Rodgers future

[Labrev]

when people wont consider that Brady did it with excellent defense year after year and offensive schemes that are QB friendly ( UP Tempo, short ball WC schemes) then they miss the reasons some comparisons don't work.

Which people won't consider that?

Everybody knows, as a matter of common knowledge, that the Star player needs at least some supporting talent around him. Even in the NBA where a star player can carry a team, still MJ needed guys like Scottie Pippin, Lebron needed Kyrie, etc.

Nobody fails to understand that extremely simply and tired point.

The difference is, Brady and Rodgers both have been given teams that are good enough to go the distance with. In Brady's case, it's always "well that was a good team" because THEY WON so nobody thinks about the holes on their roster, and in Rodgers's case it's always "well we didn't have _______" because we lost.

That's the difference. Winners win, and losers lament.

In fairness, Brady has had more of those teams than Rodgers because he took less money on purpose to keep winning championships. Rodgers made the opposite choice. To be clear, I don't blame him; I believe players should make as much as they can.

But when you do that, you accept the risk that the teams are not going to be as good, and that you need to do a little bit more to win.

[RingoCStarrQB]

this should be the conversation FRONT AND CENTER right now... and IT IS ALSO TIME to clean out the front office including the coaches room.

Is this a serious statement? I don't think it is a serious statement, but...

To slightly take the edge off ..... this line of thinking should NOT be swept under the rug. The big Packers future picture is way bigger than promoting from within and waiting for the Special Teams coach to be replaced. Listen to Panzer and the great DrJ. It's been 11 years since our last Super Bowl appearance. Heckuva defense .... AJ, BJ, Clay, Collins, Shields, Jenkins, Bishop, Tramon, Pickett, Green, Charles Woodson. Unparalleled receiver corp. Adequate kicking/punting game. Didn't need a running game. Didn't need a home playoff game. Stars lined up!

[Pckfn23]

Yep, serious... It's unfortunate there can't be a sensible conversation instead of asinine hyperbole. Having flashbacks of 2010 or 1996 or 1967 doesn't make any suggestion of getting rid of LaFleur or Gutekunst even remotely more than insane at this point. A shame because there could be some good conversation.

FYI, I don't listen to those that very obviously say anything to get a reaction.

[Pckfn23]

when people wont consider that Brady did it with excellent defense year after year and offensive schemes that are QB friendly ( UP Tempo, short ball WC schemes) then they miss the reasons some comparisons don't work.

Which people won't consider that?

Everybody knows, as a matter of common knowledge, that the Star player needs at least some supporting talent around him. Even in the NBA where a star player can carry a team, still MJ needed guys like Scottie Pippin, Lebron needed Kyrie, etc.

Nobody fails to understand that extremely simply and tired point.

The difference is, Brady and Rodgers both have been given teams that are good enough to go the distance with. In Brady's case, it's always "well that was a good team" because THEY WON so nobody thinks about the holes on their roster, and in Rodgers's case it's always "well we didn't have _______" because we lost.

That's the difference. Winners win, and losers lament.

In fairness, Brady has had more of those teams than Rodgers because he took less money on purpose to keep winning championships. Rodgers made the opposite choice. To be clear, I don't blame him; I believe players should make as much as they can.

But when you do that, you accept the risk that the teams are not going to be as good, and that you need to do a little bit more to win.

[lulu]

Let me represent the german perspective crystal-clear, so that no one can blame us on this one later: #12 is only welcome if he takes a significant pay cut, else: Auf Wiedersehen!

Rodgers played not decisive in the last two playoff losses that could have been won if Aaron just had balls. His not-so-good playoff performances plus his genuine desire to play for this unique - almost holy - franchise along with his desire to make a comptetent team possible to play for more SBs has to tranlate into him taking a knee (= pay cut).

I mean with a couple or first rounders, maybe a guy like Carr and a good defense we can easily be a contender next season as well. Even with Love I can see us at least compete for the NFC North which means: Playoffs.

I would also hope - though this is my personal fantasy, so be cautioned if you read further - that the Packers would ask Jim Harbaugh or Bill Belichick (maybe a swap deal and MLF to NE?) to coach. MLF is not a coach for a man‘s game, more like a female volleyball team. I know that stings but I do think that those meek coaches - MM & MLF - made the team soft…and soft teams find more ways to collapse.

