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.
What makes a good D look bad statistically? Having the O go 3-and-out twice in a row.
Rodgers is the master of 3-and-out twice in a row. When the Packers absolutely needs a 1st down and to stay on the field, he overthrows deep on first down, throws it away after 3 seconds after having turned down a 4 yard outlet with possible YAC on second down and either misses or comes up short on 3rd down.
I will say the D we had this year only gave up 6 points to SF in that divisional playoff game. That was a championship caliber D even with all the injuries. Had our ST not stunk out the joint the 10 measly points AR mustered (it would have been 13 had the FG at the half not get blocked) would have been enough - as long as the ST doesn't give up a blocked punt for a TD I(there is a running theme here, no?) Then we'd have another week for the injured D stars to continue to knock off the rust. C'est la vie.
Well, he's a guy who lost this year to a worse defense than he had. He's also a guy who has never won anything without a top defense. Brady has never won a Super Bowl with a defense ranked lower than 8th in ppg during the year. Matter of fact, he's only ever had a Defense ranked lower than 10th three times(15,17,17) in his career. But yeah, it's all him.
Compare Brady's wins and losses to how many points he has had to score to win to Rodgers, and then come back and tell us who you think is the better QB. Given the same defenses and offenses, I'd take Rodgers over Brady.
Agree
I think we are in the minority here though despite it being a packer s forum, which is insane.
It's BECAUSE this is a Packer forum that you may be in the minority. We want our team to win, and the bottom line is that Brady has done that more and better for his team(s).
Comparing any other QB in this league to Brady is ridiculous because Brady is a once in a generational player. We will never see the likes of him again in our lifetime. NOBODY else playing today is ever gonna touch his accomplishments. In any other era Rodgers would be more of a sensation even with his post season struggles.
What makes a good D look bad statistically? Having the O go 3-and-out twice in a row.
Rodgers is the master of 3-and-out twice in a row. When the Packers absolutely needs a 1st down and to stay on the field, he overthrows deep on first down, throws it away after 3 seconds after having turned down a 4 yard outlet with possible YAC on second down and either misses or comes up short on 3rd down.
I will say the D we had this year only gave up 6 points to SF in that divisional playoff game. That was a championship caliber D even with all the injuries. Had our ST not stunk out the joint the 10 measly points AR mustered (it would have been 13 had the FG at the half not get blocked) would have been enough - as long as the ST doesn't give up a blocked punt for a TD I(there is a running theme here, no?) Then we'd have another week for the injured D stars to continue to knock off the rust. C'est la vie.
But that's not a credit to AR even if we did win.
We wouldn't and never had patted any Bears QB on the back when they won 10 to 3 vs an opponent. Anytime you put up less than 20 points for sure in a game that is a disappointment and fail on the offense.
A team like GB should always have a target score of reaching 24 points in a game.
What makes a good D look bad statistically? Having the O go 3-and-out twice in a row.
Rodgers is the master of 3-and-out twice in a row. When the Packers absolutely needs a 1st down and to stay on the field, he overthrows deep on first down, throws it away after 3 seconds after having turned down a 4 yard outlet with possible YAC on second down and either misses or comes up short on 3rd down.
I will say the D we had this year only gave up 6 points to SF in that divisional playoff game. That was a championship caliber D even with all the injuries. Had our ST not stunk out the joint the 10 measly points AR mustered (it would have been 13 had the FG at the half not get blocked) would have been enough - as long as the ST doesn't give up a blocked punt for a TD I(there is a running theme here, no?) Then we'd have another week for the injured D stars to continue to knock off the rust. C'est la vie.
But that's not a credit to AR even if we did win.
We wouldn't and never had patted any Bears QB on the back when they won 10 to 3 vs an opponent. Anytime you put up less than 20 points for sure in a game that is a disappointment and fail on the offense.
A team like GB should always have a target score of reaching 24 points in a game.
If the ST didn't implode and we won 13-6 everyone would be happy here and excited about next week against the Rams and would forgive Rodgers' performance on Saturday. Nobody talks about how crappy he was in 2010 in the NFCC game in Chicago cuz we won. You win you're the hero but if you lose you're the goat (notice I didn't capitalize those letters ).
Both teams had 5 3 and outs but Packers had 1 more off penalty.
Ultimately the off and def did enough - special teams got outplayed and it was the difference. Well a GOAT should do more? Not in freezing, windy, snowy weather against a top def and a weak oline.
