8 yardline.

But I don't understand why you keep doing this. Nobody is disagreeing with you that Pettine not giving King help, especially with a known injury, was a significant reason for losing. MLF thought the same and Pettine has been demoted to Quality Control coach for the Bears as a result.

But you threaten me of muddying waters when this whole post is exactly that. We all know the reasons we lost. The difference between the "Group A" and "Group B" as YoHo stated is Group B has no problem assigning blame and rehashing all reasons we came up short.

Whereas Group A just for the life of them finds reason to defend the star players of a team.

I mean this can be said literally about every position, every side of the ball and every team.

"If we could have had a better player at X, we would have been better". That's not a bold statement. I could say that for literally any position on the squad.

But when you had a team that proved it could be successful with the unit that was in place and there are multiple plays, not just one or two, but multiple plays and multiple chances missed primarily by the offensive stars (Rodgers, Adams and Jones)it brings support that if the stars would have played to their expected level on just one additional play out of the 4 to 6 plays that were missed, the Packers could have still won even with the significant liabilities of Kevin King, Will Redmond and our two tackles on that day.

and why wouldn't my position be that we lacked offensive impact players on that last drive, we didn't have any, Adams was mauled, the other receivers couldn't get open prior to the pass rush forcing Rodgers to scramble, and your (and others) response has been he shoulda done something, run (when that lber was set and ready had he done so, or have had perifial vison to see boundary to boundary as that pass rush was closing in, your comments are beyond silly.

no no, you purposely want to down play Kings inability to man up and blame Rodgers and other offensive players, when as I said we where down to stems and seeds concerning them, Adams was neutralized, Jones was on the side lines, and yet you and others refuse to acknowledge that a quality get open quick, slot receiver wouldn't have mattered, every time I bring that up with you and others you revert back to some other aspect of team failure, sooooo frustrating, course ya have to defend Guty's choice of trading up for Love, and agreeing that a slot receiver would have helped make that harder.

[NCF]

fools rush in.

I don't think that means what you think it does.

well please clear my mind then, what actually does it mean? seems to me you are still thinking a slotter wouldn't have helped, heres my point, again, when a QB is facing intense pass rush, the sooner he can get the ball out of his hands, the better, during that last drive, no one got open quick, Rodgers was forced out of the pocket, under that situation it's harder for a QB to scan the field and look for open receivers, and during that time we as fans watching often see open players or think he can run it in, but it's the cheap seat viewpoint, a QB can't see 60 yrds wide with only 8 yrds in front of him to work with. now I don't know what you meant posting that pic, but I hope my explanation is simpler to understand.

I 100% do not believe a "slotter" would have changed the outcome of that game. We would have got down there and Rodgers would have forced the ball to Adams three times no matter who the other receivers were. Partly because he's stubborn, partly because he believes Adams is the best guy to make that play, partly because LaFleur didn't scheme up something better to use Adams as a decoy. I 100% believe that the guys we had could have and should have won that game. I 100% believe that if we replayed that game 10 times, we probably win 7 or 8 of them.

[NCF]

Guty's choice of trading up for Love, and agreeing that a slot receiver would have helped make that harder.

Gutey doesn't take Love. He trades two 1st to move up for Justin Jefferson like you want. Rodgers still forces three incompletions to Adams in the RZ. The universe has a way.

[go pak go]

Well that's too bad yoop that you continue to discern intent on the behalf of others rather than simply reading what the others are saying.

On the positive side though, there is no reason this 2021 roster isn't the favorite to win it all this year. The Packers have now literally done everything you ever asked of them. This roster is 100% yoop approved.

[Pckfn23]

Rehashing minute details is pointless. The statement was this:

there are people on this forum that believe Rodgers impact has not been great

The above statement is utterly false.

Trying to drudge up other false narratives is irrelevant.

[YoHoChecko]

The issue with the "if we had this other guy, we could have won" thing isn't that it's untrue. Like sure, maybe that helps. But it's a counterfactual. It can't be proven or unproven. It is a scenario that exists in another timeline or another universe that did not happen.

But when we look at what ACTUALLY happened last year: the Packers set an all-time NFL record for converting red zone possessions to TDs--80%--this season. All. Time. Record.

Yes, Jones was out and Jones normally isn't out. But Aaron Jones (unlike in 2019) was not the biggest red zone weapon on the team, nor the only. Certainly, it's true that Adams was getting covered well by the Bucs. But that's also why MVS had over 100 yards. The coverage slanted toward Adams and MVS stepped up. Back to the red zone stuff, Tonyan tied for the league lead in TD receptions by a TE, 11.

We have weapons. We all wanted more. We all are stoked to have a traditional slot. We probably/maybe could have been a better-than-a-number-one-in-the-league offense if we had one.

But you can't look at the NFCCG and just decide there is only ONE alternative, ONE way to win the game. Too many things went wrong. We list all of them--Kevin King first and foremost. But yoou, [mention]Yoop[/mention], only list ONE thing. It's absurd. The monotony of the argument is absurd.

