Packers Huddle

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 16:30

Captain_Ben wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 16:22

Probably better suited to its own thread, but I'd love to have a conversation about Chad Pennington and his legacy.

I have always said that Chad Pennington was one of the more underrated QB's I have ever seen. And to be fair, he played football when the job was much more difficult for QB's. If he had been playing today under today's rules, I'd bet he'd be ranked comfortably in the top 10.

This is the Chad Pennington I am discussing. You're correct. He led the league in passer rating one of his earliest seasons. He consistently got the job done, even though there wasn't a lot to work with and it didn't look pretty. I was making a reference to people who watched Pennignton play, not who googled his stats real quick to call me a blasphemer

to be fair, i said your comments seemed blasphemous. I also watched Chad play, when he was available. The man played more that 10 games in a season only 4 seasons during his career. He was fine, maybe even good during his best times. He was no Aaron Rodgers.

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 16:32

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 16:26

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 16:18

It's wrong

A game manager is the type who has a good team. He is given a restricted play book. Etc.

Bro, you literally said, verbatim, we dominated because of the way Rodgers managed the game.

A game manager is a role. And it is a role that Rodgers took on last night. And his time management issues almost cost us the game.

Basically, myself and like 2-3 other people on this board think it's AWESOME that we were able to win the game last night down a ton of star and supporting players without a great performance by our QB.

So we're like "wow, the Packers won despite everything going against it and despite the offense being restricted to the point that we couldn't pass the ball."

And then most of the people on the board are literally arguing with us, like "you're saying Rodgers won without a great performance? B.S. That performance was great. How else could Rodgers have won, given those circumstances, if he had not played great."


And like, if you didn't notice the shift from saying "the Packers" won the game and "Rodgers" won the game" in that dichotomy, that's the point.

It's not though

You are comparing him to average QBs who are restricted completely.

Rodgers wasn't. He managed the game. Those other players are not managers but pawn QBs with the coach managing the game.

Aaron Rodgers is a f*cking good quarterback. FANTASTIC quarterback.

The Green Bay Packers are a f*cking good team. FANTASTIC team that was able to win without needing or relying on the greatness of Aaron Rodgers.

The 2nd line is what is most pertinent about last night.

go pak go wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 16:38

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 16:32

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 16:26

Bro, you literally said, verbatim, we dominated because of the way Rodgers managed the game.

A game manager is a role. And it is a role that Rodgers took on last night. And his time management issues almost cost us the game.

Basically, myself and like 2-3 other people on this board think it's AWESOME that we were able to win the game last night down a ton of star and supporting players without a great performance by our QB.

So we're like "wow, the Packers won despite everything going against it and despite the offense being restricted to the point that we couldn't pass the ball."

And then most of the people on the board are literally arguing with us, like "you're saying Rodgers won without a great performance? B.S. That performance was great. How else could Rodgers have won, given those circumstances, if he had not played great."


And like, if you didn't notice the shift from saying "the Packers" won the game and "Rodgers" won the game" in that dichotomy, that's the point.

It's not though

You are comparing him to average QBs who are restricted completely.

Rodgers wasn't. He managed the game. Those other players are not managers but pawn QBs with the coach managing the game.

Aaron Rodgers is a f*cking good quarterback. FANTASTIC quarterback.

The Green Bay Packers are a f*cking good team. FANTASTIC team that was able to win without needing or relying on the greatness of Aaron Rodgers.

The 2nd line is what is most pertinent about last night.

When Bud and I praise Rodgers for navigating a win last night, I promise we are not diminishing the performances of others on the team. Only WRs not named Cobb. No one else, promise.

Seriously. Our punter is so good.

go pak go wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 16:43

Seriously. Our punter is so good.

The two punts. One where he forces Moore to catch the ball as he is going out of bounds and the other where he makes the ball so confusing that Rondale can't locate it and touches it.

Bojo gave us 3 points yesterday. The punter literally scored points for us.

