Week 15 Games

[Raptorman]

They have an offensive player of the year award for the best player on offense.

But its not most valuable player on a winning team...its just most valuable player...because value is measured in wins..so they go hand in hand. For instance, if you took Rodgers off the Packers...they might win 8 games (throwing out random number), but with Rodgers they can win a SB. Thats value.

A great offensive player on a bad team can be removed from that team and what changes? the team is still bad! That is not an example of value. Because nothing changed for the team.

So being a winning team is sort of implied when discussing how much value someone brings to their team. Because if a team is a 4 win team with or without them, they arent valuable in securing a win.

Again, thank you for making my point. So you have a good player on a team and that team goes 8-9. Without that player maybe they go 2-15. But because the team as a whole isn't a winning team, his value is diminished by the play of the team around him. But, Rodgers brings his team up from 10-7 to 14-3 and the playoffs and he has more value for 4 games than the other player has for 6 games. Based on the wins of the team, not the value of the player.

So then what attributes do you believe makes someone the most valuable player? The goal of every team in this league is to win it all. Rodgers makes the Packers a SB contender every year. Most of us here would say the Packers are most likely a .500 team if he wasn't on the roster. If that doesn't make him valuable then I don't know what does.

Rodgers has what, one more TD than Cousins? And after this week 2 fewer Interceptions. So exactly what has Rodgers brought to the Packers that Cousins hasn't brought to Vikings? The Vikings have scored more points than the Packers so far this year. So that makes Rodgers better why? Oh, yeah, the wins. The Packers have 11 wins the Vikings have only 7. Um, I wonder how that is considering the QB are about equal in stats and touchdowns. I wonder if there might not be another factor in those 11 wins. See, Rodgers gets credit for the team wins as a player. Because as a team, the Packer's offense isn't doing any better score-wise than the Vikings. But he's the difference.

Like Brady in New England. When he left everyone thought the Pats were done. Now That they are on the verge of another 12 win season one has to ask, was it really Brady? Is Jones as good as Brady? Or maybe, just maybe it's something else. I could make a case for Jones being MVP if the Pats go 12-5 much more than I can if the Packers go 13-4. After all, the Pats were 7-9 last year. Which QB made the bigger difference for his team?

[lake shark]

Remember when Viking fans claimed Tarvaris Jackson was actually better than Aaron Rodgers?

[NCF]

Again, thank you for making my point. So you have a good player on a team and that team goes 8-9. Without that player maybe they go 2-15. But because the team as a whole isn't a winning team, his value is diminished by the play of the team around him. But, Rodgers brings his team up from 10-7 to 14-3 and the playoffs and he has more value for 4 games than the other player has for 6 games. Based on the wins of the team, not the value of the player.

So then what attributes do you believe makes someone the most valuable player? The goal of every team in this league is to win it all. Rodgers makes the Packers a SB contender every year. Most of us here would say the Packers are most likely a .500 team if he wasn't on the roster. If that doesn't make him valuable then I don't know what does.

Rodgers has what, one more TD than Cousins? And after this week 2 fewer Interceptions. So exactly what has Rodgers brought to the Packers that Cousins hasn't brought to Vikings? The Vikings have scored more points than the Packers so far this year. So that makes Rodgers better why? Oh, yeah, the wins. The Packers have 11 wins the Vikings have only 7. Um, I wonder how that is considering the QB are about equal in stats and touchdowns. I wonder if there might not be another factor in those 11 wins. See, Rodgers gets credit for the team wins as a player. Because as a team, the Packer's offense isn't doing any better score-wise than the Vikings. But he's the difference.

Like Brady in New England. When he left everyone thought the Pats were done. Now That they are on the verge of another 12 win season one has to ask, was it really Brady? Is Jones as good as Brady? Or maybe, just maybe it's something else. I could make a case for Jones being MVP if the Pats go 12-5 much more than I can if the Packers go 13-4. After all, the Pats were 7-9 last year. Which QB made the bigger difference for his team?

