Man that was an unbelievable group. Jennings did get injured in that 2011 season right?
With that group he had the best season of any QB of all time
Rodgers wants out
Moderators: NCF, salmar80, BF004, APB, Packfntk
Rodgers signed it after the Packers wrote it. The Packers are not breaching the contract in any way.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
-
YoHoChecko
- Reactions:
- Posts: 9675
- Joined: 26 Mar 2020 11:34
The argument about the talent surrounding Rodgers is dumb.
Every team that has won the Super Bowl for the past 40 years has proven themselves capable of being beaten; they had weaknesses, they had off days, they made mistakes. Every. Single. One of them.
You can point to a weakness and say "this is why we lost," but every winner looks back on their roster and says "we won despite [something]." In 2010, we won despite a rash of injuries and a very weak running game. We overcame the injuries. Starks stepped up in the running game. But even then, we still BARELY won.
There is no such thing as a perfect team. Even the one team with a perfect record had weaknesses. It doesn't exist.
Rodgers is good enough to win with. His supporting rosters are often good enough to win with.
Any standard criteria for how to win a Super Bowl that encompasses more than a couple variables can be proven false or at least non-exclusive within the past decade. It doesn't take a top defense or a top QB or a top WR or a top DL or a flawless ST unit. It takes a team with enough rising to the occasion and getting breaks. That's it. This isn't even an opinion. It's fact. There is no statistical model or clear-cut design for "how to build a Super Bowl winning team" or every team would do it. And no glance at the past ten to thirty years will hold up to such scrutiny.
Just stop it already with the who the receivers were and how the defense played and why we lost every. danged. year.
The Packers are consistently a good-enough team and have consistently had excellent QB play and sometimes it's all come together and we've won Super Bowls and most of the time, something goes just wrong and we come close.
That's the story. This decade-long revaluation of who the receivers were versus Brady's receivers, or who the defense was versus Brady's defense... it's all overkill. The reason why we lost each individual playoff game over the past decade will not solve any larger mysteries. There's nothing to uncover there.
Every team that has won the Super Bowl for the past 40 years has proven themselves capable of being beaten; they had weaknesses, they had off days, they made mistakes. Every. Single. One of them.
You can point to a weakness and say "this is why we lost," but every winner looks back on their roster and says "we won despite [something]." In 2010, we won despite a rash of injuries and a very weak running game. We overcame the injuries. Starks stepped up in the running game. But even then, we still BARELY won.
There is no such thing as a perfect team. Even the one team with a perfect record had weaknesses. It doesn't exist.
Rodgers is good enough to win with. His supporting rosters are often good enough to win with.
Any standard criteria for how to win a Super Bowl that encompasses more than a couple variables can be proven false or at least non-exclusive within the past decade. It doesn't take a top defense or a top QB or a top WR or a top DL or a flawless ST unit. It takes a team with enough rising to the occasion and getting breaks. That's it. This isn't even an opinion. It's fact. There is no statistical model or clear-cut design for "how to build a Super Bowl winning team" or every team would do it. And no glance at the past ten to thirty years will hold up to such scrutiny.
Just stop it already with the who the receivers were and how the defense played and why we lost every. danged. year.
The Packers are consistently a good-enough team and have consistently had excellent QB play and sometimes it's all come together and we've won Super Bowls and most of the time, something goes just wrong and we come close.
That's the story. This decade-long revaluation of who the receivers were versus Brady's receivers, or who the defense was versus Brady's defense... it's all overkill. The reason why we lost each individual playoff game over the past decade will not solve any larger mysteries. There's nothing to uncover there.
2011 we lost to giants and so did Brady. Packers scored more points than pats against giants but def was worse.
2012 we lost to 49ers they scored 45 points and Kap ran for 180 yards. Packers scored 31.
Why do you think we lost these games? Because Rodgers isn't clutch?
-
YoHoChecko
- Reactions:
- Posts: 9675
- Joined: 26 Mar 2020 11:34
Did I make a post about Brady and Brees being "clutch"?
No, I did not.
I'm talking to all of you.
Did I mention in one of my posts that Brady and Brees get rid of the ball and avoid taking sacks by frequently finding the checkdown and that's something I've always wanted to see more of from Rodgers and something I thought him capable of improving throughout his career (and MLF proved me right this year when Rodgers got better at it and his effectiveness increased)? Yes, I did. If that's what you're referring to, then so be it.
You don't decline the best player in the league, which is how it was reported with respect to an extension.
The packers know this and that's why it had been reported that the packers have offered him to be the richest contract in the league.
Do's and don'ts.
It's also illogical when coupled with the assertion that Rodgers just makes these guys better and they are mostly JAGs.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
Anything to do with the holdout situation?YoHoChecko wrote: ↑12 Jul 2021 17:18Did I make a post about Brady and Brees being "clutch"?
No, I did not.
I'm talking to all of you.
Did I mention in one of my posts that Brady and Brees get rid of the ball and avoid taking sacks by frequently finding the checkdown and that's something I've always wanted to see more of from Rodgers and something I thought him capable of improving throughout his career (and MLF proved me right this year when Rodgers got better at it and his effectiveness increased)? Yes, I did. If that's what you're referring to, then so be it.
Or just digs at Rodgers
Speculation and hearsay. There has been a lot of reporting. Mostly false. Choosing sides due to this does not follow a logical path.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
No I choose Rodgers based on what we do know and the fact Rodgers has done more for me as a packer fan.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑12 Jul 2021 17:22Speculation and hearsay. There has been a lot of reporting. Mostly false. Choosing sides due to this does not follow a logical path.
