We have a laundry list of microaggressions from the Front Office, but nothing on that list would make me side with Rodgers. There really has to be something behind the scenes that no one has been able to get ahold of yet. Like, someone said something that no one knows but Aaron and that was the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't know what and I don't know where and I don't know when, but just little tiny tea leaves still makes me think this is far more Rodgers vs Murphy than it is Rodgers vs Gute.
Yeah you'd think there would be something else behind the scenes, because him acting this way over microaggressions (good term btw) is absurd. But this is a guy who apparently doesn't talk to his own family, so I'm not sure I'm willing to just assume he is acting appropriately.
I absolutely would consider this natural. But, it also does go against your theory that Rodgers wanted LaFleur's schemes all along. I don't think Rodgers exactly knew what he wanted until he saw it in action. That is absolutely natural. I am not blaming Rodgers for that, but also, I am. There is a degree of culpability there.
your paraphrasing my position , my point, but your right, Rodgers wasn't sure what scheme he wanted from the offense, just that the one we had been using didn't work any longer, I related what MLF brought to some of the stuff NE had been doing for years, more short WCO versus the time consuming iso vertical stuff we'd used the entire time McCarthy was the coach
I absolutely would consider this natural. But, it also does go against your theory that Rodgers wanted LaFleur's schemes all along. I don't think Rodgers exactly knew what he wanted until he saw it in action. That is absolutely natural. I am not blaming Rodgers for that, but also, I am. There is a degree of culpability there.
your paraphrasing my position , my point, but your right, Rodgers wasn't sure what scheme he wanted from the offense, just that the one we had been using didn't work any longer, I related what MLF brought to some of the stuff NE had been doing for years, more short WCO versus the time consuming iso vertical stuff we'd used the entire time McCarthy was the coach
uh.....I didn't write this. This was [mention]NCF[/mention]'s work.
Honestly. I don't even know how you did this because I don't think I even responded on that thread. I did like his post though.
Do you like to just fight me that much?
image.png (63.41 KiB) Viewed 501 times
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 08 Jun 2021 14:02
by go pak go
Oh. I think I figured out what happened [mention]Yoop[/mention] .
I agree with you NCF. I would just say that all of that is part of the "transition" and is why the transition into new schemes are harder for QBs than say RBs. I would also say if Rodgers had a hard time in the transition, it is "natural" and he was better at it than most would have been in year one. Basically, i think you have a great point..i just dont think other QBs would have done better.
Yeah, I have no issues with Rodgers' 2019 year. First year in a new system, and the team was winning so little reason to push. Transitioning is tough. I do think that lots of QBs could have had similar years there if they had some previous scheme experience. But I do think it's fair to say both that we did not go 13-3 primarily on the strength of our QB AND that our offense and run game likely benefitted from even the presence of a QB with Rodgers' skillset and history for teams to gameplan against.
There's some of both things there. But regardless of whether or not it was a sign of a prolonged decline in ability (or whether it's fair to perceive it that way), there's no denying that he didn't have the outcomes he was used to. Nor is there any denying that he was in his late thirties and a draft pick at QB can just as easily be a 4-year plan as a 2-year plan.
I just think the "we're on a fixed timeline" side of that draft pick is all too much. And I also think that the reasons behind Rodgers' dip in stellar play are fully erroneous given that EITHER Rodgers was good all along but needed a supporting cast and scheme improvement, which means that Gutey and Murphy are responsible for providing him what he needed and thus the Love pick was just one wrong turn... OR Rodgers was seen to be genuinely declining in his focus or preparation, in which the Love pick makes sense. Like, either way, I side against Rodgers here.
again we are back to the opinion that Rodgers was more of the issue versus lack of players and scheme prior to Lafluer, when Rodgers still produced winning season in all that defunkedness, ( Injury, plus scheme, plus lack of impact players)
our defense couldn't hold a lead, McCarthy practically refused to run the ball with a PB RB riding pine, imho Yoho it is amassing to me that we did as well as we did, and while you and other point out every little short coming he had pre 19, and even in 19 with the scheme change, Rodgers was still the catalist that made this work, he turned A Jones into our #2 receiver and impact offensive player, no one else even sniffed that title, and believe it or not they held that offense back, they where not dependable or consistent and thats part of the reason Rodgers was stuck holding the ball more then he should have been, I think there is a concerted effort here to paint Rodgers far worse then he was.
as I said, it probably wasn't so much that we drafted Love that set Rodgers off, but more so the lack of transparancy in doing it.
I absolutely would consider this natural. But, it also does go against your theory that Rodgers wanted LaFleur's schemes all along. I don't think Rodgers exactly knew what he wanted until he saw it in action. That is absolutely natural. I am not blaming Rodgers for that, but also, I am. There is a degree of culpability there.
your paraphrasing my position , my point, but your right, Rodgers wasn't sure what scheme he wanted from the offense, just that the one we had been using didn't work any longer, I related what MLF brought to some of the stuff NE had been doing for years, more short WCO versus the time consuming iso vertical stuff we'd used the entire time McCarthy was the coach
uh.....I didn't write this. This was @NCF's work.
Honestly. I don't even know how you did this because I don't think I even responded on that thread. I did like his post though.