What do the efficiency stats say?

[go pak go]

Efficiency wise they are not that different.

image.png (10.4 KiB) Viewed 421 times

image.png (10.22 KiB) Viewed 421 times

[Raptorman]

And here's the ultimate question. If the Viking's defense hadn't given up points in the last 2 minutes of the game and the Vikings were 11-3 like the Packers would Cousin's even be in consideration? My bet, no.

Is Herbert? Stafford? Allen? No. But you have Mahomes, Brady and Rodgers in the talk.

What's more impressive, a QB whose defense is giving up 26 ppg that is keeping his team in the playoff hunt or one whose defense is giving up 20 ppg keeping his team in the playoff hunt?

[Drj820]

And that's exactly the point. A player only has value if the team is winning. So it's not the "Most valuable player" award. It's the "Most valuable player on a winning team" award. Thank you for proving my point. One player does not win the games. No matter what you think. Put Tom Brady on the Lions and he will have a losing record.

They have an offensive player of the year award for the best player on offense.

But its not most valuable player on a winning team...its just most valuable player...because value is measured in wins..so they go hand in hand. For instance, if you took Rodgers off the Packers...they might win 8 games (throwing out random number), but with Rodgers they can win a SB. Thats value.

A great offensive player on a bad team can be removed from that team and what changes? the team is still bad! That is not an example of value. Because nothing changed for the team.

So being a winning team is sort of implied when discussing how much value someone brings to their team. Because if a team is a 4 win team with or without them, they arent valuable in securing a win.

Again, thank you for making my point. So you have a good player on a team and that team goes 8-9. Without that player maybe they go 2-15. But because the team as a whole isn't a winning team, his value is diminished by the play of the team around him. But, Rodgers brings his team up from 10-7 to 14-3 and the playoffs and he has more value for 4 games than the other player has for 6 games. Based on the wins of the team, not the value of the player.

I don’t think the packers are a 10 win team without Rodgers haha. Chiefs game is my best example.

Brady’s bucs are a good example of value. Without him, they had an all star roster and were not a playoff team...insert Brady and they win the super bowl.

[APB]

Rodgers has what, one more TD than Cousins? And after this week 2 fewer Interceptions. So exactly what has Rodgers brought to the Packers that Cousins hasn't brought to Vikings? The Vikings have scored more points than the Packers so far this year. So that makes Rodgers better why? Oh, yeah, the wins. The Packers have 11 wins the Vikings have only 7. Um, I wonder how that is considering the QB are about equal in stats and touchdowns. I wonder if there might not be another factor in those 11 wins. See, Rodgers gets credit for the team wins as a player. Because as a team, the Packer's offense isn't doing any better score-wise than the Vikings. But he's the difference.

I wouldn't rank Cousins as the Vikings MVP, let alone the NFL MVP.

Could you say the same for Rodgers and the Packers?

[Drj820]

And here's the ultimate question. If the Viking's defense hadn't given up points in the last 2 minutes of the game and the Vikings were 11-3 like the Packers would Cousin's even be in consideration? My bet, no.

Is Herbert? Stafford? Allen? No. But you have Mahomes, Brady and Rodgers in the talk.

What's more impressive, a QB whose defense is giving up 26 ppg that is keeping his team in the playoff hunt or one whose defense is giving up 20 ppg keeping his team in the playoff hunt?

Kork Cousins was god awful on Monday night against a bears team that had its top 4 corners out with Covid

[Drj820]

And here's the ultimate question. If the Viking's defense hadn't given up points in the last 2 minutes of the game and the Vikings were 11-3 like the Packers would Cousin's even be in consideration? My bet, no.

Is Herbert? Stafford? Allen? No. But you have Mahomes, Brady and Rodgers in the talk.

