Green Bay Packers @ Arizona Cardinals - Thursday 7:20 PM CST

[bud fox]

You officially lost it Yoho


Dont worry Rodgers may be gone in a year and you won't have to worry

[YoHoChecko]

In Chad Penningtons second best record he went 11-6. That year he threw 17 Tds and 16 Ints. I found your comparison blasphemous haha

I greatly respect your opinion on majority of issues..but we way off on this one haha

Yeah, he went 11-6 and made the playoffs on a bad team because what he contributed to the team goes beyond the stat sheet.

Literally the point, man. You use season-long stats to make a comparison to a player you are telling me cannot be evaluated with stats.

[go pak go]

Fundamental disagreement. I confidently stand by my point that the Aaron Rodgers effect kept 9 guys out of the box all night, rodgers got bums lined up, rodgers put us in good positions, Rodgers impacts games in ways that could never show up on the state sheet, and 90% of league QBs lose that game last night without their WR1-3.

Also, none of the above discredits the great performances of Jones and Dillon.

agreed to think any ol QB would have gotten a win last night is far fetched imo to think a average QB could have sustained mistake free ball for those 7 minute drives is a tough sell for me, but thats what we had to do to win this game.

We had a first and goal from the 3 yardline or less twice and got 3 points out of it.

That's absolutely a mistake. The difference is the rest of the team was so good and made enough plays they were able to survive that mistake.

[Yoop]

Rodgers was missing his top 3 WRs, his best TE (in the second half), and had a makeshift OL, again. The Cards stacked the box all night, because everyone knew there was no threat over the top -- none whatsoever. Yet AR got rid of the ball in under 2.5 over and over and over. No turnovers from AR. When it wasn't there he didn't force it. He routinely changed plays to get into something that had a chance.

Does the head coach get credit? Of course he does. AR would have been killed if MM's slow developing "win your route" OFF was used. That doesn't detract from what AR was able to accomplish.

The notion that Andy Dalton or Kirk Cousins or Joe Flacco or Big Ben does this is absurd. Those guys would have all thrown multiple INTs and took sacks and most likely had QB ratings under 50.

AR took essentially street level WR talent, with little or no practice time together, and made them look NFL serviceable. The same thing he did with Boykin and so many other guys over the years. AR's 90 QB rating last night, given the conditions of the game, is really quite amazing. <snip>

[go pak go]

You officially lost it Yoho


Dont worry Rodgers may be gone in a year and you won't have to worry

Just get that 2nd ring.

That's all I want.

[YoHoChecko]

You officially lost it Yoho


Dont worry Rodgers may be gone in a year and you won't have to worry

Guys, I think Rodgers is GREAT. I think he is magical. I think he's played incredibly well in weeks 2 through 7; and last night in week 8, he managed the game because they didn't have the horses to use the passing game. LAST NIGHT, he was a game manager, not because he can't do better, but because that was the plan. Criticizing his play is not criticising his talent. I just feel like eevryone is giving HIM credit, saying things like "Rodgers won the game down his top 3 WRs and a makeshift OL" instead of "The Packers won the game despite being down his top 3 WRs and a makeshift OL" is absolutely insane.

We won last night because of our defense, running game, coaching, and some turnovers (muffed punt, tipped pass, miscommunication).

So saying anything about how Rodgers willed us to anything rubs me the wrong way. Rodgers managed the game and trusted his coach and the plan and his supporting players to do their jobs and they did their jobs. When anyone says "Rodgers won last night" it annoys me to death.

[Drj820]

Rodgers was missing his top 3 WRs, his best TE (in the second half), and had a makeshift OL, again. The Cards stacked the box all night, because everyone knew there was no threat over the top -- none whatsoever. Yet AR got rid of the ball in under 2.5 over and over and over. No turnovers from AR. When it wasn't there he didn't force it. He routinely changed plays to get into something that had a chance.

Does the head coach get credit? Of course he does. AR would have been killed if MM's slow developing "win your route" OFF was used. That doesn't detract from what AR was able to accomplish.

The notion that Andy Dalton or Kirk Cousins or Joe Flacco or Big Ben does this is absurd. Those guys would have all thrown multiple INTs and took sacks and most likely had QB ratings under 50.

