Rodgers future

[NCF]

Benkert been running AR's PR lately.

[go pak go]

Why is wanted to change a "post season choke artist" ridiculous? You certainly may not agree with that designation, but it's the basis of this part of the thread.

It is ridiculous because I suspect those actually involved in the league do not view it this way. The playoffs are a fickle bitch. Teams understand this. There is nothing wrong with Rodgers in the playoffs other than the results. As with most players, when you get that next opportunity, it rarely, if ever, will have anything to do with previous opportunities.

Thank you expressing my thoughts on this subject so much better and clearer than I did.

I agree with NCF's point too that the playoffs are a fickle bitch.

However, getting into the postseason is carrying too much weight. That is not a huge accomplishment or daunting task.

7 of 16 teams get into the postseason. So allocating so much resources into a player just to get into the postseason is bad roster development. You want to build teams that are difference makers in the postseason.

We consistently find that tough defenses are a good variable to correlate success in the postseason. That is a good reason why I start with that in my future "wants" of a Packers team.

[go pak go]

I didn't listen to all of Jennings's points, but his first 90 seconds are honestly what a lot of us feel here about this situation as well.

I just wouldn't publicly say anything until after we know all the facts. Which right now this is all conjecture and speculation.

[Labrev]

Yes, what Jennings says is basically true, but the way he is going about saying it is legitimately loathsome.

$%@# Greg Jennings, we should have snubbed him from Packers HOF for this BS, or just remove him now.

[Yoop]

It is ridiculous because I suspect those actually involved in the league do not view it this way. The playoffs are a fickle bitch. Teams understand this. There is nothing wrong with Rodgers in the playoffs other than the results. As with most players, when you get that next opportunity, it rarely, if ever, will have anything to do with previous opportunities.

Thank you expressing my thoughts on this subject so much better and clearer than I did.

I agree with NCF's point too that the playoffs are a fickle bitch.

However, getting into the postseason is carrying too much weight. That is not a huge accomplishment or daunting task.

7 of 16 teams get into the postseason. So allocating so much resources into a player just to get into the postseason is bad roster development. You want to build teams that are difference makers in the postseason.

We consistently find that tough defenses are a good variable to correlate success in the postseason. That is a good reason why I start with that in my future "wants" of a Packers team.

actually having a good defense is just one facet, ya need a very good QB and passing game, as well as the ability to move the chains running the ball, our OL last year needed our RB's to get most of there YPG average AFTER first contact, so that minus Rodgers, well we sure as heck wouldn't have been the number 1 (one ) offense in the league ( which is a goofed up stat anyway) also number one defense ( also a convoluted stat based upon who ya play) are so hard to build and keep together, a couple key player losses and ya drop to middle of the league, why do you think GM's focus on building a potent offense first, for christ sakes you should be smart enough to figure that out.

lis, I can go either route, I've had more Packer winning then most NFL fans deserve, no sweat off my ass if we trade Rodgers, but to think thats going to make anything better in the future for this team is a pipe dream.

[Pugger]

It is ridiculous because I suspect those actually involved in the league do not view it this way. The playoffs are a fickle bitch. Teams understand this. There is nothing wrong with Rodgers in the playoffs other than the results. As with most players, when you get that next opportunity, it rarely, if ever, will have anything to do with previous opportunities.

Thank you expressing my thoughts on this subject so much better and clearer than I did.

I agree with NCF's point too that the playoffs are a fickle bitch.

However, getting into the postseason is carrying too much weight. That is not a huge accomplishment or daunting task.

7 of 16 teams get into the postseason. So allocating so much resources into a player just to get into the postseason is bad roster development. You want to build teams that are difference makers in the postseason.

We consistently find that tough defenses are a good variable to correlate success in the postseason. That is a good reason why I start with that in my future "wants" of a Packers team.

The fact that you feel getting into the playoffs is not a huge accomplishment or a daunting task is very telling. Once we are not getting in every year your viewpoint will be different.

[go pak go]

Thank you expressing my thoughts on this subject so much better and clearer than I did.

I agree with NCF's point too that the playoffs are a fickle bitch.

However, getting into the postseason is carrying too much weight. That is not a huge accomplishment or daunting task.

