Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2022 13:21

when people wont consider that Brady did it with excellent defense year after year and offensive schemes that are QB friendly ( UP Tempo, short ball WC schemes) then they miss the reasons some comparisons don't work.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 13:53

this should be the conversation FRONT AND CENTER right now... and IT IS ALSO TIME to clean out the front office including the coaches room.

Is this a serious statement? I don't think it is a serious statement, but...

Labrev wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 16:07

Yoop wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2022 13:21

when people wont consider that Brady did it with excellent defense year after year and offensive schemes that are QB friendly ( UP Tempo, short ball WC schemes) then they miss the reasons some comparisons don't work.

Which people won't consider that?

Everybody knows, as a matter of common knowledge, that the Star player needs at least some supporting talent around him. Even in the NBA where a star player can carry a team, still MJ needed guys like Scottie Pippin, Lebron needed Kyrie, etc.

Nobody fails to understand that extremely simply and tired point.

The difference is, Brady and Rodgers both have been given teams that are good enough to go the distance with. In Brady's case, it's always "well that was a good team" because THEY WON so nobody thinks about the holes on their roster, and in Rodgers's case it's always "well we didn't have _______" because we lost.

That's the difference. Winners win, and losers lament.

In fairness, Brady has had more of those teams than Rodgers because he took less money on purpose to keep winning championships. Rodgers made the opposite choice. To be clear, I don't blame him; I believe players should make as much as they can.

But when you do that, you accept the risk that the teams are not going to be as good, and that you need to do a little bit more to win.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2022 20:29

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2022 19:59

German_Panzer wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2022 17:51

Let me represent the german perspective crystal-clear, so that no one can blame us on this one later: #12 is only welcome if he takes a significant pay cut, else: Auf Wiedersehen!

Rodgers played not decisive in the last two playoff losses that could have been won if Aaron just had balls. His not-so-good playoff performances plus his genuine desire to play for this unique - almost holy - franchise along with his desire to make a comptetent team possible to play for more SBs has to tranlate into him taking a knee (= pay cut).

I mean with a couple or first rounders, maybe a guy like Carr and a good defense we can easily be a contender next season as well. Even with Love I can see us at least compete for the NFC North which means: Playoffs.

I would also hope - though this is my personal fantasy, so be cautioned if you read further - that the Packers would ask Jim Harbaugh or Bill Belichick (maybe a swap deal and MLF to NE?) to coach. MLF is not a coach for a man‘s game, more like a female volleyball team. I know that stings but I do think that those meek coaches - MM & MLF - made the team soft…and soft teams find more ways to collapse.

Now I'm getting nervous. First we figured out we're better off keeping Aaron. Now we're starting to rationalize dumping LaCoach. Might want to throw Murphy in there while we're at it. Panzer is correct. We have a _______ head coach. Could be Dan Devine 2.0.

honestly, this brings me no pleasure to say this...but firing Murphy and Lafleur is not enough.

Murphy allowed the drafting of Jordan Love, which prevented us from drafting Michael Pittman or Tee Higgins, who both could have helped us win an NFCCG the past two years.

Lafleur stole money from the Packers organization when he was paid to make sure we dont enter the post season with the WORST STs unit in football. He did nothing to fix this and it cost us in the divisional round. One may call this mere negligence, I call it stealing. To take a paycheck while ignoring that part of the job is criminal.

This is why right here, right now...I am calling for the arrest of Mark Murphy and Matt Lafleur. They should surrender themselves to authorities before this gets uglier than it must.

Yoop wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2022 13:21

those will be more apparent as we go forward with a average QB, the saying is true, " ya don't realize what you have , till ya don't.

Labrev wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 16:50

Yoop wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2022 13:21

those will be more apparent as we go forward with a average QB, the saying is true, " ya don't realize what you have , till ya don't.

Actually, we DO know what it's like not to have great QB play; we see it in the difference between how Rodgers plays in the regular season and the way that Rodgers plays in the playoffs when the game is within reach/winnable and he fails to put it away.

I am open to the idea of kicking the can on the Cap for 1 more year to go all-in with Rodgers, but at this point, it has to be with the Denver Manning model: defense carries the team, because the QB cannot be trusted. In truth, if it was not for that fluky BJ Raji pick-6, Rodgers would likely not have ever even gotten 1 ring.

If not, though, I am absolutely ready to be an Ugly Football team that wins with a dominant defense, a run that consistently gives us 3rd-and-5(-or-less), and a QB that is a glorified game-manager. And why not? It worked for the Ravens more than once since 2000 (more times than us), Giants more than once since 2000, it got SanFran into a couple SuperBowls with Kaep and Jimmy G each (more times than us), and ofc Denver.

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 16:07

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 13:53

this should be the conversation FRONT AND CENTER right now... and IT IS ALSO TIME to clean out the front office including the coaches room.

Is this a serious statement? I don't think it is a serious statement, but...

To slightly take the edge off ..... this line of thinking should NOT be swept under the rug….

APB wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 18:48

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 16:07

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 13:53

Is this a serious statement? I don't think it is a serious statement, but...

To slightly take the edge off ..... this line of thinking should NOT be swept under the rug….

