Rodgers wants out

[NCF]

lady luck is like the wicked witch of the north, she rarely shows up ta help ya

And when she does she usually just convinces you that you had the right talent all along.

[Yoop]

And Rodgers – man who supposedly isn't given enough help on offense to win championships – has usually had better offensive units and skill players than the ones that Brady won Championships with in New England.

OK but NE has had one of the best short WC style offenses in the league year in and year out, Gronk and Hernandez was a great TE tandem, and there slot receiver was a 90 catch 1000 yrd producer yearly, there offense was a work of art, rarely made mistakes, I was hoping McCarthy would copy cat what they do since 016.

and when did Rodgers have as good a talent to work with? minus last year, maybe 019, 014 and 15,

[go pak go]

Look at all those talentless losers.

[Trudge]

Look at all those talentless losers.

Didn't win a championship either.

[Yoop]

lady luck is like the wicked witch of the north, she rarely shows up ta help ya

And when she does she usually just convinces you that you had the right talent all along.

OK, I admit a injury can be termed bad luck, however injury's can be over come if the backups play up to the challenge, we won a SB minus what? 7 starters to injury.

Yoho was talking about roster division in the other thread, and the degree of drop off after the top 16 players on offense and defense, and how after that top 32 or so players the rest are a step slope below, I bet if we checked out that 2010 roster the drop off was much later, thats another reason some teams do well late in the season, they have a strong bench.

I don't like using the term luck at all even though to some degree it is involved.

[go pak go]

Look at all those talentless losers.

Didn't win a championship either.

*viciously looking up reasons why Brady did because of strong defense, Bill Belicheck and WCO*

[go pak go]

lady luck is like the wicked witch of the north, she rarely shows up ta help ya

And when she does she usually just convinces you that you had the right talent all along.

OK, I admit a injury can be termed bad luck, however injury's can be over come if the backups play up to the challenge, we won a SB minus what? 7 starters to injury.

Yoho was talking about roster division in the other thread, and the degree of drop off after the top 16 players on offense and defense, and how after that top 32 or so players the rest are a step slope below, I bet if we checked out that 2010 roster the drop off was much later, thats another reason some teams do well late in the season, they have a strong bench.

I don't like using the term luck at all even though to some degree it is involved.

Andy Herman's video today highlights how deep the Packers roster is.

[Yoop]

Look at all those talentless losers.

and what is the point your trying to make here, seriously I don't get the point, was this the 2011 group, if so this bunch didn't lose the game, they weren't allowed to win it, that article I brought spelled out very well why we lost, you just seem unable to accept the truth.

[Labrev]

and when did Rodgers have as good a talent to work with? minus last year, maybe 019, 014 and 15,

Why would I not count those years? I assume you mean '16 where you said '15, because his '15 group did stink.

He carried a bad defense in '16, but the flip side of that is Brady only had Edelman to throw to (Gronk was on IR iirc). I don't blame him much for '15, but Rodgers has been said to have had "not enough help" on offense with more than Brady had that year when he won. Any year he had Adams, Jennings, or Nelson in their respective primes is already better in the receiver department than what Brady won the SuperBowl with that year.

Those four seasons should count. 2011 too. I don't blame Rodgers for that even a little bit because our receivers quite literally dropped the ball (*and* fumbled it once or twice) in the playoff loss, and we knew the defense was too worthless to offset a bad day by the offense so they had to be better.

But that's beside the point, because the point was not about *who* is to blame but to debunk the idea that "not having enough help" on offense is to blame for him not having more rings when Brady has done it with way less in some years. And our weapons were amazing that year. On that note, '12 can be counted. So can '09 and '08. What, Rodgers was only a first- and second-year starter then? Brady won his first championship as a first-year starter, and he only sat for 1 year, Rodgers sat for 3.

I will be charitable and not count 2018 because you can fairly argue that Mac at HC was holding back the offense.

So, 8 seasons, by my count, where he had as good (or better) talent to work with.