So when it's Jordan Love who effectively put up 13 points vs the Chiefs, he didn't do enough.
But when Rodgers effectively effectively put up 13 points vs the 49ers he did do enough?...
It's this moving goal post thing to slant every discussion and argument that Rodgers is always the best and any reason for loss is everyone but his fault is just weird.
By the way, nothing would make me happier than to call Rodgers the GOAT. I would so, so much love him to have 2 - 4 Packers SB rings and I would scream it from the mountain tops. But we now have at least 3 seasons where we had the horses in the playoffs to win it all and came up with nothing. And that isn't even counting "stealing" a championship or SB berth like Brady has done over the years.
If an MVP couldn't put up 14 points with the offense he had that game, I just have my doubts if he can ever do it. Especially when you multiply it two years in a row of coming up short.
I have not once moved the goal post.
Packers off put up more points than the niners. The defence let is less points the 49ers def. Special teams were the difference.
This is simple it is not hard to understand.
Love played worse than Mahomes and put up less points.
Jimmy Garappolo in the 2nd half - 8 for 10, 88 yards, 1 sack, 4 first downs.
Aaron Rodgers in the 2nd half - 8 for 13, 55 yards, 2 sacks, 2 first downs.
Gotta play the entire game, not just the first half.
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."
Both teams had 5 3 and outs but Packers had 1 more off penalty.
Ultimately the off and def did enough - special teams got outplayed and it was the difference. Well a GOAT should do more? Not in freezing, windy, snowy weather against a top def and a weak oline.
So when it's Jordan Love who effectively put up 13 points vs the Chiefs, he didn't do enough.
But when Rodgers effectively effectively put up 13 points vs the 49ers he did do enough?...
It's this moving goal post thing to slant every discussion and argument that Rodgers is always the best and any reason for loss is everyone but his fault is just weird.
By the way, nothing would make me happier than to call Rodgers the GOAT. I would so, so much love him to have 2 - 4 Packers SB rings and I would scream it from the mountain tops. But we now have at least 3 seasons where we had the horses in the playoffs to win it all and came up with nothing. And that isn't even counting "stealing" a championship or SB berth like Brady has done over the years.
If an MVP couldn't put up 14 points with the offense he had that game, I just have my doubts if he can ever do it. Especially when you multiply it two years in a row of coming up short.
I have not once moved the goal post.
Packers off put up more points than the niners. The defence let is less points the 49ers def. Special teams were the difference.
This is simple it is not hard to understand.
Love played worse than Mahomes and put up less points.
Be he didn't.
Two Mason makes instead of misses and it's 13 to 13. Plus, Love got into FG range at the end to win it 16 to 13.
So if STs did it's basic job of Mason making a 40 yard FG and the 2nd one (38 yard FG) not being blocked, Love would have beaten Mahommes. Just like Rodgers to the 9ers.
And honestly, trying to say either Mahommes or Love played better that day is ridiculous. Both got destroyed.
Last edited by go pak go on 26 Jan 2022 18:03, edited 1 time in total.
Jimmy Garappolo in the 2nd half - 8 for 10, 88 yards, 1 sack, 4 first downs.
Aaron Rodgers in the 2nd half - 8 for 13, 55 yards, 2 sacks, 2 first downs.
Gotta play the entire game, not just the first half.
If we look at the 2nd half Rodgers had 3 - 3 and outs.
first series for packers - quick pressure no one open, 2nd play pressure and then clear drop by deguara, 3rd play pressure no one open dumps it to Jones. Punt.
The punt td in which it was a short run on first play and then pass to adams missed slightly in front likely because slower in snow and sacked on third play.
On the final drive penalty on the first play sets them back, short pass to Adams, missed play to Cobb who needed to comeback on that route more - it was a risky throw by Rodgers. Then the Deep bomb to Adams which missed. Rodgers said he could have possibly gone to Lazard on it but there was pressure and had to be quick.
It didn't happen that way and a Hall of Fame QB can explain how some of that did happen.
That said, I thought Aaron outplayed Jimmy? Weren't stats supposed to be found?
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."
So when it's Jordan Love who effectively put up 13 points vs the Chiefs, he didn't do enough.
But when Rodgers effectively effectively put up 13 points vs the 49ers he did do enough?...
It's this moving goal post thing to slant every discussion and argument that Rodgers is always the best and any reason for loss is everyone but his fault is just weird.