Usually when discussing league MVP candidates, you are talking about the best player on the best teams. Right now, I would have to say Rodgers absolutely fits this profile. I do think you have to consider the Packers as one of the best teams in the league and Rodgers certainly is their best player. The game plan last night did not ask him to light up the skies with flying footballs. It asked him to manage the game and direct the offense. While he made some mistakes (I am one of his biggest critics when it comes to clock management), he did an admirable job of running the game plan as created by the coaching staff. I don't get too caught up in the media hype about who they think should be the MVP. There is a lot of football to play yet this year. It will all fall into place, but right now I think people really have to consider Rodgers as a very viable MVP candidate.

From Baldy on the Packers run game

go pak go wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 16:38

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 16:32

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 16:26

Bro, you literally said, verbatim, we dominated because of the way Rodgers managed the game.

A game manager is a role. And it is a role that Rodgers took on last night. And his time management issues almost cost us the game.

Basically, myself and like 2-3 other people on this board think it's AWESOME that we were able to win the game last night down a ton of star and supporting players without a great performance by our QB.

So we're like "wow, the Packers won despite everything going against it and despite the offense being restricted to the point that we couldn't pass the ball."

And then most of the people on the board are literally arguing with us, like "you're saying Rodgers won without a great performance? B.S. That performance was great. How else could Rodgers have won, given those circumstances, if he had not played great."


And like, if you didn't notice the shift from saying "the Packers" won the game and "Rodgers" won the game" in that dichotomy, that's the point.

It's not though

You are comparing him to average QBs who are restricted completely.

Rodgers wasn't. He managed the game. Those other players are not managers but pawn QBs with the coach managing the game.

Aaron Rodgers is a f*cking good quarterback. FANTASTIC quarterback.

The Green Bay Packers are a f*cking good team. FANTASTIC team that was able to win without needing or relying on the greatness of Aaron Rodgers.

The 2nd line is what is most pertinent about last night.

More to the QB position that 40 yard bombs ... Alot more.

Rodgers greatness was on display. He didn't have the bombs. But he played the QB position very well last night.

So many variables.

I just want to say how ridiculous it is that I have compared Rodgers' performance last night to a few QBs--not his career, not his ability, not his season even--just his output last night.

Those 4 QBs are:

• Chad Pennington, a criminally underrated 11-year NFL starter with a winning alltime record whose fragile health marred his career, but who brought his team to the playoffs through incredibly intelligent decision-making and careful management of the offense on teams that relied more on their defenses. He led the NFL in passer rating in his first season as a fulltime starter in 2002 (only 12 games, though). His career INT % is 2.6

• Alex Smith, an 18 year NFL starter and 3-time Pro Bowl selection; former #1 overall pick. He won 63% of the games he started, led the league in passer rating in 2017 and frequently ranked among the lowest INT percentages in the league. He led two different teams to the playoffs and went 5-1 in his 18th season playing for the WFT in 2020. His career INT percentage is 2.1

• Matt Ryan, a 14 year starter and 4-time Pro Bowler known at time as a dink and dunk master, but who led the NFL in passer rating in 2016, the year he won league MVP under the QB coaching of our current coach. He has a career winning record, has led his team to two NFC Championship games and a Super Bowl collapse against the Patriots. His career INT percentage is 2.1

• Ryan Tannehill, a 9 year NFL starter and 2019 Pro Bowl selection. Current starter of a 5-2 team and is 23-10 in his three seasons in Tennessee. He led the league in passer rating in 2019. In his career INT percentage is 2.4%

I compared a rough statistical output in a single-game performance in which the passing game was highly downplayed in the plan to 4 long-term NFL starters, each of whom have led the league in passer rating for at least one season, who have a combined 8 Pro Bowl selections, were all drafted in the first round....

...and people LOST THEIR MINDS considering these comparisons an insult and an absurdity. Telling me I've lost my mind, am blasphemos, etc.

Because I compared one night in which our QB, due to circumstances beyond his control, was limited in his role and output, to guys who have LED THE LEAGUE in passer rating in their careers and I got called crazy, and was told I am "bashing Rodgers"

Like stop it. Rodgers is amazing. But if he has a day where he looks like just a regular non-Hall-of-Fame Pro Bowl selection, and I point that out, you should probably calm down.