When people say "we had the players to win the game, but they didn't get it done," it's not a "defense of the Jordan Love pick," it's just true. We wiped the floor with the #1 defense in the league the week before. We were in position to win this game, too. After Tom Brady threw interceptions we went 3 and out twice, not because of anything other than poor play calling (zero runs) in a game where our OTs were clearly struggling to keep up. A million things could have changed about that game and led to a win. WHY, then, should we all pick ONE thing from a counterfactual universe and commit to the idea that it would have made the difference? Why is that what you do? Why is that the logical path for any of us to take.

When I look at that game, everything we did well offensively all season--red zone, pass protection, and running game--all failed. That doesn't mean we don't have the players to do those things well, because we did them well ALL SEASON. It means Bakh got hurt, Jones got hurt, Rodgers and Adams weren't in "their zone," and MLF didn't turn to Dillon for some reason. And that's JUST the offense. The defense allowed 31 points!

[Yoop]

Rehashing minute details is pointless. The statement was this:

there are people on this forum that believe Rodgers impact has not been great

The above statement is utterly false.

Trying to drudge up other false narratives is irrelevant.

don't think I said that, actually I think it was said by someone else paraphrasing what I did say.

[Yoop]

Well that's too bad yoop that you continue to discern intent on the behalf of others rather than simply reading what the others are saying.

On the positive side though, there is no reason this 2021 roster isn't the favorite to win it all this year. The Packers have now literally done everything you ever asked of them. This roster is 100% yoop approved.

bull &%$@, I'am not the guy that twist what people say, you are.

[Pckfn23]

Rehashing minute details is pointless. The statement was this:

there are people on this forum that believe Rodgers impact has not been great

The above statement is utterly false.

Trying to drudge up other false narratives is irrelevant.

don't think I said that, actually I think it was said by someone else paraphrasing what I did say.

OBVIOUSLY you didn't say it... Bud Fox said it. It was not a paraphrasing of what you said. Everything is not about you or directed at you...

That said, it is still false as false can be.

[paco]

[Yoop]

Guty's choice of trading up for Love, and agreeing that a slot receiver would have helped make that harder.

Gutey doesn't take Love. He trades two 1st to move up for Justin Jefferson like you want. Rodgers still forces three incompletions to Adams in the RZ. The universe has a way.

that would have been prefered, and I doubt we'd have had to give two first to do it, or he could have taken a lesser talented guy in the 2nd or 3rd round, but NO, he had to make it a point of not taking a WR to send his authoritive message to Rodgers, that he runs the team, well now it seems probable that he'll get to run it without Rodgers.

[Yoop]

Rehashing minute details is pointless. The statement was this:


The above statement is utterly false.

Trying to drudge up other false narratives is irrelevant.

don't think I said that, actually I think it was said by someone else paraphrasing what I did say.

OBVIOUSLY you didn't say it... Bud Fox said it. It was not a paraphrasing of what you said. Everything is not about you or directed at you...

That said, it is still false as false can be.

since I didn't bring it up or say that, why are you attaching it to this convo

[Pckfn23]

don't think I said that, actually I think it was said by someone else paraphrasing what I did say.

OBVIOUSLY you didn't say it... Bud Fox said it. It was not a paraphrasing of what you said. Everything is not about you or directed at you...

That said, it is still false as false can be.

since I didn't bring it up or say that, why are you attaching it to this convo

Because it is what started this conversation before you took it down the same rabbit hole for the 3000th time...

[NCF]

that would have been prefered

And that's what makes this all about you and not about what really happened. You preferred it so it must be right.

[Yoop]

The issue with the "if we had this other guy, we could have won" thing isn't that it's untrue. Like sure, maybe that helps. But it's a counterfactual. It can't be proven or unproven. It is a scenario that exists in another timeline or another universe that did not happen.

But when we look at what ACTUALLY happened last year: the Packers set an all-time NFL record for converting red zone possessions to TDs--80%--this season. All. Time. Record.

Yes, Jones was out and Jones normally isn't out. But Aaron Jones (unlike in 2019) was not the biggest red zone weapon on the team, nor the only. Certainly, it's true that Adams was getting covered well by the Bucs. But that's also why MVS had over 100 yards. The coverage slanted toward Adams and MVS stepped up. Back to the red zone stuff, Tonyan tied for the league lead in TD receptions by a TE, 11.

We have weapons. We all wanted more. We all are stoked to have a traditional slot. We probably/maybe could have been a better-than-a-number-one-in-the-league offense if we had one.

But you can't look at the NFCCG and just decide there is only ONE alternative, ONE way to win the game. Too many things went wrong. We list all of them--Kevin King first and foremost. But yoou, @Yoop, only list ONE thing. It's absurd. The monotony of the argument is absurd.