AR took essentially street level WR talent, with little or no practice time together, and made them look NFL serviceable. The same thing he did with Boykin and so many other guys over the years. AR's 90 QB rating last night, given the conditions of the game, is really quite amazing. <snip>

I mean ya, you say it well haha. Agreed. The 4.4 yards per attempt average is not because Rodgers didnt have the noodle to toss it, it was due to Rodgers feeling pressure and making the perfect read on where to get rid of the ball.

[YoHoChecko]

AR took essentially street level WR talent, with little or no practice time together, and made them look NFL serviceable. The same thing he did with Boykin and so many other guys over the years. AR's 90 QB rating last night, given the conditions of the game, is really quite amazing. <snip>

You think the receivers looked NFL serviceable last night?

Yes lol come on man

Cobb: 3 catches, 15 yards, 2 TDs
Winfree: 4 catches, 30 yards, 1 drop, 1 fumble
EQSB: 2 catches, 12 yards, 1 holding penalty

That is the extent of our WR production last night.

[Drj820]

In Chad Penningtons second best record he went 11-6. That year he threw 17 Tds and 16 Ints. I found your comparison blasphemous haha

I greatly respect your opinion on majority of issues..but we way off on this one haha

Yeah, he went 11-6 and made the playoffs on a bad team because what he contributed to the team goes beyond the stat sheet.

Literally the point, man. You use season-long stats to make a comparison to a player you are telling me cannot be evaluated with stats.

Yeah my point was that one of Penningtons INTs would certainly come during a game like last nights, probably 2 or 3 of them...and he would have lost the game.

Pennington would lose against the Cards last night 10 of 10 times. The comparison is comedic!

[bud fox]

You officially lost it Yoho


Dont worry Rodgers may be gone in a year and you won't have to worry

Guys, I think Rodgers is GREAT. I think he is magical. I think he's played incredibly well in weeks 2 through 7; and last night in week 8, he managed the game because they didn't have the horses to use the passing game. LAST NIGHT, he was a game manager, not because he can't do better, but because that was the plan. Criticizing his play is not criticising his talent. I just feel like eevryone is giving HIM credit, saying things like "Rodgers won the game down his top 3 WRs and a makeshift OL" instead of "The Packers won the game despite being down his top 3 WRs and a makeshift OL" is absolutely insane.

We won last night because of our defense, running game, coaching, and some turnovers (muffed punt, tipped pass, miscommunication).

So saying anything about how Rodgers willed us to anything rubs me the wrong way. Rodgers managed the game and trusted his coach and the plan and his supporting players to do their jobs and they did their jobs. When anyone says "Rodgers won last night" it annoys me to death.

It's wrong

A game manager is the type who has a good team. He is given a restricted play book. Etc.

Rodgers had a bad group. He was not restricted. We know the level of the decision making Rodgers has around plays and changing alignments routes etc.

It was a classy performance by the QB who made the big throws when needed and if MLewis stays in he has 3 TDs. The routes were dumbed down because they had to be for the receiving group.

[Captain_Ben]

Probably better suited to its own thread, but I'd love to have a conversation about Chad Pennington and his legacy.

I have always said that Chad Pennington was one of the more underrated QB's I have ever seen. And to be fair, he played football when the job was much more difficult for QB's. If he had been playing today under today's rules, I'd bet he'd be ranked comfortably in the top 10.

[TheSkeptic]

Few things.

Sorry GPG I was mia today. Checking in just for you . (I also picked a packer win)

I dont want to hear our OL might be the worst in the league. What an awful take. I mean really?? They were way better then the 7-1 cards last night. With 2 starters missing they are still decent.

Great team win last night. The mental toughness of This group is top notch. They have 1 goal this year and they are as go as any to get that done.

D played great. Got pressure from all over. Mean Dean has been good the last month. Gary may have had his 1st down game and was still good. Getting 2 studs back will make this unit scary.

O had its struggles to be expected but man the backs went hard. They were the hammer. What an effort all around. Some mistakes but overall they did enough. AZ has held 4 teams under 20 this year. Packers controled the clock and trenches

The bucs are still the monster under the bed bc they are strong on both lines. We can beat them but thats our comp. No other team scares me..... Like at all

I still think GB can be a player before the trade deadline. I could see a wr or te added to the mix. Cooks would require some money moved around but wow him in this group would match TB threats.