[Half Empty]

2010 - Cobb was the only one not on the team

2011 & 2012 - All six

2013 - Driver and Jennings drop - Cobb, Nelson, Finley, and Jones remain

2014 - Finley and Jones drop - Cobb and Nelson remain

[YoHoChecko]

2010 - Cobb was the only one not on the team

2011 & 2012 - All six

2013 - Driver and Jennings drop - Cobb, Nelson, Finley, and Jones remain

2014 - Finley and Jones drop - Cobb and Nelson remain, Adams added

Footnote.

[go pak go]

Look at all those talentless losers.

and what is the point your trying to make here, seriously I don't get the point, was this the 2011 group, if so this bunch didn't lose the game, they weren't allowed to win it, that article I brought spelled out very well why we lost, you just seem unable to accept the truth.

The point is exposing the holes of the "why Rodgers is getting screwed and Brady isn't narrative".

I will absolutely agree that Brady has enjoyed more successful and consistent defensive units over the course of his career, but I also believe this is also built partly on a narrative based on the early Brady years which relied more on defense to be successful. The later Brady years (like 2004/2007 and later) actually sees Brady be very, very successful even though it doesn't look like it.

So the defense of "Rodgers gets screwed" changes. Your point of "Brady had amazing offensive weapons his whole career" is really not true when compared to Aaron Rodgers. I would contend that Rodgers on the whole (outside of the 2017 - 2019 gap) has actually had better talent on offense than Brady has. And the cost of this is the Patriots on the whole has had more consistent and better performing defenses than the Packers has.

So once that gets established, your point shifts to "well Brady had Bellicheck and a dink and dunk offensive scheme". But Rodgers had that too and had it with great success early in his career. The whole "deep ball" mantra really started to occur in 2011 and continued on. The incredible success of the deep ball and blowing up the scoreboard with big plays in 2011, 2013, 2014 coupled with the drawing offsides and free plays led to a considerable shift in how Rodgers played. Yes it was a MM schematic change but make no mistake the trigger man also had a part in this. Rodgers willingly turned down checkdowns to take the deep route. Rodgers willingly tried to evade the pocket to create a broken play. And again this worked with great success for about a 4 year period...until defenses started to figure it out and Rodgers and MM had no answer for it. It even took MLF a year to get Rodgers to buy into the new system.

I would also contend that Brady found success beyond the dinking and dunking magic as he won a SB in 2020 based on the vertical passing scheme. Take whatever philosophy you believe in the Bill Belicheck WC dinking offense and make it the opposite and you have Bruce Arians. It is actually very impressive that Brady was able to make this transition to that style at his age.

Ultimately however I think the discussion is getting regurgiated and stale. The argument exists because our ardent and fervent Rodgers defenders once again can't accept that Rodgers himself is part to blame for the lack of SB ring success because he clearly has to be the greatest to ever do it.

I find that super odd and funny. I mean it's like there is this comparison that Rodgers is the best and there is no way he can have any shortfalls when we are comparing him to some freaking talented and amazing QBs. Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers. Like what's the end goal here? To prove that Rodgers would be clearly the best if his supporting team was better?

Tom Brady didn't have as good of an offense
Peyton Manning and his Colt defenses were similar to the Packers
Drew Brees on a whole I believe had worse rosters over a long period than the Packers and also found silly ways of losing big games after their 2009 SB.

I don't understand this "whoah is Aaron Rodgers" discussion when his peers went through the same thing.

And the one thing I will say about Tom Brady, the dude simply wins. After he did what he did to Atlanta by scoring all those points in the 4th quarter...I'm sorry. That's amazing and nothing I think any other QB could do on that large of a stage.

