Do we even want Rodgers back?

[go pak go]

Its why Lafleur really wants Rodgers back. He knows his best chance to have a great record and look really good is with the reigning MVP. Any coach would know that, saying that out loud is not a slight on Lafleur. Reid knows it with Mahommes, McDermont knows it with Allen, Taylor knows it with Burrow. Its not taking anything from Lafleur, Reid, McDermont, or Taylor...its just revealing of how important the QB position is and much it impacts winning and losing.

Oh agreed. People will always want the easiest route. It is why I still have the Ted Thompson avatar. I have so much respect for that man because even McCarthy said the same thing from January to March 2008 how Favre was the best in the league and he would do anything to have him back.

I don't know what would have happened had Thompson not been in the room in August when Favre flew back in. Rodgers was incredibly unknown in 2008. It took courage to take the hard path and move on. It nearly blew up for them too and cost them their jobs in 2009 when Favre made the Packers pay.

I want MLF and Gute to do the hard job. I want them to not take the easy way out. I know what the easy way will likely get us. 11 wins, North division titles and heartbreak in January.

I too respect Ted Thompson. He was a great GM for many years. But I do not agree with you that the data points that previewed what Rdogers may become are similar to what Love has shown us he might become. I do agree a coach would prefer the known commodity, makes total sense.

But Ted very well may have come to a different decision if Jordan Love was the next man up, and not Aaron Rodgers.

I never mentioned Jordan Love. And I did that intentionally. In no way will I ever compare Love to Rodgers at this point.

[Drj820]

I get angry when people put Rodgers on a pedestal by throwing all credit when things are good but finding deferring all blame away from him when things go bad.

no one has done that in this conversation tho

[Drj820]

Oh agreed. People will always want the easiest route. It is why I still have the Ted Thompson avatar. I have so much respect for that man because even McCarthy said the same thing from January to March 2008 how Favre was the best in the league and he would do anything to have him back.

I don't know what would have happened had Thompson not been in the room in August when Favre flew back in. Rodgers was incredibly unknown in 2008. It took courage to take the hard path and move on. It nearly blew up for them too and cost them their jobs in 2009 when Favre made the Packers pay.

I want MLF and Gute to do the hard job. I want them to not take the easy way out. I know what the easy way will likely get us. 11 wins, North division titles and heartbreak in January.

I too respect Ted Thompson. He was a great GM for many years. But I do not agree with you that the data points that previewed what Rdogers may become are similar to what Love has shown us he might become. I do agree a coach would prefer the known commodity, makes total sense.

But Ted very well may have come to a different decision if Jordan Love was the next man up, and not Aaron Rodgers.

I never mentioned Jordan Love.

Oh sorry when you said Thompson didnt accept the past starter coming back and went with Rodgers...and then talked about how you wanted Gute and Lafleur to take the same path...I inferred you were talking about they "do the hard thing" and go with our current backup...Jordan Love.

[go pak go]

I too respect Ted Thompson. He was a great GM for many years. But I do not agree with you that the data points that previewed what Rdogers may become are similar to what Love has shown us he might become. I do agree a coach would prefer the known commodity, makes total sense.

But Ted very well may have come to a different decision if Jordan Love was the next man up, and not Aaron Rodgers.

I never mentioned Jordan Love.

Oh sorry when you said Thompson didnt accept the past starter coming back and went with Rodgers...and then talked about how you wanted Gute and Lafleur to take the same path...I inferred you were talking about they "do the hard thing" and go with our current backup...Jordan Love.

You're inferring steps beyond where this conversation needs to go by saying we should only roll with Love if Love "is the guy"

I don't think he is the guy and honestly I don't care if he is. If he isn't the guy, you just get another one. My whole point is a I want to build a team around the QB rather than feeling like we need to find the QB and then build a team around it.

Plenty of teams have been having success with his model - including a few of the MLF coaching tree teams. That is the direction I want us to go because I think we are actually not that far away from it.