What's more impressive, a QB whose defense is giving up 26 ppg that is keeping his team in the playoff hunt or one whose defense is giving up 20 ppg keeping his team in the playoff hunt?

Herbert has a great roster around him, fighting for a WC spot. Allen has a great roster around him, fighting for a wc spot, Stafford threw three pick sixes 3 games in a row.

All of those teams have quality rosters enough to win it all and be a 1 seed.

The packers are actually the one seed because they have a qb playing like an MVP.

[go pak go]

They have an offensive player of the year award for the best player on offense.

But its not most valuable player on a winning team...its just most valuable player...because value is measured in wins..so they go hand in hand. For instance, if you took Rodgers off the Packers...they might win 8 games (throwing out random number), but with Rodgers they can win a SB. Thats value.

A great offensive player on a bad team can be removed from that team and what changes? the team is still bad! That is not an example of value. Because nothing changed for the team.

So being a winning team is sort of implied when discussing how much value someone brings to their team. Because if a team is a 4 win team with or without them, they arent valuable in securing a win.

Again, thank you for making my point. So you have a good player on a team and that team goes 8-9. Without that player maybe they go 2-15. But because the team as a whole isn't a winning team, his value is diminished by the play of the team around him. But, Rodgers brings his team up from 10-7 to 14-3 and the playoffs and he has more value for 4 games than the other player has for 6 games. Based on the wins of the team, not the value of the player.

I don’t think the packers are a 10 win team without Rodgers haha. Chiefs game is my best example.

Man you and I differ on this a lot.

I view the Chiefs game as a prime example of why the Packers are a 10+ win team. They went to loud Arrowhead without their starting QB against Mahommes and the #1 Seed Chiefs and honestly only lost because of a dropped INT, and special teams blunders.

And that's with extremely poor production from the passing game.

I absolutely think the Packers, especially when healthy, are a playoff team without MVP level play from QB1.

You put a 15th to 20th ranked QB on the 2021 Packers and the team still has a great chance at a double digit winning season. The top 5 QB play simply brings the Packers from a 10/11 win team to a 13+ win team.

[Drj820]

Again, thank you for making my point. So you have a good player on a team and that team goes 8-9. Without that player maybe they go 2-15. But because the team as a whole isn't a winning team, his value is diminished by the play of the team around him. But, Rodgers brings his team up from 10-7 to 14-3 and the playoffs and he has more value for 4 games than the other player has for 6 games. Based on the wins of the team, not the value of the player.

I don’t think the packers are a 10 win team without Rodgers haha. Chiefs game is my best example.

Man you and I differ on this a lot.

I view the Chiefs game as a prime example of why the Packers are a 10+ win team. They went to loud Arrowhead without their starting QB against Mahommes and the #1 Seed Chiefs and honestly only lost because of a dropped INT, and special teams blunders.

And that's with extremely poor production from the passing game.

I absolutely think the Packers, especially when healthy, are a playoff team without MVP level play from QB1.

You put a 15th to 20th ranked QB on the 2021 Packers and the team still has a great chance at a double digit winning season. The top 5 QB play simply brings the Packers from a 10/11 win team to a 13+ win team.

Imagine the amount of special teams blunders we’d see with an offense that isn’t as productive because we have the 20th best QB. They’d lose 10 games for us alone.

[Yoop]

And here's the ultimate question. If the Viking's defense hadn't given up points in the last 2 minutes of the game and the Vikings were 11-3 like the Packers would Cousin's even be in consideration? My bet, no.

Is Herbert? Stafford? Allen? No. But you have Mahomes, Brady and Rodgers in the talk.

What's more impressive, a QB whose defense is giving up 26 ppg that is keeping his team in the playoff hunt or one whose defense is giving up 20 ppg keeping his team in the playoff hunt?

Herbert has a great roster around him, fighting for a WC spot. Allen has a great roster around him, fighting for a wc spot, Stafford threw three pick sixes 3 games in a row.

All of those teams have quality rosters enough to win it all and be a 1 seed.

