Packers Huddle

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 12:32

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 12:10

Also, you say if we didnt have Rodgers we would be built differently...how so? We already are designed on paper to pound the ball with resources put into big dog, keeping tonyan, drafting OLmen, resigning Jones, drafting dillon. The roster as is currently built is designed to make any QBs life easier.

Yes! I agree with this. The roster, as currently built, is designed to make any QB's life easier! Which is why many of us here are pointing out that yeah, while Rodgers is succeeding, he's succeeding in part because the team is constructed to make any QB's life easier, including Rodgers!

But if we didn't have Rodgers, and we had the cap savings that come with not having an elite QB, I bet we would have a) focused a bit on bringing in better YAC players at receiver and better returners. Think about how the 49ers operate with Jimmy G and a very similar coaching philosophy.

Elite QBs at elite prices basically cost a team 1 or 2 above-average starting salary free agent. If our QB's cap charge was $12 million less, we'd maybe have signed Cordarelle Patterson to be our return/gadget player and/or afforded defensive line help at the trade deadline. The tradeoffs of how you build a team with or without an elite QB are on the field AND in the financial structures.

But because we have already invested heavily on defense and the run game, and because we have assembled a high-quality OL, the differences to make up for a less-good QB would be pretty small, but the play calling, the offensive scheme, and a couple players on the margins would then make a difference.

But I'm glad we can all acknowledge that there's a clear roster and coaching case to be made that this team makes it as easy as possible on its QBs.

Did i ever imply that Rodgers was succeeding because of magical Rodgers powers alone? You seem to be very defensive of the other guys on the roster getting their due. I have no problem with that. I think Lafleur has helped Rodgers out tremendously!

I said STs would cost us more games without the play of Rodgers. 10 games might have been hyperbole, but also...maybe not! They cost us at least tying the KC game when we missed 2 FGs.

We saw the OL without Rodgers setting the protections against the Chiefs..was not pretty.

I dont think Jimmy G could get that team in the right position at all. He is the type where it all has to be spelled out for him...and then he succeeds. Everytime the niners go through injuries they go on losing streaks. With all of the injuries we have dealt with this year, a lesser QB would be a sitting duck back there and we would have to rely on STs a LOT more, and they would cost us a lot more.

The offensive production, despite being dissipated by injuries, has massively hidden their incompetence. You didnt really address that in your last post, do you disagree?

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 12:10

Also, you say if we didnt have Rodgers we would be built differently...how so? We already are designed on paper to pound the ball with resources put into big dog, keeping tonyan, drafting OLmen, resigning Jones, drafting dillon. The roster as is currently built is designed to make any QBs life easier.

we have been building to run the ball versus the pass on offense, we are now more balanced, we draft big receivers that can block, we kept a aging TE that specializes with blocking, and drafted another to take his place, also took the biggest bruiser style RB in the draft two years ago, paid 10 mil annual for Jones.

yes Aaron did say 4 years ago that we needed to run the ball more, I doubt he thought it would become the investment that it is, in this time frame we added a 3rd rounder with Amari Rodgers who so far has not impressed much concerning any task given, so while this sounds QB friendly, ( which it should be) a guy of Rodgers status wants to throw the ball, I think it's probably been his major !@#$ off issue, the direction in which Lafluers offense is going, more run, less pass, we have not invested in a high floor, high ceiling WR since 014 with Adams.

It really imo does mark the end of a era, Guty ( just like us ) realizes how difficult it will be to replace Rodgers, sure they hope as we do that Love is that guy, if not though, at least you've put together a ball control unit with a solid defense, next order of business is fixing ST's

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 13:56

we have not invested in a high floor, high ceiling WR since 014 with Adams.

Not to get too far off topic, but I would even say Adams was at best a mid-ceiling guy when he was drafted. But his quickness is off the charts which has made his entire game.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 12:46

Did i ever imply that Rodgers was succeeding because of magical Rodgers powers alone? You seem to be very defensive of the other guys on the roster getting their due. I have no problem with that. I think Lafleur has helped Rodgers out tremendously!