[Drj820]

I never mentioned Jordan Love.

Oh sorry when you said Thompson didnt accept the past starter coming back and went with Rodgers...and then talked about how you wanted Gute and Lafleur to take the same path...I inferred you were talking about they "do the hard thing" and go with our current backup...Jordan Love.

You're inferring steps beyond where this conversation needs to go by saying we should only roll with Love if Love "is the guy"

I don't think he is the guy and honestly I don't care if he is. If he isn't the guy, you just get another one. My whole point is a I want to build a team around the QB rather than feeling like we need to find the QB and then build a team around it.

Plenty of teams have been having success with his model - including a few of the MLF coaching tree teams. That is the direction I want us to go because I think we are actually not that far away from it.

I just disagree with your premise that Ted doesnt welcome Favre back even if he doesnt think the backup is "the guy". If he thinks the backup sucks, I absolutely think he welcomes Favre back, as he then goes hunting for Favres replacement. I dont think he locks the door on Favre if he doesnt think he has the future in the building. Just my opinion.

And lock the door on the current MVP, while not having confidence in the current backup (unless they do and we dont know it) is what you are asking Gute and Lafleur to do...and Im just saying Im not convinced Thompson would have done that either.

[Yoop]

I never mentioned Jordan Love.

Oh sorry when you said Thompson didnt accept the past starter coming back and went with Rodgers...and then talked about how you wanted Gute and Lafleur to take the same path...I inferred you were talking about they "do the hard thing" and go with our current backup...Jordan Love.

You're inferring steps beyond where this conversation needs to go by saying we should only roll with Love if Love "is the guy"

I don't think he is the guy and honestly I don't care if he is. If he isn't the guy, you just get another one. My whole point is a I want to build a team around the QB rather than feeling like we need to find the QB and then build a team around it.

Plenty of teams have been having success with his model - including a few of the MLF coaching tree teams. That is the direction I want us to go because I think we are actually not that far away from it.

who are these teams that succeeded you are referring to, everyone in this years playoffs has a good QB, very seldom do teams build up the roster to win minus first establishing a starting QB, thats how most teams are built, top down, not bottom up if ya get my drift.

I like the idea of trading Rodgers and scooping up some players and draft picks, and keeping most of this team together, but till we have quality QB play I doubt our ability to compete.

[go pak go]

Oh sorry when you said Thompson didnt accept the past starter coming back and went with Rodgers...and then talked about how you wanted Gute and Lafleur to take the same path...I inferred you were talking about they "do the hard thing" and go with our current backup...Jordan Love.

You're inferring steps beyond where this conversation needs to go by saying we should only roll with Love if Love "is the guy"

I don't think he is the guy and honestly I don't care if he is. If he isn't the guy, you just get another one. My whole point is a I want to build a team around the QB rather than feeling like we need to find the QB and then build a team around it.

Plenty of teams have been having success with his model - including a few of the MLF coaching tree teams. That is the direction I want us to go because I think we are actually not that far away from it.

who are these teams that succeeded you are referring to, everyone in this years playoffs has a good QB, very seldom do teams build up the roster to win minus first establishing a starting QB, thats how most teams are built, top down, not bottom up if ya get my drift.

I like the idea of trading Rodgers and scooping up some players and draft picks, and keeping most of this team together, but till we have quality QB play I doubt our ability to compete.

Honestly yoop - every team since 2010 who won the SB was with a QB who was either Tom Brady (who always took below his market worth), a QB on a modest deal either moving up his career or scaling down (Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Joe Flacco, Eli Manning) or on a rookie deal (Russell Wilson, Carson Wentz/Nick Foles, Pat Mahommes)

This has been discussed many, many times.

[salmar80]

I totally want our GMs to make the best choices, not the easy or popular choices.

The problem is, we don't have full info.

If Gutey thinks Love will become the next great thing, the best choice may be the hard one where AR is traded.