[Yoop]

Look at all those talentless losers.

and what is the point your trying to make here, seriously I don't get the point, was this the 2011 group, if so this bunch didn't lose the game, they weren't allowed to win it, that article I brought spelled out very well why we lost, you just seem unable to accept the truth.

actually I'am wrong here, they sure helped lose the game, I have to back track here, the group had 10 drops in that PO game, Rodgers was the leading rusher, and was sacked 4 times, we should have sent the G Men home whimpering, instead we where the ones with tears flowing

[Captain_Ben]

I sympathized with the "woe is AR" narrative from 2011-2015. I think those were the years that the narrative came closest to being accurate.

[Drj820]

Look at all those talentless losers.

Didn't win a championship either.

*viciously looking up reasons why Brady did because of strong defense, Bill Belicheck and WCO*

Oh, trust me, bellichik would have won a title with that crew.

[NCF]

Oh, trust me, bellichik would have won a title with that crew.

Mike McCarthy would have, too... if Nick Collins didn't get hurt.

[go pak go]

Look at all those talentless losers.

and what is the point your trying to make here, seriously I don't get the point, was this the 2011 group, if so this bunch didn't lose the game, they weren't allowed to win it, that article I brought spelled out very well why we lost, you just seem unable to accept the truth.

actually I'am wrong here, they sure helped lose the game, I have to back track here, the group had 10 drops in that PO game, Rodgers was the leading rusher, and was sacked 4 times, we should have sent the G Men home whimpering, instead we where the ones with tears flowing

Okay.

But we could also talk about how Rodgers needed to bailed out in Chicago in 2010 or Seattle in 2014. I don't understand the cherry picking of "but 2011!"

[Yoop]

your long posts are harder for me to respond to because you touch on so many point that deserve attention, I'll start with this.

So the defense of "Rodgers gets screwed" changes. Your point of "Brady had amazing offensive weapons his whole career" is really not true when compared to Aaron Rodgers. I would contend that Rodgers on the whole (outside of the 2017 - 2019 gap) has actually had better talent on offense than Brady has. And the cost of this is the Patriots on the whole has had more consistent and better performing defenses than the Packers has.

see I think this is where we have communication break downs, I didn't say that Brady had amazing offensive weapons his whole career, I said he had some very good TE's and a slot receiver that produced, and offensive schemes that took advantage of the skills those players brought to bare, big difference, the short ball offense is a defenses best friend, keeps them off the field and rested as long as the offense doesn't pooch it, moving the chains, so it's not just about the roster, or who's is best so much as it's how you scheme up those players to have success, that NE offense hummed along like a singer sewing machine
like I said, don't we all wish Matt Lafluer had been here since....... ?? I do, what he's brought can be even better then some of those best NE offenses.

[Yoop]

But we could also talk about how Rodgers needed to bailed out in Chicago in 2010 or Seattle in 2014. I don't understand the cherry picking of "but 2011!"

2011 stands out more to me because the coaches saw how KC beat us and didn't do much to adjust for the Giants, so I used it to show how the coaching erred, I also can't remember where Rodgers needed bailing out with Chicago in 2010, or 2014 with Seattle, so you'll have to refresh my memory, don't embellish now

[bud fox]

Other than the fact that if we won a Super Bowl, Rodgers might not be acting out, I can't imagine the causes of our loss to Tampa Bay specifically have anything to do with Rodgers' current attitude and situation, aside from the fact that he is angry at himself for the throws he missed, because that's how Rodgers feels about missed opportunities.

Rehashing how and why we lost the NFCCG (obvi, Kevin King crapped the bed and several of our strongest units didn't come through) does not grant any insight or predictions into Rodgers' offseason holdout. If you think it does, feel free to argue that. But don't try to convince me that Rodgers is mad that we didn't draft a better backup LT and better ILBs. That is NOT what this is about. He's certainly not ready to quit because Aaron Jones fumbled and Davante dropped a likely TD. Those are his boys.

The why the massive Brady and Brees clutch post? That's got nothing to do with the holdout.

Agree in that I don't think this has anything to do with the playin of football. To me it's more about the packers writing his career and this offseason contract debacle sent it over the edge.