Now I'm getting nervous. First we figured out we're better off keeping Aaron. Now we're starting to rationalize dumping LaCoach. Might want to throw Murphy in there while we're at it. Panzer is correct. We have a _______ head coach. Could be Dan Devine 2.0.

honestly, this brings me no pleasure to say this...but firing Murphy and Lafleur is not enough.

Murphy allowed the drafting of Jordan Love, which prevented us from drafting Michael Pittman or Tee Higgins, who both could have helped us win an NFCCG the past two years.

Lafleur stole money from the Packers organization when he was paid to make sure we dont enter the post season with the WORST STs unit in football. He did nothing to fix this and it cost us in the divisional round. One may call this mere negligence, I call it stealing. To take a paycheck while ignoring that part of the job is criminal.

This is why right here, right now...I am calling for the arrest of Mark Murphy and Matt Lafleur. They should surrender themselves to authorities before this gets uglier than it must.

Murphy has nothing to do with the football side of this organization, as it should be. Firing him for reasons you've noted is off base.

[Labrev]

those will be more apparent as we go forward with a average QB, the saying is true, " ya don't realize what you have , till ya don't.

Actually, we DO know what it's like not to have great QB play; we see it in the difference between how Rodgers plays in the regular season and the way that Rodgers plays in the playoffs when the game is within reach/winnable and he fails to put it away.

I am open to the idea of kicking the can on the Cap for 1 more year to go all-in with Rodgers, but at this point, it has to be with the Denver Manning model: defense carries the team, because the QB cannot be trusted. In truth, if it was not for that fluky BJ Raji pick-6, Rodgers would likely not have ever even gotten 1 ring.

If not, though, I am absolutely ready to be an Ugly Football team that wins with a dominant defense, a run that consistently gives us 3rd-and-5(-or-less), and a QB that is a glorified game-manager. And why not? It worked for the Ravens more than once since 2000 (more times than us), Giants more than once since 2000, it got SanFran into a couple SuperBowls with Kaep and Jimmy G each (more times than us), and ofc Denver.

[go pak go]

those will be more apparent as we go forward with a average QB, the saying is true, " ya don't realize what you have , till ya don't.

Actually, we DO know what it's like not to have great QB play; we see it in the difference between how Rodgers plays in the regular season and the way that Rodgers plays in the playoffs when the game is within reach/winnable and he fails to put it away.

I am open to the idea of kicking the can on the Cap for 1 more year to go all-in with Rodgers, but at this point, it has to be with the Denver Manning model: defense carries the team, because the QB cannot be trusted. In truth, if it was not for that fluky BJ Raji pick-6, Rodgers would likely not have ever even gotten 1 ring.

If not, though, I am absolutely ready to be an Ugly Football team that wins with a dominant defense, a run that consistently gives us 3rd-and-5(-or-less), and a QB that is a glorified game-manager. And why not? It worked for the Ravens more than once since 2000 (more times than us), Giants more than once since 2000, it got SanFran into a couple SuperBowls with Kaep and Jimmy G each (more times than us), and ofc Denver.

I'm with ya.

Except if we need to have this all powerful super-team to carry Rodgers...why have Rodgers?

We are at the point where the excuses have piled so high that we need a top 5 defense, at least 3 great WR targets, a running attack to take the pressure off, an offensive line that gives him a nice cozy pocket and now I guess solid STs too.

So when I read this stuff I am like,..."so why do we need 12?"

If we need a team that is good enough to win a SB with Dilfer, then by all means just have Dilfer be your QB. That is why I don't want to go all in for 2022 again. I saw the movie and I saw the sequel. The beginning and middle were tantalizing, exciting, funny, fun, etc. But the writers butchered the end of the movie so bad. I can't watch Episode III.


There was a lot of confidence on this board and in Packers fans in general after the Chiefs game: "oh we would have won for sure had Rodgers played"...except that literally was the 49ers game. The defense was awesome. The STs sucked and Rodgers wasn't enough to get us over the top.

[APB]

this should be the conversation FRONT AND CENTER right now... and IT IS ALSO TIME to clean out the front office including the coaches room.

Is this a serious statement? I don't think it is a serious statement, but...

To slightly take the edge off ..... this line of thinking should NOT be swept under the rug….

