From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
Hi everyone. I’m a long time lurker on this board and have always found it very informative and entertaining. Thanks for all the info and insights over the years.
I wanted to pop in with a thought on the Rodgers topic. I can’t help but see the parallels between last night’s game and the Kansas City game earlier this year. The KC game has been used time and again as “Exhibit A” to show why Love is not ready and that having Rodgers in a game like that would certainly have led to a win instead of a loss (“Yeah, special teams cost us points, but with Rodgers we would have scored more and won the game,” etc.). Last night, with Rodgers in a very similar game, we didn’t score more and we didn’t win. That has me thinking—maybe (a) Love isn’t as bad as he gets credit for, (b) the impact of not having Rodgers on the overall Packers record wouldn’t be as drastic as is often assumed (I’ve read here that we’re a 4-win team if you swap Love for Rodgers, everything else remaining the same), or (c) possibly both.
I love watching Rodgers and always have, and I don’t think he is in any way “expendable” in a vacuum. I also don’t have delusions that we can just swap Love in for Rodgers next year and make a run (I’m aware we’re going to lose good players as a result of the salary cap situation). I suppose I just have hope that if the front office is able to use resources from a Rodgers trade this off-season to build around Love in as effective a manner as they have used resources over the past few years to build around Rodgers (maybe use a teensy but more on special teams…), we have a chance to come out on the other side as a competitive organization. Said differently, maybe the sky isn’t destined to fall (at least long term, maybe it falls a little next year) if we do, in fact, move on this off-season.
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."
Hi everyone. I’m a long time lurker on this board and have always found it very informative and entertaining. Thanks for all the info and insights over the years.
I wanted to pop in with a thought on the Rodgers topic. I can’t help but see the parallels between last night’s game and the Kansas City game earlier this year. The KC game has been used time and again as “Exhibit A” to show why Love is not ready and that having Rodgers in a game like that would certainly have led to a win instead of a loss (“Yeah, special teams cost us points, but with Rodgers we would have scored more and won the game,” etc.). Last night, with Rodgers in a very similar game, we didn’t score more and we didn’t win. That has me thinking—maybe (a) Love isn’t as bad as he gets credit for, (b) the impact of not having Rodgers on the overall Packers record wouldn’t be as drastic as is often assumed (I’ve read here that we’re a 4-win team if you swap Love for Rodgers, everything else remaining the same), or (c) possibly both.
I love watching Rodgers and always have, and I don’t think he is in any way “expendable” in a vacuum. I also don’t have delusions that we can just swap Love in for Rodgers next year and make a run (I’m aware we’re going to lose good players as a result of the salary cap situation). I suppose I just have hope that if the front office is able to use resources from a Rodgers trade this off-season to build around Love in as effective a manner as they have used resources over the past few years to build around Rodgers (maybe use a teensy but more on special teams…), we have a chance to come out on the other side as a competitive organization. Said differently, maybe the sky isn’t destined to fall (at least long term, maybe it falls a little next year) if we do, in fact, move on this off-season.
(Sorry, have wanted to do that for years)
Very good first post! You should post more often.
Yeah I was stunned to say the least. The saying always is "Rodgers is worth at least 10 wins" or yada yada. Yet last night he, as you stated, did no better than what Jordan Love has done this year. He put together 2 drives.
It blows my mind that we lost a game with Aaron Rodgers and Davante Adams when our defense gave up 0 TDs. That's absolutely absurd.
There has been a lot of rumblings for a while but the Rodgers defenders declare war whenever anything negative about him is said. It's just hard to continue denying the facts.
All being said, moving forward, the picture is clear. Everyone, including Rodgers, knows it. The era is done.
Literally everything except 69 playing fell in Rodgers hands going into last night's game. And the defense played its best football in the postseason of my life to boot.
I think doing an identity shift of being a defensive and run-first Packers is the way to go.
Who would we say are the two greatest QBs over the past 20 years or so? Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers. Who has more MVP awards? Probably Rodgers 4-3, assuming this year's award is as expected. Who has more Superbowl rings? Vrady, 7-1.
Why? Brady has that total intangible - he can do what it takes to win. For example, Buccaneers have scored over 30 in each of their 5 playoff games with Brady at QB. Has he ever laid an egg like last night? When it push comes to shove, when the breaks are beating the boys, name any clich you like - Brady finds a way to win as often as not. Rodgers doesn't.