I said STs would cost us more games without the play of Rodgers. 10 games might have been hyperbole, but also...maybe not! They cost us at least tying the KC game when we missed 2 FGs.

We saw the OL without Rodgers setting the protections against the Chiefs..was not pretty.

I dont think Jimmy G could get that team in the right position at all. He is the type where it all has to be spelled out for him...and then he succeeds. Everytime the niners go through injuries they go on losing streaks. With all of the injuries we have dealt with this year, a lesser QB would be a sitting duck back there and we would have to rely on STs a LOT more, and they would cost us a lot more.

The offensive production, despite being dissipated by injuries, has massively hidden their incompetence. You didnt really address that in your last post, do you disagree?

So, first; can you understand why it feels perhaps contradictory and at least confusing to see someone hold the two stances that 1) the team is built to help make life easy for any QB and to succeed with the run game and defense to complement QB play, but also 2) that the team is probably not a playoff team with an average QB? Do you understand why it FEELS like even though you say you have no problem crediting other people, the second half of that combination is incredibly tough to square with the first?

As for offensive production hiding the impact of special teams, I guess I do disagree? Not that it can't happen, but first, our punting unit is our best ST unit. I know we've had some gaffes there as well, with BoJo being less consistent of late and the ridiculous 97-yard punt return against the Bears (though you can't say that wasn't played and coached just fine. We just missed all the tackles). So if we punted more, I'm not sure we'd look worse. Also, our kickoff units are perhaps our worst unit (up there with FGs), so if we scored and kicked off less, we'd see that less--not that this combination of scoring less and therefore kicking off less is anything but a team negative, but no. I don't think the offense is masking the incompetence of STs. The final reason is just, well, we're losing games due to ST or coming close to losing games because of STs anyway. Nothing is being hidden or dissipated.

The fact is that STs is the least important unit of the 3. Offense is the easiest to control and master and maintain. Defenses are less consistent year-to-year and more difficult to maintain. But they both account for 50-70 plays per game. STs accounts for 8-10 plays per game. The weakness of this team isn't being masked by offensive production, it's being masked by the fact that we placed our priorities in more important areas. That's not to say we should abandon them completely, but it is to say that STs and QB play likely don't have much, if any, impact on each other.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 16:09

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 12:46

Did i ever imply that Rodgers was succeeding because of magical Rodgers powers alone? You seem to be very defensive of the other guys on the roster getting their due. I have no problem with that. I think Lafleur has helped Rodgers out tremendously!

I said STs would cost us more games without the play of Rodgers. 10 games might have been hyperbole, but also...maybe not! They cost us at least tying the KC game when we missed 2 FGs.

We saw the OL without Rodgers setting the protections against the Chiefs..was not pretty.

I dont think Jimmy G could get that team in the right position at all. He is the type where it all has to be spelled out for him...and then he succeeds. Everytime the niners go through injuries they go on losing streaks. With all of the injuries we have dealt with this year, a lesser QB would be a sitting duck back there and we would have to rely on STs a LOT more, and they would cost us a lot more.

The offensive production, despite being dissipated by injuries, has massively hidden their incompetence. You didnt really address that in your last post, do you disagree?

So, first; can you understand why it feels perhaps contradictory and at least confusing to see someone hold the two stances that 1) the team is built to help make life easy for any QB and to succeed with the run game and defense to complement QB play, but also 2) that the team is probably not a playoff team with an average QB? Do you understand why it FEELS like even though you say you have no problem crediting other people, the second half of that combination is incredibly tough to square with the first?