The packers are actually the one seed because they have a qb playing like an MVP.

obviously there are not enough awards to go around, every year there are a bunch of deserving players over looked for any number of reasons, and we know that voters take personality and other biases into there votes

as I've said when ya look at some of these other candidates there teams are loaded with impact receivers and RB's, and we do have a couple of great RB's, on the receiver end though we have Devonte and then a bunch of #3 receiver options in guys like Lasard, MVS, Lewis etc, to me thats what separates these candidates, Rodgers gets a boost imo because he excels with less of a supporting cast.

[YoHoChecko]

These sorts of debates are so weird and interesting because obviously, there is no empirical, ironclad, factual way to create a model of how 53 players interact with each other within and across units and positions. But to see how different people perceive things is always just so wild. Like our human brains are capable of interpreting the same information in so many different ways.

When I see, for instance, bud fox, defend Rodgers, I can see where the difference in our thinking lies. He sees team accomplishments as Rodgers' accomplishments and therefore enhances the credit that goes to Rodgers. For instance, he frequently mentions winning the Cardinals game with no top WRs as something Rodgers did; and he credits the ability of the OLine to protect and block despite injuries as something Rodgers is enabling. There are clear elements of truth to this because everything on a football team is interrelated. Interpreted this way, these acts are proof that Rodgers is carrying more weight than even his statistics show.

However, people like myself and for instance, go pack go, see the Cardinals game as evidence that the team can win without a strong contribution from the passing game. And the OLine squeaking by despite injuries as a credit to the depth, position coaches for preparing them, and offensive coaches for scheming around those deficiencies. Interpreted this way, it is proof that the team has many elements that can produce wins outside of Rodgers. Obviously, there are elements of truth to this, also.

Similarly, the Chiefs game. We're 11-2 with Rodgers and 0-1 without him. The offense was stymied almost all day without Rodgers. And the backup QB looked pretty rough. Interpreted as how badly we need Rodgers by Dr J. But holding the healthy AFC's top seed to 14 points despite missing Jaire and Stokes being a last minute scratch, losing by only 6, and suffering perhaps the worst special teams performance of the season on a bad special teams unit to begin with... well to some that can look like "ok, wow, we hung in with the best team despite missing Rodgers; we really are a deep, good team."

What gets me, though, are comments like that last one. "Imagine all the special teams blunders we’d see with an offense that isn’t as productive because we have the 20th best QB. They’d lose 10 games for us alone."

To me, this takes the interrelatedness a step too far. We're crediting the QB with improving our ST by hiding them. And I get it. To a degree, everything works together. But at a point, you have to let some units' performances, good and bad--or some players' performances, good and bad, stand for themselves.

We're also completely overlooking in most of these debates the fact that if we didn't have an elite QB, we would play a different style of football and build a different style of team. The fact of the matter is that 27 teams in the league don't have a top-5 QB and still, every year, 14 teams make the playoffs. Teams win Super Bowls occasionally with Nick Foles filling in for Carson Wentz or Eli Manning or Joe Flacco hitting a hot streak.... and routinely make it TO the Super Bowl with guys like Jared Goff or Colin Kaepernick or Matt Ryan--fine players, but nothing special or elite. And they do it by building their team with the KNOWLEDGE that they can't rely on the QB to cover things up the same way, and they coach accordingly.

I think if you go unit by unit, across the league, you'll find that the Packers roster, completely disregarding the QB position, holds up against the best rosters in the league. We have elite talent, role players, and depth at most levels of the field. If we didn't have an elite QB, we'd likely run more, but we'd also likely invest in more dynamic offensive weapons that can make plays on their own while the QB becomes more distributor and manager rather than centerpiece. And we certainly have the roster in place and the coaching in place to make those adjustments if needed. I just don't see why it has to be so polarized. Rodgers obviously allows us to do things, both on the field and in the front office, differently. But without him, we'd do different things and have different strengths and weaknesses and we still would have a good team.