7 of 16 teams get into the postseason. So allocating so much resources into a player just to get into the postseason is bad roster development. You want to build teams that are difference makers in the postseason.

We consistently find that tough defenses are a good variable to correlate success in the postseason. That is a good reason why I start with that in my future "wants" of a Packers team.

The fact that you feel getting into the playoffs is not a huge accomplishment or a daunting task is very telling. Once we are not getting in every year your viewpoint will be different.

I have faith that our organization is built strong enough that this won't be a problem over the long term. I believe the Packers are a winning franchise. I certainly expect some poor years. But the cream generally rises to the top and I do consider the Packers to be a top end franchise.

And to my stronger point, I don't really get the difference if the sucking starts in 2024 or 2022.

If "life after Rodgers" is the concern, that will happen regardless at some point. So the question is how baren do you want the franchise to be after life without Rodgers?

I would rather be more equipped for post Rodgers life rather than squeeze everything we got for a 10% chance at a ring. That is my rationale.

[RingoCStarrQB]

Things may blow up soon. Some are waiting for the news to break that he's been hanging out with KK

[Crazylegs Starks]

A half a dozen GMs are lining up to make Rodgers the highest paid player in the league? Why would they want a QB who so many here have declared he is post season choke artist?

Prospective team thoughts:
1) Just look at Matt Stafford
2) But we can change him!
3) Think of the ticket & merch sales!

Take your pick, Pugger

We can change the best player in the league... do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

I can't figure out if you're saying "you can't change people" which is true, or if you're saying "he's perfect, why would you try?"

Edit: I guess it didn't come across that #2 is supposed to be ridiculous, to reflect the idiots some teams have in charge

[Crazylegs Starks]

A half a dozen GMs are lining up to make Rodgers the highest paid player in the league? Why would they want a QB who so many here have declared he is post season choke artist?

Prospective team thoughts:
1) Just look at Matt Stafford
2) But we can change him!
3) Think of the ticket & merch sales!

Take your pick, Pugger

Who would you take of given the choice - Stafford or Rodgers?

Neither. I'll take the money and draft picks instead.

[bud fox]

Prospective team thoughts:
1) Just look at Matt Stafford
2) But we can change him!
3) Think of the ticket & merch sales!

Take your pick, Pugger

We can change the best player in the league... do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

In recent years, Rodgers has been anything but the best player in the league in the playoffs. I assume that is what the "we can change him" comment is about.

Rodgers had a better game as a qb than his opposing qbs last 2 playoff games.

Rodgers not the issue

[Half Empty]

We can change the best player in the league... do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

In recent years, Rodgers has been anything but the best player in the league in the playoffs. I assume that is what the "we can change him" comment is about.

Rodgers had a better game as a qb than his opposing qbs last 2 playoff games.

Rodgers not the issue

Good grief, as a perhaps-GOAT making what he does, that should be a given. How much better, ala leading his team to a win, is what some of us are looking for.

[bud fox]

In recent years, Rodgers has been anything but the best player in the league in the playoffs. I assume that is what the "we can change him" comment is about.

Rodgers had a better game as a qb than his opposing qbs last 2 playoff games.

Rodgers not the issue

Good grief, as a perhaps-GOAT making what he does, that should be a given. How much better, ala leading his team to a win, is what some of us are looking for.

He played better against the guy people say is the GOAT and then better against a close to similar paid guy in significantly poor weather.

Neither loss was on Rodgers but it is the easy take.

In the playoffs packers go up against better teams - you can't expect to walk through them.

The major fault was with a management and coaching group that don't understand the importance of special teams in bad weather football. Bad weather football is expected if you play in Green Bay and have home field in the playoffs.

[dsr]

Rodgers had a better game as a qb than his opposing qbs last 2 playoff games.

Rodgers not the issue

Good grief, as a perhaps-GOAT making what he does, that should be a given. How much better, ala leading his team to a win, is what some of us are looking for.

He played better against the guy people say is the GOAT and then better against a close to similar paid guy in significantly poor weather.

Neither loss was on Rodgers but it is the easy take.

In the playoffs packers go up against better teams - you can't expect to walk through them.

The major fault was with a management and coaching group that don't understand the importance of special teams in bad weather football. Bad weather football is expected if you play in Green Bay and have home field in the playoffs.