As for offensive production hiding the impact of special teams, I guess I do disagree? Not that it can't happen, but first, our punting unit is our best ST unit. I know we've had some gaffes there as well, with BoJo being less consistent of late and the ridiculous 97-yard punt return against the Bears (though you can't say that wasn't played and coached just fine. We just missed all the tackles). So if we punted more, I'm not sure we'd look worse. Also, our kickoff units are perhaps our worst unit (up there with FGs), so if we scored and kicked off less, we'd see that less--not that this combination of scoring less and therefore kicking off less is anything but a team negative, but no. I don't think the offense is masking the incompetence of STs. The final reason is just, well, we're losing games due to ST or coming close to losing games because of STs anyway. Nothing is being hidden or dissipated.

The fact is that STs is the least important unit of the 3. Offense is the easiest to control and master and maintain. Defenses are less consistent year-to-year and more difficult to maintain. But they both account for 50-70 plays per game. STs accounts for 8-10 plays per game. The weakness of this team isn't being masked by offensive production, it's being masked by the fact that we placed our priorities in more important areas. That's not to say we should abandon them completely, but it is to say that STs and QB play likely don't have much, if any, impact on each other.

Okay, i disagree that scoring lots of points and controlling games offensively does not impact how much the ineptitude of our STs cost us in the W/L columm, next...

With the Packers roster at full strength, an average QB may could guide it to the playoffs. However, when I first made comments I was referring to if Love was our QB, then I did bite on the comment about "the 20th best QB" so I will stick to that for this debate...But the 20th QB is not average. That is below average.

So, could a below average QB take this roster to the playoffs? We see it all the time where a team with a below average QB misses the playoffs solely based off poor QB play, or they make it and lose in the WC round. Best example of teams like this in the current season would be Denver or Cleveland. Pretty dang good rosters, FIGHTING for a playoff spot due to below average QB play. But this is all if we are talking the Packers at full strength.

I am talking about THIS season. Where player after player has been sidelined including starting TE, the entire OL almost, and key pieces on defense.

I do credit Lafleur for revitalizing Rodgers career. I do credit Gute for finding Campbell, drafting Stokes, finding Rasul etc.

But what has made Rodgers MVP candidacy better than like a Cousins or a Brady...is Cousins is losing games because things arent perfect around him and Brady is winning as things are perfect around him, until this past week when they werent perfect, and he got shut out.

Point being, heck ya credit to all the players, coaches, FO, etc etc...but no...no way do i think this team is fighting for a 1 seed without Rodgers this season after all the injuries. I think a below average QB or even Il be nice and say average fails to get the mix and matched OL in the right protection, and fails to manage the game in a way that the Packers are a 10 win team.

I think the injuries would just be too much, and I think we would be in a lot closer games...games where quality STs play may be critical in order to win...and I think time after time they would fail us in that department.

Like they did in the Chiefs game. Some in this debate have said that showed we can hang without Rodgers, that showed me that it was a close game and STs was promoted to a lot more importance due to lack of offensive production and they needed to be perfect and instead we missed two FGs and lost by 6.

To put it simply, unless the offense turns the ball over, it is a special teams play...

[mention]Drj820[/mention] well at this point I’m genuinely not sure who moved the goalposts, but it’s clear that they’ve been moved, shifted, conflated, misinterpreted along the way by both of us.

What I’m saying, mostly, is that if you swapped QBs with most teams in the league, the Packers roster would be more successful with their new QB than that old QB was on his previous roster.

The Packers with Kirk Cousins are better than the Vikings with Kirk Cousins. So we’re 11-3 and they’re 7-7. Kirk Packers would maybe be 10-4 and in the playoffs.

The Packers with Teddy Bridgewater are better than the Broncos with Teddy Bridgewater. Same sort of record breakdown but maybe we’re 9-5 or 8-6 with Teddy, and in the playoffs.

I think there’s a mistake a lot when talking about how good a team would be without their starting QB by looking at how good that team is with a backup QB. But very few teams will succeed with the 40th best QB in the league. That doesn’t mean that a team with a top 3 QB can’t succeed, to a slightly lesser degree, with a top 10 or top 20 QB.