By the way, nothing would make me happier than to call Rodgers the GOAT. I would so, so much love him to have 2 - 4 Packers SB rings and I would scream it from the mountain tops. But we now have at least 3 seasons where we had the horses in the playoffs to win it all and came up with nothing. And that isn't even counting "stealing" a championship or SB berth like Brady has done over the years.
If an MVP couldn't put up 14 points with the offense he had that game, I just have my doubts if he can ever do it. Especially when you multiply it two years in a row of coming up short.
I have not once moved the goal post.
Packers off put up more points than the niners. The defence let is less points the 49ers def. Special teams were the difference.
This is simple it is not hard to understand.
Love played worse than Mahomes and put up less points.
Be he didn't.
Two Mason makes instead of misses and it's 13 to 13. Plus, Love got into FG range at the end to win it 16 to 13.
So if STs did it's basic job of Mason making a 40 yard FG and the 2nd one (38 yard FG) not being blocked, Love would have beaten Mahommes. Just like Rodgers to the 9ers.
And honestly, trying to say either Mahommes or Love played better that day is ridiculous. Both got destroyed.
On the blocked field goal Jordan Love didnt get a first down and made two dump offs for 11 yards when Chiefs were giving up the short yardage to not allow another first down.
On the missed field goal we ran for more yards than passing.
If you think you would rather Love and Garropolo over Mahomes and Rodgers we should just stop now. No point.
The average defense Brady had in the years he won his Super Bowls was 17.9 ppg during the year. If you add up all the games during that time period of all the teams and see what the winning percentage is for all teams, QB doesn't matter, it's right around 85%. I know, I did the math on this about 2 years ago. If you only have to score 18 points a game win, it makes winning a hell of a lot easier. Do you want to beat Brady? Score more than 34 points a game. He doesn't do so well when the other team scores a lot of points. In Tampa, Brady has 13 games where the other team scored 27+ points. He's 6-7 in those games. Under 27 he's 18-2 In the same time Period, Rodgers has had 12 games over 27 and is 6-6. Under 27 he's 20-0. Remember how everyone has always said he feasted on a weak division in NE? He was 87-21 against division opponents in his time in NE. FWIW, that is 1/3 of all his wins. For some reason, the Saints have is number. He is 3-5 against them.
I don't think anyone is disputing that, during the regular season, Rodgers is as good as or better than Brady. It's just that in the post season, Brady is better at winning games.
The thing your math leaves out Raptor is that offense helps the defense. Put up 50 points quickly, and the defense will probably give up more points because the high scoring team has kicked off to the opposing team so much.
Be an awful offense and go three and out all game and your own defense will give up more points as the opposing team starts with good field position and has more chances to score.
But...limit 3 and outs, run the ball, throw short passes to wes welker and julian edelmen for 2 decades, control the clock, play near perfect special teams and pin the opposing team back in awful field position....and you set your own defense up very well to not give up many points.
Trust me, i agree that Bill complemented Brady. I agree that Brady does not win so much elsewhere. He always had perfect STs and a good D. The Pats supplied Brady with everything he would need to win...but he still went out there and did it. Brady is a winner. He holds himself and his teammates to such a standard that everyone is elevated. Thats exactly what he did in Tampa. Tampa was a talented mess with fast and loose Jameis and Arians. Arians isnt known to have a disciplined team. I remember mid year last year brady screaming his head off at the OL for a false start on national tv. And soon enough, that crap stopped. Brady doesnt allow other people to sabotage his dreams.
Rodgers doesnt seem to inspire that same greatness when the stakes are the highest.
I'm sure they have some sort of offense-adjusted defensive metrics which take into account QBs who like to go 3 and out. Anyone know of such a metric?
Rodgers is better than Brady at feasting on bad or average defenses. Brady is better at winning against good defenses. Problem is- most playoff defenses are good defenses.
Brady's stereotypical playoff drive is a dink and dunk down the field in 5-10 yards chunks in the last 2 minutes or overtime. Repeated passes to Gronk or Edelman. Having to go to 3rd (or 4th) down every time, but generally 3rd/4th and manageable. Getting just what he needs, not much more.
Rodgers' stereotypical playoff drive is: Incomplete pass or 1-2 yard gain on 1st, take a sack on 2nd, try to heave it down field after the play breaks down and either overthrow the WR or take another sack on 3rd and very long, punt.
KC figured out Rodgers in 2011, then Denver figured him out again in 2015. And he has never really overcome what they figured out.
).