Are we just so spoiled by hall of famers that we think that anyone who just wins MVPs and makes a couple Pro Bowls is an utter failure?

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 17:08

I just want to say how ridiculous it is that I have compared Rodgers' performance last night to a few QBs--not his career, not his ability, not his season even--just his output last night.

Those 4 QBs are:

• Chad Pennington, a criminally underrated 11-year NFL starter with a winning alltime record whose fragile health marred his career, but who brought his team to the playoffs through incredibly intelligent decision-making and careful management of the offense on teams that relied more on their defenses. He led the NFL in passer rating in his first season as a fulltime starter in 2002 (only 12 games, though). His career INT % is 2.6

• Alex Smith, an 18 year NFL starter and 3-time Pro Bowl selection; former #1 overall pick. He won 63% of the games he started, led the league in passer rating in 2017 and frequently ranked among the lowest INT percentages in the league. He led two different teams to the playoffs and went 5-1 in his 18th season playing for the WFT in 2020. His career INT percentage is 2.1

• Matt Ryan, a 14 year starter and 4-time Pro Bowler known at time as a dink and dunk master, but who led the NFL in passer rating in 2016, the year he won league MVP under the QB coaching of our current coach. He has a career winning record, has led his team to two NFC Championship games and a Super Bowl collapse against the Patriots. His career INT percentage is 2.1

• Ryan Tannehill, a 9 year NFL starter and 2019 Pro Bowl selection. Current starter of a 5-2 team and is 23-10 in his three seasons in Tennessee. He led the league in passer rating in 2019. In his career INT percentage is 2.4%

I compared a rough statistical output in a single-game performance in which the passing game was highly downplayed in the plan to 4 long-term NFL starters, each of whom have led the league in passer rating for at least one season, who have a combined 8 Pro Bowl selections, were all drafted in the first round....

...and people LOST THEIR MINDS considering these comparisons an insult and an absurdity. Telling me I've lost my mind, am blasphemos, etc.

Because I compared one night in which our QB, due to circumstances beyond his control, was limited in his role and output, to guys who have LED THE LEAGUE in passer rating in their careers and I got called crazy, and was told I am "bashing Rodgers"

Like stop it. Rodgers is amazing. But if he has a day where he looks like just a regular non-Hall-of-Fame Pro Bowl selection, and I point that out, you should probably calm down.

Are we just so spoiled by hall of famers that we think that anyone who just wins MVPs and makes a couple Pro Bowls is an utter failure?

Tell me about the receiving groups of these players and when they missing starting tackle and Centre ... And beat the top team in the league

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 17:14

Tell me about the receiving groups of these players and when they missing starting tackle and Centre ... And beat the top team in the league

Again, you have a very difficult time working past "TEAM won so QB was great."

That's your flaw, not mine.

Pennington went 11-5 with a Dolphins team whose three leading receivers were Tedd Ginn Jr, Davone Bess, and Greg Camarillo
He went 10-6 and made the playoffs on a Jets team whose leading receivers were Laveraneus Coles and Jericho Cotchery

Chad Pennington is not an insult.

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 17:14

Tell me about the receiving groups of these players and when they missing starting tackle and Centre ... And beat the top team in the league

You mean like Russel Wilson and the Seattle Seahawks from 2012 - 2015? Everything is amazing except the WRs are junk.

Maybe that's a good way of describing last night. The Packers are the legion of boom with the RBs being beast mode and the punter contributing in the points scoring.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 17:15

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 17:14

Tell me about the receiving groups of these players and when they missing starting tackle and Centre ... And beat the top team in the league

Again, you have a very difficult time working past "TEAM won so QB was great."

That's your flaw, not mine.

No you have a difficult time understanding the QB position. You think it is just 40 yard bombs.

For some QBs it's 10 plays and protections everything is given to them. Not this one. He is basically captain coach.

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 17:19

No you have a difficult time understanding the QB position. You think it is just 40 yard bombs.