To claim that the elite talent we have at other positions doesn't matter and we're a 10-loss team but for our QB just feels dismissive of everything else aside from Rodgers. While claiming that Rodgers receives help from the rest of the units and coaching and front office is just admitting that football takes 53+. It's not a slight on Rodgers or an insult to Rodgers to acknowledge the accomplishments and merits of other players, and the roster as a whole, but for too long around here, it feels like people take it as such.

[Raptorman]

Rodgers has what, one more TD than Cousins? And after this week 2 fewer Interceptions. So exactly what has Rodgers brought to the Packers that Cousins hasn't brought to Vikings? The Vikings have scored more points than the Packers so far this year. So that makes Rodgers better why? Oh, yeah, the wins. The Packers have 11 wins the Vikings have only 7. Um, I wonder how that is considering the QB are about equal in stats and touchdowns. I wonder if there might not be another factor in those 11 wins. See, Rodgers gets credit for the team wins as a player. Because as a team, the Packer's offense isn't doing any better score-wise than the Vikings. But he's the difference.

I wouldn't rank Cousins as the Vikings MVP, let alone the NFL MVP.

Could you say the same for Rodgers and the Packers?

Based on what? Production? Stats? Win/loss record? NO QB whose team gives up 25 ppg on a regular basis wins more than.500 Even Brady is .433 when his team gives up 25 points or more. Put Rodgers on the Lions and maybe they go .500.

What has Rodgers done better than Cousins this year?

[Pckfn23]

It's not a slight on Rodgers or an insult to Rodgers to acknowledge the accomplishments and merits of other players, and the roster as a whole, but for too long around here, it feels like people take it as such.

[Raptorman]

These sorts of debates are so weird and interesting because obviously, there is no empirical, ironclad, factual way to create a model of how 53 players interact with each other within and across units and positions. But to see how different people perceive things is always just so wild. Like our human brains are capable of interpreting the same information in so many different ways.

When I see, for instance, bud fox, defend Rodgers, I can see where the difference in our thinking lies. He sees team accomplishments as Rodgers' accomplishments and therefore enhances the credit that goes to Rodgers. For instance, he frequently mentions winning the Cardinals game with no top WRs as something Rodgers did; and he credits the ability of the OLine to protect and block despite injuries as something Rodgers is enabling. There are clear elements of truth to this because everything on a football team is interrelated. Interpreted this way, these acts are proof that Rodgers is carrying more weight than even his statistics show.

However, people like myself and for instance, go pack go, see the Cardinals game as evidence that the team can win without a strong contribution from the passing game. And the OLine squeaking by despite injuries as a credit to the depth, position coaches for preparing them, and offensive coaches for scheming around those deficiencies. Interpreted this way, it is proof that the team has many elements that can produce wins outside of Rodgers. Obviously, there are elements of truth to this, also.

Similarly, the Chiefs game. We're 11-2 with Rodgers and 0-1 without him. The offense was stymied almost all day without Rodgers. And the backup QB looked pretty rough. Interpreted as how badly we need Rodgers by Dr J. But holding the healthy AFC's top seed to 14 points despite missing Jaire and Stokes being a last minute scratch, losing by only 6, and suffering perhaps the worst special teams performance of the season on a bad special teams unit to begin with... well to some that can look like "ok, wow, we hung in with the best team despite missing Rodgers; we really are a deep, good team."

What gets me, though, are comments like that last one. "Imagine all the special teams blunders we’d see with an offense that isn’t as productive because we have the 20th best QB. They’d lose 10 games for us alone."

To me, this takes the interrelatedness a step too far. We're crediting the QB with improving our ST by hiding them. And I get it. To a degree, everything works together. But at a point, you have to let some units' performances, good and bad--or some players' performances, good and bad, stand for themselves.