Given a straight choice between Rodgers and AN Other, of course I'd pick Rodgers, because we have no idea whether AN Other would have the intangible that Rodgers lacks. But given the choice of Rodgers but we lose a load of defensive stars, or Or no Rodgers, keep the stars, gain some first round draft picks - it's goodbye. We have a year to see how far Love progresses (because the Detroit game certainly does not represent the best he can possibly be, he is bound to get better as long as he has the right work ethic) and we can draft another QB perhaps with the traded pick in 2023. (Or, if Love is as bad as some people fear, with our own, early first round pick!).
Last edited by dsr on 23 Jan 2022 11:23, edited 1 time in total.
Who would we say are the two greatest QBs over the past 20 years or so? Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers. Who has more MVP awards? Probably Rodgers 4-3, assuming this year's award is as expected. Who has more Superbowl rings? Vrady, 7-1.
Why? Brady has that total intangible - he can do what it takes to win. For example, Patriots have scored over 30 in each of their 5 playoff games with Brady at QB. Has he ever laid an egg like last night? When it push comes to shove, when the breaks are beating the boys, name any clich you like - Brady finds a way to win as often as not. Rodgers doesn't.
Given a straight choice between Rodgers and AN Other, of course I'd pick Rodgers, because we have no idea whether AN Other would have the intangible that Rodgers lacks. But given the choice of Rodgers but we lose a load of defensive stars, or Or no Rodgers, keep the stars, gain some first round draft picks - it's goodbye. We have a year to see how far Love progresses (because the Detroit game certainly does not represent the best he can possibly be, he is bound to get better as long as he has the right work ethic) and we can draft another QB perhaps with the traded pick in 2023. (Or, if Love is as bad as some people fear, with our own, early first round pick!).
I believe Brady would tell you he laid an egg at Lambeau last January but his team still won.
I believe Brady would tell you he laid an egg at Lambeau last January but his team still won.
But he still scored points. You have a better chance of victory with 3 TDs and 4 Ints than you do with 1 TD and 58 yards total offence in the second half. We could have picked a couple of dozen QBs who could have done better than what Rodgers did after the Mercilus fumble, which was only 10 minutes into the match. We could have picked hundreds who could have matched his second half performance.
I believe Brady would tell you he laid an egg at Lambeau last January but his team still won.
But he still scored points. You have a better chance of victory with 3 TDs and 4 Ints than you do with 1 TD and 58 yards total offence in the second half. We could have picked a couple of dozen QBs who could have done better than what Rodgers did after the Mercilus fumble, which was only 10 minutes into the match. We could have picked hundreds who could have matched his second half performance.
With the way our D played last night we didn't need 3 TDs. Mercilus didn't fumble. That was a killer but I'd love to know why Lewis' was and why the zebras said a similar play by the SF WR in the very next series wasn't?
I believe Brady would tell you he laid an egg at Lambeau last January but his team still won.
But he still scored points. You have a better chance of victory with 3 TDs and 4 Ints than you do with 1 TD and 58 yards total offence in the second half. We could have picked a couple of dozen QBs who could have done better than what Rodgers did after the Mercilus fumble, which was only 10 minutes into the match. We could have picked hundreds who could have matched his second half performance.
With the way our D played last night we didn't need 3 TDs. Mercilus didn't fumble. That was a killer but I'd love to know why Lewis' was and why the zebras said a similar play by the SF WR in the very next series wasn't?
How about 1? How about hit the open man? He surely was not the only reason, but he was a reason. Special teams was a big reason. Poor play calling was a reason. Offensive line was a reason.
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."
Hi everyone. I’m a long time lurker on this board and have always found it very informative and entertaining. Thanks for all the info and insights over the years.
I wanted to pop in with a thought on the Rodgers topic. I can’t help but see the parallels between last night’s game and the Kansas City game earlier this year. The KC game has been used time and again as “Exhibit A” to show why Love is not ready and that having Rodgers in a game like that would certainly have led to a win instead of a loss (“Yeah, special teams cost us points, but with Rodgers we would have scored more and won the game,” etc.). Last night, with Rodgers in a very similar game, we didn’t score more and we didn’t win. That has me thinking—maybe (a) Love isn’t as bad as he gets credit for, (b) the impact of not having Rodgers on the overall Packers record wouldn’t be as drastic as is often assumed (I’ve read here that we’re a 4-win team if you swap Love for Rodgers, everything else remaining the same), or (c) possibly both.