Do you like to just fight me that much?
image.png
I have no idea how that happened, I must have quoted your post by mistake, but it has happened before by other posters so it could be a glitch.
either way if the hero doesn't come back to play, we are up &%$@ river creek without even a life raft, doesn't matter who any of us thinks is wrong that is a reality we'll have to live with, and I'am not willing to accept that yet.
your paraphrasing my position , my point, but your right, Rodgers wasn't sure what scheme he wanted from the offense, just that the one we had been using didn't work any longer, I related what MLF brought to some of the stuff NE had been doing for years, more short WCO versus the time consuming iso vertical stuff we'd used the entire time McCarthy was the coach
uh.....I didn't write this. This was @NCF's work.
Honestly. I don't even know how you did this because I don't think I even responded on that thread. I did like his post though.
Do you like to just fight me that much?
image.png
I have no idea how that happened, I must have quoted your post by mistake, but it has happened before by other posters so it could be a glitch.
either way if the hero doesn't come back to play, we are up &%$@ river creek without even a life raft, doesn't matter who any of us thinks is wrong that is a reality we'll have to live with, and I'am not willing to accept that yet.
It's because you quoted my "I agree with this response" and then tried to condense it and deleted the wrong "quote bars" and so you then made me the author of something I didn't write.
Or at least I have a feeling you are the reason for the "glitch" over the computer being the reason for the glitch.
The night of the 2020 draft was the angriest I have ever been during an NFL draft
The weekend was so weird for me.
Didn't like the Love pick; hated the trade; was optimistic about the player.
LOVED AJ Dillon. Thought he was a round or so early
LOVED Josiah Deguara. Thought he was 2 or 3 rounds early
LOVED Jon Runyan Jr. Taken at a good value
HATED getting no receiver help in the top 3 rounds. Understood taking no receivers on day 3.
It was a weird weekend. But it happened and we moved on and I'm excited about who he could be and what it could mean, but I'm angry again now that Rodgers' reaction to it has blown up the options.
the 2020 draft ranks as one of those that I didn't see that pick coming, no reason for it, it's not as though Rodgers had acted in any way like Favre, younger, had been playing better, and never to our knowledge made threats to retire every other year, and unlike Favre didn't end games, big games with bombastic decisions, almost every pick in that draft was a futures pick, same with Gary the year prior, he did mix in some high picks designed to be early success with Alex, Jenkins and Savage, but this class had 2021 or 22 written all over it.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 08 Jun 2021 17:40
by lupedafiasco
Gute and Murphy gotta be nervous. Theyre either going to be enshrined in the Packers HOF for finding the next HOF caliber QB or theyre gonna be hung from the gallows at the top of that hill in Titletown for all the world to see the idiots who thought they could replace Rodgers.
Gute and Murphy gotta be nervous. Theyre either going to be enshrined in the Packers HOF for finding the next HOF caliber QB or theyre gonna be hung from the gallows at the top of that hill in Titletown for all the world to see the idiots who thought they could replace Rodgers.
AJ looks so stoned, eye lids drooping maybe he's repacking that stoggy with some wacky tabackie? of course the conversation would be about Loves 57 poor throws, or was it 67, lots anyway according to these guys, McAfee is wound up so tight ya'd guess he just torched some crack, but he's funny as hell at times too.
Imagine that a QB struggles a bit the first day of minni's, never heard of such a thing
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 08 Jun 2021 20:15
by Raptorman
ME.
Only because there is no popcorn-eating smile on this forum.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 08 Jun 2021 20:21
by YoHoChecko
I genuinely just can't bring myself to care about a young QB's inconsistency in his first OTAs and minicamp work. I guess I understand why people do, or maybe why I should. But I dunno; I feel like news and stories are made by things that defy expectations and this whole month or so since the draft, people are making big deals out of things that should be entirely in line with expectations.
If you thought Jordan Love was going to shine this month, it was an optimistic guess. Those of us who have been saying he isn't ready (especially with details like "he isn't ready until his footwork in conjunction with different route combinations has been entrenched as muscle memory") see these practice reports and think "yeah, sounds about right" and life goes on. It's not particularly worth reacting or analyzing all that much
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 08 Jun 2021 21:52
by Crazylegs Starks
Jordan Love looked terrible!
Jordan Love looked great!
Gotta get those views...
I'll wait until I see some actual plays from scrimmage.
I genuinely just can't bring myself to care about a young QB's inconsistency in his first OTAs and minicamp work. I guess I understand why people do, or maybe why I should. But I dunno; I feel like news and stories are made by things that defy expectations and this whole month or so since the draft, people are making big deals out of things that should be entirely in line with expectations.
If you thought Jordan Love was going to shine this month, it was an optimistic guess. Those of us who have been saying he isn't ready (especially with details like "he isn't ready until his footwork in conjunction with different route combinations has been entrenched as muscle memory") see these practice reports and think "yeah, sounds about right" and life goes on. It's not particularly worth reacting or analyzing all that much
You want only news that will fit your narrative which makes sense. If it doesn't fit your narrative you will make it by saying it doesn't matter.
It is very typical of a packer fan. It fits the nature or psychology. Packers fans are a conservative bunch. Need direction and have a sense of overarching loyalty to the brand. The problem is the brand is always identified as being what packers.com says. By that I mean the president and GM etc. The simplicity of human sociology and psychology is not more evident than in these forums especially with the current environment.