We're also completely overlooking in most of these debates the fact that if we didn't have an elite QB, we would play a different style of football and build a different style of team. The fact of the matter is that 27 teams in the league don't have a top-5 QB and still, every year, 14 teams make the playoffs. Teams win Super Bowls occasionally with Nick Foles filling in for Carson Wentz or Eli Manning or Joe Flacco hitting a hot streak.... and routinely make it TO the Super Bowl with guys like Jared Goff or Colin Kaepernick or Matt Ryan--fine players, but nothing special or elite. And they do it by building their team with the KNOWLEDGE that they can't rely on the QB to cover things up the same way, and they coach accordingly.

I think if you go unit by unit, across the league, you'll find that the Packers roster, completely disregarding the QB position, holds up against the best rosters in the league. We have elite talent, role players, and depth at most levels of the field. If we didn't have an elite QB, we'd likely run more, but we'd also likely invest in more dynamic offensive weapons that can make plays on their own while the QB becomes more distributor and manager rather than centerpiece. And we certainly have the roster in place and the coaching in place to make those adjustments if needed. I just don't see why it has to be so polarized. Rodgers obviously allows us to do things, both on the field and in the front office, differently. But without him, we'd do different things and have different strengths and weaknesses and we still would have a good team.

To claim that the elite talent we have at other positions doesn't matter and we're a 10-loss team but for our QB just feels dismissive of everything else aside from Rodgers. While claiming that Rodgers receives help from the rest of the units and coaching and front office is just admitting that football takes 53+. It's not a slight on Rodgers or an insult to Rodgers to acknowledge the accomplishments and merits of other players, and the roster as a whole, but for too long around here, it feels like people take it as such.

Thank you. A voice of reason. It is a team game period. And while the QB is a key component, much of the wins and losses have to do with other players. Does Eli win two Super Bowls without his defense stepping up in the playoffs? Hell no. At the same time, Rodgers has been playing well for years and hasn't been back. Why? Because some of the other 52 players aren't carrying their weight. It doesn't matter how good the QB is if the rest of the team can't do their job. Just ask Dan Marino.

[YoHoChecko]

Put another way: would MLF be 37-9 without Aaron Rodgers? Heck no!

But would Aaron Rodgers be 37-8 without MLF? We actually have fairly extensive evidence, based on 11 years as a starting QB without MLF that the answer is ALSO heck no! The most Rodgers has won in any 3-season stretch of his starting career is 35 games (35-11 twice).

So the variable that explains the increased win percentage for the Packers is not Rodgers. Rodgers is worth a lot of wins, but clearly things OTHER than Rodgers have an impact, or else we would not be witnessing the team's best 3-year stretch of winning football in Rodgers' career. And while Rodgers' numbers in this time have improved, they aren't better now than they were in 2011 or 2014 or any stretch from 2009 to 2014; and yet, absent the Super Bowl accomplishment that occurred in that time, which absolutely matters and I am not dismissing, the team success, in terms of wins and losses and playoff advancement, are as good or better. We just have to win a Super Bowl this year to complete the list.

But the FACT is that the team is accomplishing more with Rodgers than they have previously accomplished with Rodgers, and so there MUST be improving contributions from elsewhere on the team. And we MUST be a good team to be able to maintain this success, as Rodgers has, indeed, had mediocre W/L seasons and losing seasons prior to this.

[Raptorman]

Put another way: would MLF be 37-9 without Aaron Rodgers? Heck no!

But would Aaron Rodgers be 37-8 without MLF? We actually have fairly extensive evidence, based on 11 years as a starting QB without MLF that the answer is ALSO heck no! The most Rodgers has won in any 3-season stretch of his starting career is 35 games (35-11 twice).

