Re: What to do with Aaron (with season now in dumpster)?
Posted: 13 Nov 2022 13:35
AR is not playing well. I think the biggest factor in the offense is the bad OL play, though. Way below their talent level.
The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
Yes, and there is ample evidence to support it. Whether you want to start preparing for the future is a separate topic. I think that as long as we technically can still make the playoffs, we need to play the QB who gives us the best chance to win now. That QB is Rodgers. I'd be more inclined to support the idea of bringing in a different QB, if we could. Maybe someone like a Garoppolo who has proven to be serviceable. But I think your argument here does not work because it's Love. He has shown himself to be not a good NFL QB, against backups. I know you don't like Aaron and I have complaints about his leadership too, but come on man. Love would make us better? Really?AmishMafia wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 13:29But again, is Love really a step down from Rodgers' level of play? Love will likely improve and Rodgers isn't.Captain_Ben wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 12:56Ok in theory we could bench Rodgers and play Love. What I believe would happen in that scenario is that Love's presence on the field would drag this team down into an abyss of suck, the depths of which we did not know were possible. And bringing it back to your post, no I would not blame Love in that situation. I would blame whomever decided to play him when we have a healthy Rodgers. Love is just doing the best that he can, which is all that can be asked of him. The thing is, we already know that he is bad. Inserting bad QB into bad roster w/dumb coaching is not going to result in improved level of play. It's common sense, come on man.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 12:04It seems to me that those who say that it was not the QB's fault when the ST had a beyond horrible game were saying that it was Love's fault when he had to start vs the Chiefs and the ST had a beyond horrible game. But all people remember is that the Packers lost and Love could not deal with the pressure of being put in horrible starting position behind in the score
NFL Radio had a bit on the Packers and how terrible Rodgers is playing and that there is a complete lack of leadership on the field. Said the fact that he is publicly blaming others when many of their issues is at the QB position has created a very negative culture.
I think we are a better team without Rodgers at this point.
My thinking is based on the atmosphere of the team. I don't see a cohesive team. I see uninspired play at times.Captain_Ben wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 13:45Yes, and there is ample evidence to support it. Whether you want to start preparing for the future is a separate topic. I think that as long as we technically can still make the playoffs, we need to play the QB who gives us the best chance to win now. That QB is Rodgers. I'd be more inclined to support the idea of bringing in a different QB, if we could. Maybe someone like a Garoppolo who has proven to be serviceable. But I think your argument here does not work because it's Love. He has shown himself to be not a good NFL QB, against backups. I know you don't like Aaron and I have complaints about his leadership too, but come on man. Love would make us better? Really?AmishMafia wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 13:29But again, is Love really a step down from Rodgers' level of play? Love will likely improve and Rodgers isn't.Captain_Ben wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 12:56
Ok in theory we could bench Rodgers and play Love. What I believe would happen in that scenario is that Love's presence on the field would drag this team down into an abyss of suck, the depths of which we did not know were possible. And bringing it back to your post, no I would not blame Love in that situation. I would blame whomever decided to play him when we have a healthy Rodgers. Love is just doing the best that he can, which is all that can be asked of him. The thing is, we already know that he is bad. Inserting bad QB into bad roster w/dumb coaching is not going to result in improved level of play. It's common sense, come on man.
NFL Radio had a bit on the Packers and how terrible Rodgers is playing and that there is a complete lack of leadership on the field. Said the fact that he is publicly blaming others when many of their issues is at the QB position has created a very negative culture.
I think we are a better team without Rodgers at this point.
I could get on board with the argument that we would have been a better team if we hadn't re-signed AR and used the money to build a more balanced roster. But at this point, no. We absolutely would not be a better team right now without Rodgers IMO.
See like 90% of your post makes sense to me but then I'll read statements like this and have to jump ship. He can't throw far enough anymore? Ok now I know you're trolling haha. I saw him launch a 50 yard bomb with a broken thumb just a couple of weeks ago.AmishMafia wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 14:09Love can make all the throws Rodgers cannot. Although Love has accuracy issues as well, Rodgers can't throw far enough anymore.
'Just think it's funny to count signing (and overpaying) MVS as a team adding weapons after acting like Rodgers had no other quality receivers. Like, we got objectively way better bang for our buck there (mid-round pick/contract, four years solid performance and deep threat guy).
Let me tell you why I disagree with your perspective…Labrev wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 16:08'Just think it's funny to count signing (and overpaying) MVS as a team adding weapons after acting like Rodgers had no other quality receivers. Like, we got objectively way better bang for our buck there (mid-round pick/contract, four years solid performance and deep threat guy).