This Oline is one of the best in the league. Anyone who says that they are the worst needs a serious reality check. No RB gains significant yards without good blocking. Not Jones, not Dillon and not even Jim Brown puts up 150 yards and a 4.4 average with a below average Oline.

[bud fox]

You think the receivers looked NFL serviceable last night?

Yes lol come on man

Cobb: 3 catches, 15 yards, 2 TDs
Winfree: 4 catches, 30 yards, 1 drop, 1 fumble
EQSB: 2 catches, 12 yards, 1 holding penalty

That is the extent of our WR production last night.

Exactly lol

Those two TDs to cobb were perfect. Cobb has great hands but has never had seperation. First TD was right by the ear of CB. 2nd pump fake and moving left to drag safety then off bad footing to cobb.

We saw receivers make route errors like Amari in the flat.

This was a possession game. Turnover battle was number 1. With this group of wrs he couldn't risk them not being there or not having the hands. Especially when is the only one with real game time.

[go pak go]

You officially lost it Yoho


Dont worry Rodgers may be gone in a year and you won't have to worry

Guys, I think Rodgers is GREAT. I think he is magical. I think he's played incredibly well in weeks 2 through 7; and last night in week 8, he managed the game because they didn't have the horses to use the passing game. LAST NIGHT, he was a game manager, not because he can't do better, but because that was the plan. Criticizing his play is not criticising his talent. I just feel like eevryone is giving HIM credit, saying things like "Rodgers won the game down his top 3 WRs and a makeshift OL" instead of "The Packers won the game despite being down his top 3 WRs and a makeshift OL" is absolutely insane.

We won last night because of our defense, running game, coaching, and some turnovers (muffed punt, tipped pass, miscommunication).

So saying anything about how Rodgers willed us to anything rubs me the wrong way. Rodgers managed the game and trusted his coach and the plan and his supporting players to do their jobs and they did their jobs. When anyone says "Rodgers won last night" it annoys me to death.

It's wrong

A game manager is the type who has a good team. He is given a restricted play book. Etc.

Rodgers had a bad group. He was not restricted. We know the level of the decision making Rodgers has around plays and changing alignments routes etc.

It was a classy performance by the QB who made the big throws when needed and if MLewis stays in he has 3 TDs. The routes were dumbed down because they had to be for the receiving group.

The passing attack was a bad group.

Literally every other facet of the team was amazing and that is why the Packers won.

The Packers won despite an anemic passing attack. The Packers won despite only getting 3 points when they had the ball with 1st and goal from 3 yardline or closer two times.

That is what I don't understand here. Yes the tools that Rodgers had was poor but those tools also didn't produce anything. The production came from ST's giving us 3 points. The defense giving us 7 points and the running attack primarily giving us the other 14 points while also having our defense hold their high end offense to just 21 points which is winning football in this day and age.

Why last night was so cool was because the Packers didn't have the tools to use Rodgers talents but more importantly...didn't have to.

It's like Tom Brady his first 4 years in the league.

[YoHoChecko]

It's wrong

A game manager is the type who has a good team. He is given a restricted play book. Etc.

Bro, you literally said, verbatim, we dominated because of the way Rodgers managed the game.

A game manager is a role. And it is a role that Rodgers took on last night. And his time management issues almost cost us the game.

Basically, myself and like 2-3 other people on this board think it's AWESOME that we were able to win the game last night down a ton of star and supporting players without a great performance by our QB.

So we're like "wow, the Packers won despite everything going against it and despite the offense being restricted to the point that we couldn't pass the ball."

And then most of the people on the board are literally arguing with us, like "you're saying Rodgers won without a great performance? B.S. That performance was great. How else could Rodgers have won, given those circumstances, if he had not played great."


And like, if you didn't notice the shift from saying "the Packers" won the game and "Rodgers" won the game" in that dichotomy, that's the point.

[YoHoChecko]

The passing attack was a bad group.

Literally every other facet of the team was amazing and that is why the Packers won.

The Packers won despite an anemic passing attack. The Packers won despite only getting 3 points when they had the ball with 1st and goal from 3 yardline or closer two times.

That is what I don't understand here. Yes the tools that Rodgers had was poor but those tools also didn't produce anything. The production came from ST's giving us 3 points. The defense giving us 7 points and the running attack primarily giving us the other 14 points while also having our defense hold their high end offense to just 21 points which is winning football in this day and age.