I love watching Rodgers and always have, and I don’t think he is in any way “expendable” in a vacuum. I also don’t have delusions that we can just swap Love in for Rodgers next year and make a run (I’m aware we’re going to lose good players as a result of the salary cap situation). I suppose I just have hope that if the front office is able to use resources from a Rodgers trade this off-season to build around Love in as effective a manner as they have used resources over the past few years to build around Rodgers (maybe use a teensy but more on special teams…), we have a chance to come out on the other side as a competitive organization. Said differently, maybe the sky isn’t destined to fall (at least long term, maybe it falls a little next year) if we do, in fact, move on this off-season.
I probably can't think entirely straight right now, but I'm pretty sure the answer is a No from me. It's become like those Favre INTs at this point. Last season was our year, but we pissed it away. This season we had to try to steal one, and we slept on our first playoff opponent.
Besides, the era of the elite QB is over. Rodgers and Brady are the last. One of those was just bested by a team that's just solid, but not amazing.
Let MLF go back to the drawing board with his scheme/playbook, no longer restricted by what Rodgers likes or not, and get a full offseason to work on making Jordan Love successful. If he busts, you can draft a new QB with the high draft you end up with.
I'm not sure what feels worse at this point, those Favre INTs or these Green Bay teams of recent. Were we ever truly favored in a number of those with Favre? To go all the way? I don't think so. So, I just kinda expected that Favre INT to seal it. Every recent year we are top dog all year, to get pounced.
I have been saying this for 10 years. As maddening as those interceptions were, I’d still take them over AR’s sacks and indecisiveness any day.
There is something about taking a big third down sack that is just so deflating. Like, the idea that you’re not even going to give us a chance tells your receivers you don’t trust them. It sets the tone for the whole team. A tone that says “I’m too scared to nut up and take a chance.” How can anyone respect that? At least give your guys a chance!
Rodgers is basically Peyton Manning with the Colts. Lots of amazing regular season offenses, often stymied in the playoffs. One ring. Lots of playoff disappointment. Manning got a lot of the same deserved slander Rodgers is getting now. We will see if Rodgers can cement his legacy, like Manning did, by going somewhere else and getting a ring.
Rodgers is basically Peyton Manning with the Colts. Lots of amazing regular season offenses, often stymied in the playoffs. One ring. Lots of playoff disappointment. Manning got a lot of the same deserved slander Rodgers is getting now. We will see if Rodgers can cement his legacy, like Manning did, by going somewhere else and getting a ring.
Do you know what Peyton didn't have in Indy? A good defense. All those years in Indy he only had a top 10 defense in points per game twice. Sound familiar? Rodgers has had 3. But don't let that distract from a HOF career.
Rodgers is basically Peyton Manning with the Colts. Lots of amazing regular season offenses, often stymied in the playoffs. One ring. Lots of playoff disappointment. Manning got a lot of the same deserved slander Rodgers is getting now. We will see if Rodgers can cement his legacy, like Manning did, by going somewhere else and getting a ring.
Do you know what Peyton didn't have in Indy? A good defense. All those years in Indy he only had a top 10 defense in points per game twice. Sound familiar? Rodgers has had 3. But don't let that distract from a HOF career.
Rodgers is basically Peyton Manning with the Colts. Lots of amazing regular season offenses, often stymied in the playoffs. One ring. Lots of playoff disappointment. Manning got a lot of the same deserved slander Rodgers is getting now. We will see if Rodgers can cement his legacy, like Manning did, by going somewhere else and getting a ring.
Do you know what Peyton didn't have in Indy? A good defense. All those years in Indy he only had a top 10 defense in points per game twice. Sound familiar? Rodgers has had 3. But don't let that distract from a HOF career.
I think you are agreeing with me? Ha
Brady has had 16, including this year. But I have been told that doesn't matter in the long run. I was told that the QB makes the defense better. But I have to wonder, why does it only pertain to Brady, Montana, and Young? And oh yeah, in SF during Montana/Young years, 15 out of 18 years.