When people say "we had the players to win the game, but they didn't get it done," it's not a "defense of the Jordan Love pick," it's just true. We wiped the floor with the #1 defense in the league the week before. We were in position to win this game, too. After Tom Brady threw interceptions we went 3 and out twice, not because of anything other than poor play calling (zero runs) in a game where our OTs were clearly struggling to keep up. A million things could have changed about that game and led to a win. WHY, then, should we all pick ONE thing from a counterfactual universe and commit to the idea that it would have made the difference? Why is that what you do? Why is that the logical path for any of us to take.

When I look at that game, everything we did well offensively all season--red zone, pass protection, and running game--all failed. That doesn't mean we don't have the players to do those things well, because we did them well ALL SEASON. It means Bakh got hurt, Jones got hurt, Rodgers and Adams weren't in "their zone," and MLF didn't turn to Dillon for some reason. And that's JUST the offense. The defense allowed 31 points!

I disagree, Jones is a huge red zone player

and my argument is solid, Adams was in fact neutralized, Jones was on the sideline, the pass rush had been relentless, and a slot player helps negate all those things, why you think it's absurd that a guy like Randal Cobb, who made a living of getting open in short spaces wouldn't have helped us score a TD in that situation is mind boggling to me.

and I'am absurd, thing is people would rather defend the Love pick then actually admit we lacked offensive fire power in that game., and what we did to Tenn or the Rams or any other game prior has very little to do with the Tampa game, there defense neutralized our offense, and plenty of people here blamed Rodgers for the loss, thats how this argument started, now posters are back tracking,

[Acrobat]

The issue with the "if we had this other guy, we could have won" thing isn't that it's untrue. Like sure, maybe that helps. But it's a counterfactual. It can't be proven or unproven. It is a scenario that exists in another timeline or another universe that did not happen.

But when we look at what ACTUALLY happened last year: the Packers set an all-time NFL record for converting red zone possessions to TDs--80%--this season. All. Time. Record.

Yes, Jones was out and Jones normally isn't out. But Aaron Jones (unlike in 2019) was not the biggest red zone weapon on the team, nor the only. Certainly, it's true that Adams was getting covered well by the Bucs. But that's also why MVS had over 100 yards. The coverage slanted toward Adams and MVS stepped up. Back to the red zone stuff, Tonyan tied for the league lead in TD receptions by a TE, 11.

We have weapons. We all wanted more. We all are stoked to have a traditional slot. We probably/maybe could have been a better-than-a-number-one-in-the-league offense if we had one.

But you can't look at the NFCCG and just decide there is only ONE alternative, ONE way to win the game. Too many things went wrong. We list all of them--Kevin King first and foremost. But yoou, @Yoop, only list ONE thing. It's absurd. The monotony of the argument is absurd.

When people say "we had the players to win the game, but they didn't get it done," it's not a "defense of the Jordan Love pick," it's just true. We wiped the floor with the #1 defense in the league the week before. We were in position to win this game, too. After Tom Brady threw interceptions we went 3 and out twice, not because of anything other than poor play calling (zero runs) in a game where our OTs were clearly struggling to keep up. A million things could have changed about that game and led to a win. WHY, then, should we all pick ONE thing from a counterfactual universe and commit to the idea that it would have made the difference? Why is that what you do? Why is that the logical path for any of us to take.

When I look at that game, everything we did well offensively all season--red zone, pass protection, and running game--all failed. That doesn't mean we don't have the players to do those things well, because we did them well ALL SEASON. It means Bakh got hurt, Jones got hurt, Rodgers and Adams weren't in "their zone," and MLF didn't turn to Dillon for some reason. And that's JUST the offense. The defense allowed 31 points!

I disagree, Jones is a huge red zone player

and my argument is solid, Adams was in fact neutralized, Jones was on the sideline, the pass rush had been relentless, and a slot player helps negate all those things, why you think it's absurd that a guy like Randal Cobb, who made a living of getting open in short spaces wouldn't have helped us score a TD in that situation is mind boggling to me.

and I'am absurd, thing is people would rather defend the Love pick then actually admit we lacked offensive fire power in that game., and what we did to Tenn or the Rams or any other game prior has very little to do with the Tampa game, there defense neutralized our offense, and plenty of people here blamed Rodgers for the loss, thats how this argument started, now posters are back tracking,

We scored 26 points against a really good defense that held Mahomes to 8 points two weeks later. Our comeback fell short because of the mistakes at the end of the 1st and beginning of 2nd half. Unfortunately we fell just short, but definitely had the players to pull it off.

[Yoop]

sorry Paco, you might want to sit this one out, cause I'am convinced of my position concerning this argument.

[Acrobat]

sorry Paco, you might want to sit this one out, cause I'am convinced of my position concerning this argument.

Just a quick grammar item. It should be "I'm", not "I'am".

[NCF]

we lacked offensive fire power in that game., and what we did to Tenn or the Rams or any other game prior has very little to do with the Tampa game

Why? Why did what we had previously done over the course of the entire season no longer matter?