To be fair to you, I didn’t sweep this thought under the rug. I immediately threw it in the trash and dumped it outside. That’s where the idea of clearing out the front office and coaching staff following the disappointing loss last week rates. It’s asinine. It’s knee jerk, emotional ranting. It’s what loser teams like Miami, Jacksonville and Houston do.

I’m still not convinced you’re not just trolling for a reaction. For your sake, I hope you are.

[Drj820]

[Pckfn23]

Is this a serious statement? I don't think it is a serious statement, but...

To slightly take the edge off ..... this line of thinking should NOT be swept under the rug….

To be fair to you, I didn’t sweep this thought under the rug. I immediately threw it in the trash and dumped it outside. That’s where the idea of clearing out the front office and coaching staff following the disappointing loss last week rates. It’s asinine. It’s knee jerk, emotional ranting. It’s what loser teams like Miami, Jacksonville and Houston do.

I’m still not convinced you’re not just trolling for a reaction. For your sake, I hope you are.

Right where the talk about Gutekunst and LaFleur being scared belongs.

[Raptorman]

when people wont consider that Brady did it with excellent defense year after year and offensive schemes that are QB friendly ( UP Tempo, short ball WC schemes) then they miss the reasons some comparisons don't work.

Which people won't consider that?

Everybody knows, as a matter of common knowledge, that the Star player needs at least some supporting talent around him. Even in the NBA where a star player can carry a team, still MJ needed guys like Scottie Pippin, Lebron needed Kyrie, etc.

Nobody fails to understand that extremely simply and tired point.

The difference is, Brady and Rodgers both have been given teams that are good enough to go the distance with. In Brady's case, it's always "well that was a good team" because THEY WON so nobody thinks about the holes on their roster, and in Rodgers's case it's always "well we didn't have _______" because we lost.

That's the difference. Winners win, and losers lament.

In fairness, Brady has had more of those teams than Rodgers because he took less money on purpose to keep winning championships. Rodgers made the opposite choice. To be clear, I don't blame him; I believe players should make as much as they can.

But when you do that, you accept the risk that the teams are not going to be as good, and that you need to do a little bit more to win.

Actually, they don't. According to many, Brady is the main reason they won in NE and last year in Tampa. Although during the regular season last year he only beat one winning team. Brady has never won anything without a top 8 defense. Ever. He was the right QB on the right team at the right time. Put Rodgers on the Pats for 20 years they would have had way more than 6.

[Yoop]

when people wont consider that Brady did it with excellent defense year after year and offensive schemes that are QB friendly ( UP Tempo, short ball WC schemes) then they miss the reasons some comparisons don't work.

Which people won't consider that?

Everybody knows, as a matter of common knowledge, that the Star player needs at least some supporting talent around him. Even in the NBA where a star player can carry a team, still MJ needed guys like Scottie Pippin, Lebron needed Kyrie, etc.

Nobody fails to understand that extremely simply and tired point.

The difference is, Brady and Rodgers both have been given teams that are good enough to go the distance with. In Brady's case, it's always "well that was a good team" because THEY WON so nobody thinks about the holes on their roster, and in Rodgers's case it's always "well we didn't have _______" because we lost.

That's the difference. Winners win, and losers lament.

In fairness, Brady has had more of those teams than Rodgers because he took less money on purpose to keep winning championships. Rodgers made the opposite choice. To be clear, I don't blame him; I believe players should make as much as they can.

But when you do that, you accept the risk that the teams are not going to be as good, and that you need to do a little bit more to win.

not even close to the same, so obviously your the one that doesn't want to accept that Brady had a top 10 defense every year, a top 15 ST's unit, and a quality running attack, and Rodgers rarely had anything close to that, Rodgers has had to over come those liability's practically ever season, Brady taking less pay helped, sure, but it took more then just his contribution to make that happen

[Scott4Pack]

I endorse this message!
I love Rodgers. Think he’s an amazing player. He doesn’t have anything to prove that he hasn’t already. But yeah, move on. Guty needs to find his QB if Love isnt the guy.

[packman114]

I'm not buying the Rodgers would have had more rings in NE than Brady. I doubt Rodgers would have played well in that offense. He likes to extend plays and hit the big one. I think part of the reason we never go uptempo is because Rodgers would rather watch the defense for 15 seconds before snapping the ball. Brady was a quick hit QB who's first read was spot on 90% of the time. But my honest opinion is to win Super Bowls you need some breaks to go your way. Rodgers never seems to get the breaks that Brady got. Or even Eli for that matter.