If Gutey thinks Love will never become a quality QB, the best choice may be the hard one where you try to extend AR and deal with the cap.

[NCF]

[texas]

I don't think the chances of Rodgers winning a Super Bowl with a worse roster are 0. I think they're still decent. There are still enough reasonably common enough pathways that end with us winning a Super Bowl with Rodgers. He makes it more difficult in the playoffs with his tendency to go into playground mode, but it's not impossible to win with him, or to win with a team which is worse than the one we put out there this year.

Like I said, all it will take is for us to play the Cowboys, Bears, and then a &%$@ AFC team. Or get hit with the injury bug, get the 4th seed, and draw Washington and then go to play in some nice domed stadiums.

Or maybe MLF will figure out a way to do what I think needs to be the top priority and that is: find a way to take the game out of Rodgers' hands without allowing him to realize that the game is being taken out of his hands. The obvious way to do that is to pound the ball with AJ Dillon, but the problem is that he got hurt. For one thing, knowing how important he was to the gameplan should have prevented them from playing him on ST (which is another reason to fire Drayton and fire MLF is he doesn't fire Drayton). And also, we should probably find a Dillon backup, some guy who can pound the rock, in case Dillon gets hurt or needs a breather. Jones/Hill are not that guy.

Because honestly, this is really the only thing that matters. Rodgers gets us to the playoffs but then loses it for us, and rather than giving him another superstar WR who he won't throw to, we need to develop a gameplan which does not feature Rodgers, for those tough games.

So build a team that is successful without needing Rodgers...

why have him at all?

If we want to be 2012 - 2015 Seattle Seahawks or 2015 Denver Broncos, then move on from the player that is the largest wall in allowing us to become that.

If getting into the postseason is the goal, it's not that tough anymore with 7 teams. If you have a legit enough team to be a type that can contend, you can get to a 9-8 or 10-7 record to get you into the postseason.

This is the obvious question and I'm glad you posted it.

The thing is- would we even make the playoffs with like a Derek Carr under center? Would a Baker Mayfield, if we even get to the playoffs, keep us in the game enough to where he could blow it like Rodgers does?

I think overall, it makes sense to stick with Rodgers but take the game out of his hands in certain situations. But it is debatable, for the reason you mention.

[texas]

You're inferring steps beyond where this conversation needs to go by saying we should only roll with Love if Love "is the guy"

I don't think he is the guy and honestly I don't care if he is. If he isn't the guy, you just get another one. My whole point is a I want to build a team around the QB rather than feeling like we need to find the QB and then build a team around it.

Plenty of teams have been having success with his model - including a few of the MLF coaching tree teams. That is the direction I want us to go because I think we are actually not that far away from it.

who are these teams that succeeded you are referring to, everyone in this years playoffs has a good QB, very seldom do teams build up the roster to win minus first establishing a starting QB, thats how most teams are built, top down, not bottom up if ya get my drift.

I like the idea of trading Rodgers and scooping up some players and draft picks, and keeping most of this team together, but till we have quality QB play I doubt our ability to compete.

Honestly yoop - every team since 2010 who won the SB was with a QB who was either Tom Brady (who always took below his market worth), a QB on a modest deal either moving up his career or scaling down (Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Joe Flacco, Eli Manning) or on a rookie deal (Russell Wilson, Carson Wentz/Nick Foles, Pat Mahommes)

This has been discussed many, many times.

And this goes back to like Favre's SB too. There are exceptions here and there but this is the overwhelming trend.

[NCF]

who are these teams that succeeded you are referring to, everyone in this years playoffs has a good QB, very seldom do teams build up the roster to win minus first establishing a starting QB, thats how most teams are built, top down, not bottom up if ya get my drift.

We literally just lost to a team with hot garbage at QB.