So the variable that explains the increased win percentage for the Packers is not Rodgers. Rodgers is worth a lot of wins, but clearly things OTHER than Rodgers have an impact, or else we would not be witnessing the team's best 3-year stretch of winning football in Rodgers' career. And while Rodgers' numbers in this time have improved, they aren't better now than they were in 2011 or 2014 or any stretch from 2009 to 2014; and yet, absent the Super Bowl accomplishment that occurred in that time, which absolutely matters and I am not dismissing, the team success, in terms of wins and losses and playoff advancement, are as good or better. We just have to win a Super Bowl this year to complete the list.

But the FACT is that the team is accomplishing more with Rodgers than they have previously accomplished with Rodgers, and so there MUST be improving contributions from elsewhere on the team. And we MUST be a good team to be able to maintain this success, as Rodgers has, indeed, had mediocre W/L seasons and losing seasons prior to this.

IF the Packer's defense can hold the other teams to under 20 points a game they have a good shot at the Super Bowl. They did well for most of the season, but the last four games...........Going backward. Not good.

Just to point out something, If the Vikings make the playoffs, they won't do squat. So let's get that out right now. The defense is just not holding up their end of the deal this year.

[Drj820]

What gets me, though, are comments like that last one. "Imagine all the special teams blunders we’d see with an offense that isn’t as productive because we have the 20th best QB. They’d lose 10 games for us alone."

To me, this takes the interrelatedness a step too far. We're crediting the QB with improving our ST by hiding them. And I get it. To a degree, everything works together. But at a point, you have to let some units' performances, good and bad--or some players' performances, good and bad, stand for themselves.

It sounds like you do get my point though. The production of the offense covers up the sins of the special teams. If we had less production from the offense, we would not survive the terrible starting field position, we would be punting more, and a tremendous amount of additional stress would be put on the defense to stop the opposition.

In addition, with less production from the offense, every time we muff a punt and donate a possession to the opposition...that affects the game a little more. Finally, every time we dont score a touchdown, we would be asking the FG team to come out and make more kicks. Something that has been a problem this year and cost the Packers 6 points in the Chiefs game.

So ya, I absolutely think without Rodgers at QB and the offense controlling the game STs would cost us many more games this year. The rest of the team is covering their a**.

Which is why I am terrified that when the postseason comes and the games are closer the other phases of the game might not be able to cover for them any longer. Without Rodgers, the O wouldnt be able to cover for them as is, like we saw in the Chiefs game.

Also, you say if we didnt have Rodgers we would be built differently...how so? We already are designed on paper to pound the ball with resources put into big dog, keeping tonyan, drafting OLmen, resigning Jones, drafting dillon. The roster as is currently built is designed to make any QBs life easier.

[YoHoChecko]

Also, you say if we didnt have Rodgers we would be built differently...how so? We already are designed on paper to pound the ball with resources put into big dog, keeping tonyan, drafting OLmen, resigning Jones, drafting dillon. The roster as is currently built is designed to make any QBs life easier.

Yes! I agree with this. The roster, as currently built, is designed to make any QB's life easier! Which is why many of us here are pointing out that yeah, while Rodgers is succeeding, he's succeeding in part because the team is constructed to make any QB's life easier, including Rodgers!

But if we didn't have Rodgers, and we had the cap savings that come with not having an elite QB, I bet we would have a) focused a bit on bringing in better YAC players at receiver and better returners. Think about how the 49ers operate with Jimmy G and a very similar coaching philosophy.

Elite QBs at elite prices basically cost a team 1 or 2 above-average starting salary free agent. If our QB's cap charge was $12 million less, we'd maybe have signed Cordarelle Patterson to be our return/gadget player and/or afforded defensive line help at the trade deadline. The tradeoffs of how you build a team with or without an elite QB are on the field AND in the financial structures.

But because we have already invested heavily on defense and the run game, and because we have assembled a high-quality OL, the differences to make up for a less-good QB would be pretty small, but the play calling, the offensive scheme, and a couple players on the margins would then make a difference.

But I'm glad we can all acknowledge that there's a clear roster and coaching case to be made that this team makes it as easy as possible on its QBs.