Happy to wait until everything comes out. I jump in because people can't help but bad mouth Rodgers on speculation and hearsay.
I thought I'd check out the rest of your long winded post, I stopped when I got to this convoluted BS, again you take what someone says to the extreme, never have I said that Rodgers had nothing to do with any losses, thats you turning what a person actually says against them by making it a either this or that sided opinion, when it's typically more centered, of course Rodgers makes mistakes, how often have I said he's not perfect?????? you though will never let up with blaming Rodgers first over any other reason we lose, you don't of course, but thats what your trying to lay on me, it's crappolla.go pak go wrote: ↑12 Jul 2021 16:06Ultimately 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 layed out obvious roster short comings through the years at RB, WR, and at every position on defense, yet you question them, one boni fide WR for 5 years, the rest would scratch to make a roster any where else, years with out a decent RB, and holes every season at one defensive position or another, squad ratings bare this out, it's not as though I'am making this up, ask any football person, so ya, when I say Rodgers carried this team, a whole lot of football people would back me up, you put Rodgers up there with Belichick and he probably would have more rings as well.
and ya we are getting side tracked here, Rodgers will be back in 3 weeks or so ready to rock and roll, he's been holding out to get his head right and focused.
And yet you can't help but bad mouth the organization based on speculation and hearsay. That is an interest little ethical dilemma there.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
of course, when I see McCarthy still here in 2018 thats disfunction, same as you would say about Capers 3 or 4 years ago, same with Thompson, we could be in our 4th or 5th season with Lafluer in stead of our 3rd, I guess you don't think that matters, I don't need speculation or hearsay to know hanging with McCarthy as long as we did was a mistake.
You can look these up too you know.Yoop wrote: ↑12 Jul 2021 17:042011 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
Here is the stats for Rodgers against Chicago.
- image.png (22.76 KiB) Viewed 323 times
- image.png (22.23 KiB) Viewed 323 times
Absolutely not yoop. I have countless times marked specific blame to a variety of parties over the last 10 years. I don't single out Rodgers. I only bring them up when ridiculous notions such as "Brady had more offensive talent than Rodgers over the career and other statements along the line"Yoop wrote: ↑12 Jul 2021 17:32I thought I'd check out the rest of your long winded post, I stopped when I got to this convoluted BS, again you take what someone says to the extreme, never have I said that Rodgers had nothing to do with any losses, thats you turning what a person actually says against them by making it a either this or that sided opinion, when it's typically more centered, of course Rodgers makes mistakes, how often have I said he's not perfect?????? you though will never let up with blaming Rodgers first over any other reason we lose, you don't of course, but thats what your trying to lay on me, it's crappolla.go pak go wrote: ↑12 Jul 2021 16:06Ultimately 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 layed out obvious roster short comings through the years at RB, WR, and at every position on defense, yet you question them, one boni fide WR for 5 years, the rest would scratch to make a roster any where else, years with out a decent RB, and holes every season at one defensive position or another, squad ratings bare this out, it's not as though I'am making this up, ask any football person, so ya, when I say Rodgers carried this team, a whole lot of football people would back me up, you put Rodgers up there with Belichick and he probably would have more rings as well.
And I would absolutely object to your statement saying "you have never said Rodgers had nothing to do with any losses". I will agree you are willing to state he isn't perfect as a generality, but it is far more coming from a defensive position of, "well what do you expect....perfection?!" I don't believe I have ever seen an object statement saying, "yes. Rodgers made the wrong read in the red zone to Lazard" or "Rodgers didn't throw an accurate ball to MVS". It always instead is, "sure Rodgers isn't perfect.....but can you expect anyone to be?". Again. Generality and a statement from a defensive position. You even did it the post above.
And it is honestly because you really care and are incredibly emotionally attached to your hero. I get it. You're a mama bear.
The whole argument continues primarily because a new turn of the carousel goes around because of having to find a way that Rodgers got shafted and because of that his significant talent can't be illustrated. Whereas I come from the position that overall his talent has been strong. His organization has been strong. And his results are comparable to other top QBs like Manning, Brees and Brady. The one difference is Brady found a way to win. And he now has done it with two coaches and two completely different systems. Literally nobody has done what Brady has done over a length of time. Not even Montana. It's honestly incredible.
No I believe it was 2012 when Jennings sustained his injury (same injury Lazard suffered last year I believe).
I don't consider the 2012 roster to be a championship contender. Though if it were not for the fail mary game, we would have been the #2 seed and hosted SF. But I think it was pretty clear we wouldn't have an answer for Kap regardless that season.
The only position I am at is Rodgers is under contract for 3 years. The Packers have stated Rodgers isn't going anywhere and he is the quarterback of our team. The Packers have deferred cap like crazy to bring back the squad and extend the window for as long as possible to be winners NOW at the expense of the future.
The Packers have literally done everything since spring 2019 that when you look at the moves as a whole. Especially with the roster going into 2021. And Rodgers is holding out.
That is my only position of "what the hell are you doing." The race car has been built. It's ready to win. And you don't want to drive it.
The tangents afterwards of "all the reasons leading up to this is obviously why Rodgers is mad" is where I say, "pump the brakes here"
Wait, I thought you were happy to wait? Apparently that isn't the case.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."