[go pak go]

I don't think the chances of Rodgers winning a Super Bowl with a worse roster are 0. I think they're still decent. There are still enough reasonably common enough pathways that end with us winning a Super Bowl with Rodgers. He makes it more difficult in the playoffs with his tendency to go into playground mode, but it's not impossible to win with him, or to win with a team which is worse than the one we put out there this year.

Like I said, all it will take is for us to play the Cowboys, Bears, and then a &%$@ AFC team. Or get hit with the injury bug, get the 4th seed, and draw Washington and then go to play in some nice domed stadiums.

Or maybe MLF will figure out a way to do what I think needs to be the top priority and that is: find a way to take the game out of Rodgers' hands without allowing him to realize that the game is being taken out of his hands. The obvious way to do that is to pound the ball with AJ Dillon, but the problem is that he got hurt. For one thing, knowing how important he was to the gameplan should have prevented them from playing him on ST (which is another reason to fire Drayton and fire MLF is he doesn't fire Drayton). And also, we should probably find a Dillon backup, some guy who can pound the rock, in case Dillon gets hurt or needs a breather. Jones/Hill are not that guy.

Because honestly, this is really the only thing that matters. Rodgers gets us to the playoffs but then loses it for us, and rather than giving him another superstar WR who he won't throw to, we need to develop a gameplan which does not feature Rodgers, for those tough games.

So build a team that is successful without needing Rodgers...

why have him at all?

If we want to be 2012 - 2015 Seattle Seahawks or 2015 Denver Broncos, then move on from the player that is the largest wall in allowing us to become that.

If getting into the postseason is the goal, it's not that tough anymore with 7 teams. If you have a legit enough team to be a type that can contend, you can get to a 9-8 or 10-7 record to get you into the postseason.

This is the obvious question and I'm glad you posted it.

The thing is- would we even make the playoffs with like a Derek Carr under center? Would a Baker Mayfield, if we even get to the playoffs, keep us in the game enough to where he could blow it like Rodgers does?

I think overall, it makes sense to stick with Rodgers but take the game out of his hands in certain situations. But it is debatable, for the reason you mention.

It's a very interesting question honestly.

MN is scratching their head over it. They just had their best season from a QB like ever outside of 2004 (Daunte) and 1998 (Cunningham) and yet the season ended with them being under .500 and their GM and Coach fired.

They have gotten progressively worse every year after signing Cousins even though his play could be argued to have gotten better every year. The common theme I see is MN was getting more and more handcuffed on their QB contract.

Now I am not saying Cousins and Rodgers are in the same level. They are not. But I will say Cousins from a pure statistical production standpoint in like a top 8 QB in the league and yet having that did not result in team success.

It is things like this that is continuing to make me more bullish on changing the philosophy of moving away from a QB centric team and rather an amazing team, and if you happen to have a great QB leader,...that is just a bonus and you will likely go far.

[TheSkeptic]

who are these teams that succeeded you are referring to, everyone in this years playoffs has a good QB, very seldom do teams build up the roster to win minus first establishing a starting QB, thats how most teams are built, top down, not bottom up if ya get my drift.

We literally just lost to a team with hot garbage at QB.

Precisely!

[bud fox]

So build a team that is successful without needing Rodgers...

why have him at all?

If we want to be 2012 - 2015 Seattle Seahawks or 2015 Denver Broncos, then move on from the player that is the largest wall in allowing us to become that.

If getting into the postseason is the goal, it's not that tough anymore with 7 teams. If you have a legit enough team to be a type that can contend, you can get to a 9-8 or 10-7 record to get you into the postseason.

This is the obvious question and I'm glad you posted it.

The thing is- would we even make the playoffs with like a Derek Carr under center? Would a Baker Mayfield, if we even get to the playoffs, keep us in the game enough to where he could blow it like Rodgers does?

I think overall, it makes sense to stick with Rodgers but take the game out of his hands in certain situations. But it is debatable, for the reason you mention.

It's a very interesting question honestly.