In a sense it is true that Rodgers did all that might have been needed to win. When you have a defense that is all-world on the day, restricting the opponents to 6 points, then Rodgers could have folded his tent after the first TD. He had done enough.

The question is, is what you need to win a play-off game is a QB who can score 3 points in 55 minutes and, when the chips are down in the second half, lead his team to 58 yards total offence - is it worth $50 per year to get him? Could we not try an alternative approach, and put another equally competent QB back there - Jordan Love (or for that matter Jordy Nelson or Michael Jordan or Jodie Foster) would have been able to do what Rodgers did in the second half - and spend the draft picks and cash on some competent special teams players? With two or three extra first rounders on special teams, they should be special indeed!

[bud fox]

Good grief, as a perhaps-GOAT making what he does, that should be a given. How much better, ala leading his team to a win, is what some of us are looking for.

He played better against the guy people say is the GOAT and then better against a close to similar paid guy in significantly poor weather.

Neither loss was on Rodgers but it is the easy take.

In the playoffs packers go up against better teams - you can't expect to walk through them.

The major fault was with a management and coaching group that don't understand the importance of special teams in bad weather football. Bad weather football is expected if you play in Green Bay and have home field in the playoffs.

In a sense it is true that Rodgers did all that might have been needed to win. When you have a defense that is all-world on the day, restricting the opponents to 6 points, then Rodgers could have folded his tent after the first TD. He had done enough.

The question is, is what you need to win a play-off game is a QB who can score 3 points in 55 minutes and, when the chips are down in the second half, lead his team to 58 yards total offence - is it worth $50 per year to get him? Could we not try an alternative approach, and put another equally competent QB back there - Jordan Love (or for that matter Jordy Nelson or Michael Jordan or Jodie Foster) would have been able to do what Rodgers did in the second half - and spend the draft picks and cash on some competent special teams players? With two or three extra first rounders on special teams, they should be special indeed!

Special teams doesn't need first rounders.

Rodgers didn't lose the game for us. He didn't win the game for us either did the defence. Neither our off or def could overcome special teams.

Packers off was closer to its season average points per game than the niners.

[Labrev]

re:"Rodgers didn't lose the game" Sure, he was not guilty of any egregious, Bost!ck-caliber errors.

But for the most part, he has not played well in our playoff losses. Sub-par not just by his lofty standards, frankly just below-average for the position. And at QB, it's hard to surmount sub-par play.

[Labrev]

Rodgers defenders be all like... don't blame Rodgers, he did enough to win. Also, if Rodgers had better receivers he would have put up enough points to win.

Okay, so what Rodgers did was NOT enough to win. Otherwise, don't blame the receivers -- they did enough to win!!

[bud fox]

Rodgers defenders be all like... don't blame Rodgers, he did enough to win. Also, if Rodgers had better receivers he would have put up enough points to win.

Okay, so what Rodgers did was NOT enough to win. Otherwise, don't blame the receivers -- they did enough to win!!

Rodgers didn't do enough to win but either did the defence. We didn't win.

Neither the off or the def could do enough to overcome rhe special teams despite playing better than their counterparts.

[bud fox]

re:"Rodgers didn't lose the game" Sure, he was not guilty of any egregious, Bost!ck-caliber errors.

But for the most part, he has not played well in our playoff losses. Sub-par not just by his lofty standards, frankly just below-average for the position. And at QB, it's hard to surmount sub-par play.

He played better than the opposing qbs - Tom Brady and Jimmy G.

[RingoCStarrQB]

re:"Rodgers didn't lose the game" Sure, he was not guilty of any egregious, Bost!ck-caliber errors.

But for the most part, he has not played well in our playoff losses. Sub-par not just by his lofty standards, frankly just below-average for the position. And at QB, it's hard to surmount sub-par play.

He played better than the opposing qbs - Tom Brady and Jimmy G.

LaBrev is correct. Aaron Rodgers, for the most part, has not played well in our playoff losses. It should also be noted that our coaching staff's game plans/play calling was not good enough either. The team lost the playoff games. Starts at the top with Mark Murphy and trickles down to the execution on the field. Fans were loud enough at the 49ers-Packers playoff game in January, 2022 .......... so no one can blame the fans.

GO PACK GO