The Packers roster is among the league’s best. I mean, we had 7 Pro Bowlers last year, lost one to free agency, saw four of them out with injury (Bakh, Jaire, Z, Jenkins) and still landed the remaining 3 back to the list with four new alternates. So we have elite talent at the top.

But we also have seen that we have no-name depth and role players like Lucas Patrick and Dean Lowery and Yosh Nijman and Josiah Degura who can step in and get a presentable job done in a pinch.

Our roster is simply too good for these “the Packers are Aaron Rodgers” type of narratives that emerge and I’m perfectly happy to call Rodgers one of the best to ever play the game and recognize how he elevated those around us and acknowledge that the gap between Rodgers and, say, Bridgewater, is worth 2-4 wins per season.

But when you’re winning 13 to 14 games, you’re still a playoff team capable of making a run when you dock two wins. That’s all.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2021 08:20

@Drj820 well at this point I’m genuinely not sure who moved the goalposts, but it’s clear that they’ve been moved, shifted, conflated, misinterpreted along the way by both of us.

What I’m saying, mostly, is that if you swapped QBs with most teams in the league, the Packers roster would be more successful with their new QB than that old QB was on his previous roster.

The Packers with Kirk Cousins are better than the Vikings with Kirk Cousins. So we’re 11-3 and they’re 7-7. Kirk Packers would maybe be 10-4 and in the playoffs.

The Packers with Teddy Bridgewater are better than the Broncos with Teddy Bridgewater. Same sort of record breakdown but maybe we’re 9-5 or 8-6 with Teddy, and in the playoffs.

I think there’s a mistake a lot when talking about how good a team would be without their starting QB by looking at how good that team is with a backup QB. But very few teams will succeed with the 40th best QB in the league. That doesn’t mean that a team with a top 3 QB can’t succeed, to a slightly lesser degree, with a top 10 or top 20 QB.

The Packers roster is among the league’s best. I mean, we had 7 Pro Bowlers last year, lost one to free agency, saw four of them out with injury (Bakh, Jaire, Z, Jenkins) and still landed the remaining 3 back to the list with four new alternates. So we have elite talent at the top.

But we also have seen that we have no-name depth and role players like Lucas Patrick and Dean Lowery and Yosh Nijman and Josiah Degura who can step in and get a presentable job done in a pinch.

Our roster is simply too good for these “the Packers are Aaron Rodgers” type of narratives that emerge and I’m perfectly happy to call Rodgers one of the best to ever play the game and recognize how he elevated those around us and acknowledge that the gap between Rodgers and, say, Bridgewater, is worth 2-4 wins per season.

But when you’re winning 13 to 14 games, you’re still a playoff team capable of making a run when you dock two wins. That’s all.

I honestly never moved a goal post, I’ve been debating from the same stand point this entire time. I believe you thought I was saying the team might as well be called “The Green Bay Rodgers”, and that’s where this friendly debate all started...when I was saying with the 20th best qb behind center:

A) things would have fallen apart by now (due to all the injuries) and
B) we would be in many more close games and the incompetence of STs would be much more a factor and effect the W/L column much more.

However, I think we would be about 7-7 with Kirk because I think everything has to be spelled out for him and I think the OL injuries would cause massive protection issues for him. Maybe a 10 win team at full health tho. But I don’t really buy that the Vikings roster is any worse than rosters Rodgers has drug to the playoffs in the past. I mean they have one of the best RBs (cook), and one of the NFLs top WR duo with thielen and Jefferson.

And Teddy stinks and the Broncos roster is good to me. That O is so limited because of Teddy. I think Teddy would do here about what he’s doing in Denver.

I think the way we are fighting for a 1 seed after all the injuries does promote Rodgers MVP case, I think when full strength the roster is VERY good, i give credit to Lafleur for helping propel Rodgers career, and I think without Rodgers the games would be closer and we would lose those close games due to STs (Like we did the KC game).

No goal post movements, those are the points a
I am debating