For some QBs it's 10 plays and protections everything is given to them. Not this one. He is basically captain coach.

I am literally comparing our QB last night to QBs who played well without a lot of deep bombs for dozens of years. You just don't know their names and their games well enough to understand that there can be good QBs who are not great all the time.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 17:15

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 17:14

Tell me about the receiving groups of these players and when they missing starting tackle and Centre ... And beat the top team in the league

Again, you have a very difficult time working past "TEAM won so QB was great."

That's your flaw, not mine.

Pennington went 11-5 with a Dolphins team whose three leading receivers were Tedd Ginn Jr, Davone Bess, and Greg Camarillo
He went 10-6 and made the playoffs on a Jets team whose leading receivers were Laveraneus Coles and Jericho Cotchery

Chad Pennington is not an insult.

Thanks - better groups than Rodgers had.

It's amazing how all the pundits talk about the quality of Rodgers game last night

Come to the forum and he was average.

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 17:22

It's amazing how all the pundits talk about the quality of Rodgers game last night

Come to the forum and he was average.

We're literally complaining about how short-sighted and narrow-minded the pundits are. That's literally the issue here.

He wasn't "average." He was good. He was a game manager. And his role wa sintentionally reduced because the receiving options took the passing game mostly out of the equation. So the coach set up a game plan in which in order to win we'd need a strong running and defensive performance, and so they did.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 17:21

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 17:19

No you have a difficult time understanding the QB position. You think it is just 40 yard bombs.

For some QBs it's 10 plays and protections everything is given to them. Not this one. He is basically captain coach.

I am literally comparing our QB last night to QBs who played well without a lot of deep bombs for dozens of years. You just don't know their names and their games well enough to understand that there can be good QBs who are not great all the time.

Yoho you are missing all the variables.

The wr group he had, the short week, losing davante in the week, missing LT and Centre. Playing the top team in the league.

These variables you would have an average QB passing 4 ints

Rodgers controlled the whole game. First downs when needed, time of possession, TDs when needed.

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 17:22

It's amazing how all the pundits talk about the quality of Rodgers game last night

Come to the forum and he was average.

After such an abysmal performance last night, im shocked fox interviewed game manager Rodgers after the big win. Should have requested MVP Aj Dillon.

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2021 17:26

Yoho you are missing all the variables.

The wr group he had, the short week, losing davante in the week, missing LT and Centre. Playing the top team in the league.

These variables you would have an average QB passing 4 ints

Rodgers controlled the whole game. First downs when needed, time of possession, TDs when needed.

I am not missing the variables.

You are inserting the pronoun "he" and the name "Rodgers" into spaces where the words "The Packers" should be.

And that's our point. Most times, the Packers win games because we have a great QB and his name is Aaron Rodgers and he can do anything he wants with the football in his hands. But sometimes, and last night was one of them, the Packers win games even though our QB does not play great, because we have great supporting talent on other units, and they step up.

That is all we're saying. You have to get out of this dumb mental trap where a QB can't possibly win a game without having played great if that QB is capable of playing great. Everyone has bad days. Every week has a different plan. This week, the plan was to take the pressure and the impetus off of the QB and put it onto the running game and the defense. The reason for that plan was to keep the opposing offense off the field and to negate the impact of having practice squad players at most of the WR positions.

That you are unable to read those words and hear that feedback as anything but an insult to our hall of fame, 3-time MVP, all-time great QB is not my fault, and it is not due to a lack of understanding of football. Those words are not insulting. Maybe living close to the Ravens for all these years I understand that there are ways to win games that are not QB-centric, and I recognize it when I see it, and that's what happened last night.

And the mistakes he made late in the game with the clock were egregious and costly and need to be considered. RODGERS knows that. He was clearly still mad about it when he did his post game on-field interview and immediately brought it up himself, because he was still angry at himself. Rodgers wouldn't blink if MLF said "hey, you did a great job managing the game last night, but we need to get together on the clock issues; that's inexcusable." He knows what happened. Why on earth don't his fans?