Why last night was so cool was because the Packers didn't have the tools to use Rodgers talents but more importantly...didn't have to.

It's like Tom Brady his first 4 years in the league.

[go pak go]

Probably better suited to its own thread, but I'd love to have a conversation about Chad Pennington and his legacy.

I have always said that Chad Pennington was one of the more underrated QB's I have ever seen. And to be fair, he played football when the job was much more difficult for QB's. If he had been playing today under today's rules, I'd bet he'd be ranked comfortably in the top 10.

I only know Chad Pennington for ruining my 2002 season.

[YoHoChecko]

Probably better suited to its own thread, but I'd love to have a conversation about Chad Pennington and his legacy.

I have always said that Chad Pennington was one of the more underrated QB's I have ever seen. And to be fair, he played football when the job was much more difficult for QB's. If he had been playing today under today's rules, I'd bet he'd be ranked comfortably in the top 10.

This is the Chad Pennington I am discussing. You're correct. He led the league in passer rating one of his earliest seasons. He consistently got the job done, even though there wasn't a lot to work with and it didn't look pretty. I was making a reference to people who watched Pennignton play, not who googled his stats real quick to call me a blasphemer

[bud fox]

It's wrong

A game manager is the type who has a good team. He is given a restricted play book. Etc.

Bro, you literally said, verbatim, we dominated because of the way Rodgers managed the game.

A game manager is a role. And it is a role that Rodgers took on last night. And his time management issues almost cost us the game.

Basically, myself and like 2-3 other people on this board think it's AWESOME that we were able to win the game last night down a ton of star and supporting players without a great performance by our QB.

So we're like "wow, the Packers won despite everything going against it and despite the offense being restricted to the point that we couldn't pass the ball."

And then most of the people on the board are literally arguing with us, like "you're saying Rodgers won without a great performance? B.S. That performance was great. How else could Rodgers have won, given those circumstances, if he had not played great."


And like, if you didn't notice the shift from saying "the Packers" won the game and "Rodgers" won the game" in that dichotomy, that's the point.

It's not though

You are comparing him to average QBs who are restricted completely.

Rodgers wasn't. He managed the game. Those other players are not managers but pawn QBs with the coach managing the game.

[bud fox]

Guys, I think Rodgers is GREAT. I think he is magical. I think he's played incredibly well in weeks 2 through 7; and last night in week 8, he managed the game because they didn't have the horses to use the passing game. LAST NIGHT, he was a game manager, not because he can't do better, but because that was the plan. Criticizing his play is not criticising his talent. I just feel like eevryone is giving HIM credit, saying things like "Rodgers won the game down his top 3 WRs and a makeshift OL" instead of "The Packers won the game despite being down his top 3 WRs and a makeshift OL" is absolutely insane.

We won last night because of our defense, running game, coaching, and some turnovers (muffed punt, tipped pass, miscommunication).

So saying anything about how Rodgers willed us to anything rubs me the wrong way. Rodgers managed the game and trusted his coach and the plan and his supporting players to do their jobs and they did their jobs. When anyone says "Rodgers won last night" it annoys me to death.

It's wrong

A game manager is the type who has a good team. He is given a restricted play book. Etc.

Rodgers had a bad group. He was not restricted. We know the level of the decision making Rodgers has around plays and changing alignments routes etc.

It was a classy performance by the QB who made the big throws when needed and if MLewis stays in he has 3 TDs. The routes were dumbed down because they had to be for the receiving group.

The passing attack was a bad group.

Literally every other facet of the team was amazing and that is why the Packers won.

The Packers won despite an anemic passing attack. The Packers won despite only getting 3 points when they had the ball with 1st and goal from 3 yardline or closer two times.

That is what I don't understand here. Yes the tools that Rodgers had was poor but those tools also didn't produce anything. The production came from ST's giving us 3 points. The defense giving us 7 points and the running attack primarily giving us the other 14 points while also having our defense hold their high end offense to just 21 points which is winning football in this day and age.

Why last night was so cool was because the Packers didn't have the tools to use Rodgers talents but more importantly...didn't have to.

It's like Tom Brady his first 4 years in the league.

Lol 14 points from passes but yeah. The fact is Rodgers scored those TDs in the redzone. MLewis didn't stay in for another. Rodgers got first downs when needed. With the worst receiving group in the league.