[bud fox]

I'm not buying the Rodgers would have had more rings in NE than Brady. I doubt Rodgers would have played well in that offense. He likes to extend plays and hit the big one. I think part of the reason we never go uptempo is because Rodgers would rather watch the defense for 15 seconds before snapping the ball. Brady was a quick hit QB who's first read was spot on 90% of the time. But my honest opinion is to win Super Bowls you need some breaks to go your way. Rodgers never seems to get the breaks that Brady got. Or even Eli for that matter.

Unfortunately Rodgers first read is doubled 90% of the time and not open like you mentioned with Brady. Imagine Rodgers with an open primary read

[Yoop]

I'm not buying the Rodgers would have had more rings in NE than Brady. I doubt Rodgers would have played well in that offense. He likes to extend plays and hit the big one. I think part of the reason we never go uptempo is because Rodgers would rather watch the defense for 15 seconds before snapping the ball. Brady was a quick hit QB who's first read was spot on 90% of the time. But my honest opinion is to win Super Bowls you need some breaks to go your way. Rodgers never seems to get the breaks that Brady got. Or even Eli for that matter.

the last two years Lafluer has used up tempo, RO and PA as much as anyone in the league and Rodgers this last season got the ball out as fast or faster then any other starting QB, it was a laugher watching Mahomes extend plays Sunday, it's obvious he never took a lesson from Rodgers, who years ago was one of the best ever at extending so his down field receivers could clear, but imo thats not who Rodgers has been ever since MLF became our HC.

[salmar80]

I'm not buying the Rodgers would have had more rings in NE than Brady. I doubt Rodgers would have played well in that offense. He likes to extend plays and hit the big one. I think part of the reason we never go uptempo is because Rodgers would rather watch the defense for 15 seconds before snapping the ball. Brady was a quick hit QB who's first read was spot on 90% of the time. But my honest opinion is to win Super Bowls you need some breaks to go your way. Rodgers never seems to get the breaks that Brady got. Or even Eli for that matter.

the last two years Lafluer has used up tempo, RO and PA as much as anyone in the league and Rodgers this last season got the ball out as fast or faster then any other starting QB, it was a laugher watching Mahomes extend plays Sunday, it's obvious he never took a lesson from Rodgers, who years ago was one of the best ever at extending so his down field receivers could clear, but imo thats not who Rodgers has been ever since MLF became our HC.

I think Brady is the all time best at winning a snap before taking that snap. He didn't need all-superstar WR crews (tho he certainly utilized stars when he had 'em, just like AR), since the O wasn't dependent on winning 1-1s. Instead Brady was a master of predicting what the D would do, and adjusting to exploit the weakness in whatever they called.

AR became close to that this year. And LaFleur's scheme adjusted into a quick passing game due to the injuries to the OL. I HATE it when people give zero credit to LaFleur, as if he has been just chillaxing in a hammock and taken an advantage of the greatness of AR. This scheme has been very good to AR. Especially considering AR isn't the young escape artist he used to be. Just 30 sacks allowed in a year when we scraped the bottom of the roster for OL...

Are people really blind to the immense development of the offensive system and the variation inherent in that system, when compared with MM's era?! It's a completely different thing, and has been able to have more successful variation in these 3 years than MM's system went through in all of his years.

Does LaFleur's system require good players? Yes. All schemes do. There is no scheme that works if no one executes it.

Is LaFleur tough? Well, he's no drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket, but I think most people forget what happens to that character in the movie... 13-win seasons don't require the most disciplining. He overcame injury adversity very well this season. He fired Mo, as he should. I mean, he didn't do it as early or as dramatically as some fans woulda preferred, but still fired him.

I personally think we hit a home run with the LaFleur hire. And the Barry hire seems pretty sweet at this point, too. I think we not only need to get a better STs coordinator, but Gutey needs to focus on bringing in some STs demons.