Do you know what Peyton didn't have in Indy? A good defense. All those years in Indy he only had a top 10 defense in points per game twice. Sound familiar? Rodgers has had 3. But don't let that distract from a HOF career.
I think you are agreeing with me? Ha
Brady has had 16, including this year. But I have been told that doesn't matter in the long run. I was told that the QB makes the defense better. But I have to wonder, why does it only pertain to Brady, Montana, and Young? And oh yeah, in SF during Montana/Young years, 15 out of 18 years.
Even with Brady's 16, his conversion rate is still better. He has won the SB 7 out of 16 times and been there 10 out of 16 times.
For all intents and purposes, Rodgers enjoyed a top 10 level defense (keep in mind you can meausure that in a variety of ways) in 2009, 2010, 2014, 2019, 2020, 2021. And outside of 2010, he has never won more than 1 playoff game in any of those seasons.
Rodgers and his offense has failed to put up 24 or more points in 2010 (Chicago), 2011 (NYG), 2013 (SF), 2014 (SEA), 2015 (AZ), 2016 (ATL), 2019 (SF), and now 2021 (SF).
That's just not winning football. When your brand is a high powered offense, you need to be that offense in the important games. And the Packers offense just simply failed to do that every single year.
Brady has had 16, including this year. But I have been told that doesn't matter in the long run. I was told that the QB makes the defense better. But I have to wonder, why does it only pertain to Brady, Montana, and Young? And oh yeah, in SF during Montana/Young years, 15 out of 18 years.
Even with Brady's 16, his conversion rate is still better. He has won the SB 7 out of 16 times and been there 10 out of 16 times.
For all intents and purposes, Rodgers enjoyed a top 10 level defense (keep in mind you can meausure that in a variety of ways) in 2009, 2010, 2014, 2019, 2020, 2021. And outside of 2010, he has never won more than 1 playoff game in any of those seasons.
Rodgers and his offense has failed to put up 24 or more points in 2010 (Chicago), 2011 (NYG), 2013 (SF), 2014 (SEA), 2015 (AZ), 2016 (ATL), 2019 (SF), and now 2021 (SF).
That's just not winning football. When your brand is a high powered offense, you need to be that offense in the important games. And the Packers offense just simply failed to do that every single year.
Well, I measure it by the simplest means possible. PPG. That in the long run is what really matters, how many points are scored. So measure it any way you want, the fact is if you measure Brady's D's the same way as Rodger's, I'm sure you will find out that he still has had better D's than Rodgers or any other QB during that time frame.
Brady has had 16, including this year. But I have been told that doesn't matter in the long run. I was told that the QB makes the defense better. But I have to wonder, why does it only pertain to Brady, Montana, and Young? And oh yeah, in SF during Montana/Young years, 15 out of 18 years.
Even with Brady's 16, his conversion rate is still better. He has won the SB 7 out of 16 times and been there 10 out of 16 times.
For all intents and purposes, Rodgers enjoyed a top 10 level defense (keep in mind you can meausure that in a variety of ways) in 2009, 2010, 2014, 2019, 2020, 2021. And outside of 2010, he has never won more than 1 playoff game in any of those seasons.
Rodgers and his offense has failed to put up 24 or more points in 2010 (Chicago), 2011 (NYG), 2013 (SF), 2014 (SEA), 2015 (AZ), 2016 (ATL), 2019 (SF), and now 2021 (SF).
That's just not winning football. When your brand is a high powered offense, you need to be that offense in the important games. And the Packers offense just simply failed to do that every single year.
Well, I measure it by the simplest means possible. PPG. That in the long run is what really matters, how many points are scored. So measure it any way you want, the fact is if you measure Brady's D's the same way as Rodger's, I'm sure you will find out that he still has had better D's than Rodgers or any other QB during that time frame.
And I'm not arguing that. Nobody is.
What I am arguing is the conversion rate. There have been seasons, multiple seasons, where the team around Rodgers was good enough and he came up short. Plus there are seasons he couldn't do enough to carry the team on his back in games when everything was going against them.
Brady has done all of that.
Its not even close when comparing the two in the postseason. Last night cemented that. If you as an All Pro HOF, MVP QB can't lead your team to a victory after the defense absolutely dominates the opponent, you are never going to do it.
(Sorry, have wanted to do that for years)