If that is directed towards me its so dumb given I specifically noted Juju Toney and MVS. MVS being the worst of the 3 lol Man Rodgers haters can't be stopped even after today's performance.
I think we found our field stretcher today. If Doubs is able to come back healthy at some point...we have weapons on the perimeter.Drj820 wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 16:13Let me tell you why I disagree with your perspective…Labrev wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 16:08'Just think it's funny to count signing (and overpaying) MVS as a team adding weapons after acting like Rodgers had no other quality receivers. Like, we got objectively way better bang for our buck there (mid-round pick/contract, four years solid performance and deep threat guy).
Because MVS does a lot more than catch the ball. He stretches the field. He must be accounted for. He demands “some” level of attention. Even if he can’t run real routes or catch. To the chiefs, he replaces tyreke in that role.
We didn’t replace that role. And not we don’t have anybody that scares anybody deep.
While I wouldn’t want to pay MVS 10m a year for what he does, it would be “adding a weapon” if we had found someone cheaper with same skilset.
Chiefs know that role is critical to their offense. They went and filled that role. We didn’t want to pay a premium for that role, but forgot to replace it with cheap labor.
You and everybody else.go pak go wrote: Today was exciting. Run, run, run, pass. We ran the ball far more than throwing and we have a guy that beat teams deep. This formula is what I was hoping for all year.
No excuses for the refusal to give Aaron Jones the ball and run the ball…but I think Watson spending most of the year hurt or dropping passes prevented the show we saw tonight. GPG is right…Watson can be the guy that stretches the field if he can stay on the fieldAPB wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 21:45You and everybody else.go pak go wrote: Today was exciting. Run, run, run, pass. We ran the ball far more than throwing and we have a guy that beat teams deep. This formula is what I was hoping for all year.
This is the offense we all were talking about as soon as Adams walked out the door. Why it took so long to implement and/or be successful is up for debate but this is exactly what pretty much everybody expected coming into this season. It’s damn sure encouraging and exciting to finally see the offense commit to it after so many failed offensive showings.
And for those who countered and said, "well how can you run the ball when you're down by 2 scores?!"APB wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 21:45You and everybody else.go pak go wrote: Today was exciting. Run, run, run, pass. We ran the ball far more than throwing and we have a guy that beat teams deep. This formula is what I was hoping for all year.
This is the offense we all were talking about as soon as Adams walked out the door. Why it took so long to implement and/or be successful is up for debate but this is exactly what pretty much everybody expected coming into this season. It’s damn sure encouraging and exciting to finally see the offense commit to it after so many failed offensive showings.
It's so funny how the little things can change things. I still wonder what this team and confidence is like had Watson not dropped that first ball in MN.Drj820 wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 21:54No excuses for the refusal to give Aaron Jones the ball and run the ball…but I think Watson spending most of the year hurt or dropping passes prevented the show we saw tonight. GPG is right…Watson can be the guy that stretches the field if he can stay on the fieldAPB wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 21:45You and everybody else.go pak go wrote: Today was exciting. Run, run, run, pass. We ran the ball far more than throwing and we have a guy that beat teams deep. This formula is what I was hoping for all year.
This is the offense we all were talking about as soon as Adams walked out the door. Why it took so long to implement and/or be successful is up for debate but this is exactly what pretty much everybody expected coming into this season. It’s damn sure encouraging and exciting to finally see the offense commit to it after so many failed offensive showings.
Yeah, I kinda chuckled when the color commentator was harping mid-3rd qtr after the Packers went down 14 how they'd now be forced into a one-dimensional passing attack. There was still plenty of time to recover while still sticking to the run, especially with how effective they were moving the ball. Hell, the run game was the reason we were getting so many favorable looks in the passing game as the 4th rolled on and especially so in OT when Lazard had the big play.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Nov 2022 07:04The Bills game and Cowboys game should now prove that it's okay to run the ball when down by 2 scores. Clearly having Watson have the big plays was the difference maker, but yesterday's offense is what we thought this team could meld into as the season went along.
Labrevs idiotic remark was aimed at me, MVS caught 50% of passes thrown his way, even with that low % defenses had to honor his deep speed, in essence that requires two DB coverage and allowed other receivers to be 1x1
Watched the 3 TDs to Watson. All 3 good throws. The first one was perfect. And an excellent catch BTW. Hope this is the start of something better.Captain_Ben wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 16:01See like 90% of your post makes sense to me but then I'll read statements like this and have to jump ship. He can't throw far enough anymore? Ok now I know you're trolling haha. I saw him launch a 50 yard bomb with a broken thumb just a couple of weeks ago.AmishMafia wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 14:09Love can make all the throws Rodgers cannot. Although Love has accuracy issues as well, Rodgers can't throw far enough anymore.