MN is scratching their head over it. They just had their best season from a QB like ever outside of 2004 (Daunte) and 1998 (Cunningham) and yet the season ended with them being under .500 and their GM and Coach fired.

They have gotten progressively worse every year after signing Cousins even though his play could be argued to have gotten better every year. The common theme I see is MN was getting more and more handcuffed on their QB contract.

Now I am not saying Cousins and Rodgers are in the same level. They are not. But I will say Cousins from a pure statistical production standpoint in like a top 8 QB in the league and yet having that did not result in team success.

It is things like this that is continuing to make me more bullish on changing the philosophy of moving away from a QB centric team and rather an amazing team, and if you happen to have a great QB leader,...that is just a bonus and you will likely go far.

Wasn't Vikings def the problem? Bottom 10 in scoring allowed.

QB contract can be a bit of an excuse. Take 49ers for example. Average yearly salary for Jimmy G is 27.5m. For Rodgers it is 33.5m. 6m difference.

6m is basically getting rid of Kevin King. One useless player difference.

[texas]

So build a team that is successful without needing Rodgers...

why have him at all?

If we want to be 2012 - 2015 Seattle Seahawks or 2015 Denver Broncos, then move on from the player that is the largest wall in allowing us to become that.

If getting into the postseason is the goal, it's not that tough anymore with 7 teams. If you have a legit enough team to be a type that can contend, you can get to a 9-8 or 10-7 record to get you into the postseason.

This is the obvious question and I'm glad you posted it.

The thing is- would we even make the playoffs with like a Derek Carr under center? Would a Baker Mayfield, if we even get to the playoffs, keep us in the game enough to where he could blow it like Rodgers does?

I think overall, it makes sense to stick with Rodgers but take the game out of his hands in certain situations. But it is debatable, for the reason you mention.

It's a very interesting question honestly.

MN is scratching their head over it. They just had their best season from a QB like ever outside of 2004 (Daunte) and 1998 (Cunningham) and yet the season ended with them being under .500 and their GM and Coach fired.

They have gotten progressively worse every year after signing Cousins even though his play could be argued to have gotten better every year. The common theme I see is MN was getting more and more handcuffed on their QB contract.

Now I am not saying Cousins and Rodgers are in the same level. They are not. But I will say Cousins from a pure statistical production standpoint in like a top 8 QB in the league and yet having that did not result in team success.

It is things like this that is continuing to make me more bullish on changing the philosophy of moving away from a QB centric team and rather an amazing team, and if you happen to have a great QB leader,...that is just a bonus and you will likely go far.

Yeah, the one thing we know for a fact is that SB-winning teams always seem to have QBs on below market value contracts. But you wouldn't necessarily think that would need to be the case, because we have certainly been able to afford this stacked team around Rodgers without him being on a cheap contract. Like there is no rule that says the top talent has to be paid the most.

And the way the reasoning usually goes, the teams think that having a top QB guarantees more bites at the apple, because they think that playoffs is somewhat luck-dependent so that as long as you have a guy who gets you there the most, you'll have the most opportunities to have a legit chance and thus your overall chances over, say, a decade or whatever, are higher than if you don't have a franchise QB.

But in practice this doesn't seem to be the case, except with Brady, who famously takes a half-salary.

I don't know where I'm going with this, but it does sort of seem like there might be more to the story than just having a cheap contract, although a cheap contract may be the most important factor. That's another reason why I keep coming back to mobile QBs. All young QBs are at least a small run threat, and maybe that added threat puts teams over the top. Idk

[dsr]

Honestly yoop - every team since 2010 who won the SB was with a QB who was either Tom Brady (who always took below his market worth), a QB on a modest deal either moving up his career or scaling down (Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Joe Flacco, Eli Manning) or on a rookie deal (Russell Wilson, Carson Wentz/Nick Foles, Pat Mahommes)

This has been discussed many, many times.

And for proof that you can win a Superbowl without an elite QB, just look at both Mannings, Flacco, and Wentz/Foles.