[Yoop]

I'm not buying the Rodgers would have had more rings in NE than Brady. I doubt Rodgers would have played well in that offense. He likes to extend plays and hit the big one. I think part of the reason we never go uptempo is because Rodgers would rather watch the defense for 15 seconds before snapping the ball. Brady was a quick hit QB who's first read was spot on 90% of the time. But my honest opinion is to win Super Bowls you need some breaks to go your way. Rodgers never seems to get the breaks that Brady got. Or even Eli for that matter.

the last two years Lafluer has used up tempo, RO and PA as much as anyone in the league and Rodgers this last season got the ball out as fast or faster then any other starting QB, it was a laugher watching Mahomes extend plays Sunday, it's obvious he never took a lesson from Rodgers, who years ago was one of the best ever at extending so his down field receivers could clear, but imo thats not who Rodgers has been ever since MLF became our HC.

I think Brady is the all time best at winning a snap before taking that snap. He didn't need all-superstar WR crews (tho he certainly utilized stars when he had 'em, just like AR), since the O wasn't dependent on winning 1-1s. Instead Brady was a master of predicting what the D would do, and adjusting to exploit the weakness in whatever they called.

AR became close to that this year. And LaFleur's scheme adjusted into a quick passing game due to the injuries to the OL. I HATE it when people give zero credit to LaFleur, as if he has been just chillaxing in a hammock and taken an advantage of the greatness of AR. This scheme has been very good to AR. Especially considering AR isn't the young escape artist he used to be. Just 30 sacks allowed in a year when we scraped the bottom of the roster for OL...

Are people really blind to the immense development of the offensive system and the variation inherent in that system, when compared with MM's era?! It's a completely different thing, and has been able to have more successful variation in these 3 years than MM's system went through in all of his years.

Does LaFleur's system require good players? Yes. All schemes do. There is no scheme that works if no one executes it.

Is LaFleur tough? Well, he's no drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket, but I think most people forget what happens to that character in the movie... 13-win seasons don't require the most disciplining. He overcame injury adversity very well this season. He fired Mo, as he should. I mean, he didn't do it as early or as dramatically as some fans woulda preferred, but still fired him.

I personally think we hit a home run with the LaFleur hire. And the Barry hire seems pretty sweet at this point, too. I think we not only need to get a better STs coordinator, but Gutey needs to focus on bringing in some STs demons.

I agree and gave Lafluer credit in the very first sentence

and Brady didn't design the offensive schemes he's excelled in, and has always had players the schemes are designed around to exploit the defenses, excellent slot receivers and talented TE's.

some people for whatever reason don't seem to think Rodgers would have equaled Brady's production if he had played for NE the last doz years, I think he probably could have, just look how quick he mastered the schemes Lafluer has used, also Sal, I disagree, Matts uptempo schemes where in place long before this OL hit the mash unit, he was installing them throughout 2019.

I've never understood why people think Rodgers has had comparable receiving talent to other teams the last 5 or 6 years, but to each there own opinions I guess, we'll see how that works out when FA starts this year.

[Drj820]

The biggest difference between Brady and Rodgers in terms of pure on field activity is that Brady would be content to run the ball 100x a game if it meant a win, as well as he would be content to throw 30 5 yard drag routes or 5 yard outs per game as long as it meant winning.

Rodgers is risk adverse, but not really patient. He wants that home run ball. He might get bored with a 9 minute drive, not sure. But Rodgers will get to a 3 and out much quicker than Brady because Rodgers wants to take low percentage shots down field. Brady is happy as can be to be in 3rd and managable and toss another out route.

[Yoop]

The biggest difference between Brady and Rodgers in terms of pure on field activity is that Brady would be content to run the ball 100x a game if it meant a win, as well as he would be content to throw 30 5 yard drag routes or 5 yard outs per game as long as it meant winning.

Rodgers is risk adverse, but not really patient. He wants that home run ball. He might get bored with a 9 minute drive, not sure. But Rodgers will get to a 3 and out much quicker than Brady because Rodgers wants to take low percentage shots down field. Brady is happy as can be to be in 3rd and managable and toss another out route.

Rodgers has rarely ever had the short ball receivers that Brady has, and probably the reason Rodgers looks a little deeper to pass then Tom, thats the biggest difference to me, in 2020 we had players that more fit a short passing offense and we saw Rodgers milking clock with long time consuming drives a bit more, if ya lack players for certain schemes to work then obviously that will limit the ability to do that stuff, Cobb was limited due to injury's, same with Aaron Jones, Hill went to IR, same with that scat back we had last year, other then Adams the cupboard is bare for gadget type short ball receivers.