To be fair to you, I didn’t sweep this thought under the rug. I immediately threw it in the trash and dumped it outside. That’s where the idea of clearing out the front office and coaching staff following the disappointing loss last week rates. It’s asinine. It’s knee jerk, emotional ranting. It’s what loser teams like Miami, Jacksonville and Houston do.

I’m still not convinced you’re not just trolling for a reaction. For your sake, I hope you are.

Labrev wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 16:07

Yoop wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2022 13:21

when people wont consider that Brady did it with excellent defense year after year and offensive schemes that are QB friendly ( UP Tempo, short ball WC schemes) then they miss the reasons some comparisons don't work.

Which people won't consider that?

Everybody knows, as a matter of common knowledge, that the Star player needs at least some supporting talent around him. Even in the NBA where a star player can carry a team, still MJ needed guys like Scottie Pippin, Lebron needed Kyrie, etc.

Nobody fails to understand that extremely simply and tired point.

The difference is, Brady and Rodgers both have been given teams that are good enough to go the distance with. In Brady's case, it's always "well that was a good team" because THEY WON so nobody thinks about the holes on their roster, and in Rodgers's case it's always "well we didn't have _______" because we lost.

That's the difference. Winners win, and losers lament.

In fairness, Brady has had more of those teams than Rodgers because he took less money on purpose to keep winning championships. Rodgers made the opposite choice. To be clear, I don't blame him; I believe players should make as much as they can.

But when you do that, you accept the risk that the teams are not going to be as good, and that you need to do a little bit more to win.

Labrev wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 16:07

Yoop wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2022 13:21

when people wont consider that Brady did it with excellent defense year after year and offensive schemes that are QB friendly ( UP Tempo, short ball WC schemes) then they miss the reasons some comparisons don't work.

Which people won't consider that?

Everybody knows, as a matter of common knowledge, that the Star player needs at least some supporting talent around him. Even in the NBA where a star player can carry a team, still MJ needed guys like Scottie Pippin, Lebron needed Kyrie, etc.

Nobody fails to understand that extremely simply and tired point.

The difference is, Brady and Rodgers both have been given teams that are good enough to go the distance with. In Brady's case, it's always "well that was a good team" because THEY WON so nobody thinks about the holes on their roster, and in Rodgers's case it's always "well we didn't have _______" because we lost.

That's the difference. Winners win, and losers lament.

In fairness, Brady has had more of those teams than Rodgers because he took less money on purpose to keep winning championships. Rodgers made the opposite choice. To be clear, I don't blame him; I believe players should make as much as they can.

But when you do that, you accept the risk that the teams are not going to be as good, and that you need to do a little bit more to win.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 21:04

packman114 wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 12:48

I'm not buying the Rodgers would have had more rings in NE than Brady. I doubt Rodgers would have played well in that offense. He likes to extend plays and hit the big one. I think part of the reason we never go uptempo is because Rodgers would rather watch the defense for 15 seconds before snapping the ball. Brady was a quick hit QB who's first read was spot on 90% of the time. But my honest opinion is to win Super Bowls you need some breaks to go your way. Rodgers never seems to get the breaks that Brady got. Or even Eli for that matter.

packman114 wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 12:48

I'm not buying the Rodgers would have had more rings in NE than Brady. I doubt Rodgers would have played well in that offense. He likes to extend plays and hit the big one. I think part of the reason we never go uptempo is because Rodgers would rather watch the defense for 15 seconds before snapping the ball. Brady was a quick hit QB who's first read was spot on 90% of the time. But my honest opinion is to win Super Bowls you need some breaks to go your way. Rodgers never seems to get the breaks that Brady got. Or even Eli for that matter.

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 14:52

packman114 wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 12:48

I'm not buying the Rodgers would have had more rings in NE than Brady. I doubt Rodgers would have played well in that offense. He likes to extend plays and hit the big one. I think part of the reason we never go uptempo is because Rodgers would rather watch the defense for 15 seconds before snapping the ball. Brady was a quick hit QB who's first read was spot on 90% of the time. But my honest opinion is to win Super Bowls you need some breaks to go your way. Rodgers never seems to get the breaks that Brady got. Or even Eli for that matter.

the last two years Lafluer has used up tempo, RO and PA as much as anyone in the league and Rodgers this last season got the ball out as fast or faster then any other starting QB, it was a laugher watching Mahomes extend plays Sunday, it's obvious he never took a lesson from Rodgers, who years ago was one of the best ever at extending so his down field receivers could clear, but imo thats not who Rodgers has been ever since MLF became our HC.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

02 Feb 2022 06:10

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 14:52

packman114 wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 12:48

I'm not buying the Rodgers would have had more rings in NE than Brady. I doubt Rodgers would have played well in that offense. He likes to extend plays and hit the big one. I think part of the reason we never go uptempo is because Rodgers would rather watch the defense for 15 seconds before snapping the ball. Brady was a quick hit QB who's first read was spot on 90% of the time. But my honest opinion is to win Super Bowls you need some breaks to go your way. Rodgers never seems to get the breaks that Brady got. Or even Eli for that matter.

the last two years Lafluer has used up tempo, RO and PA as much as anyone in the league and Rodgers this last season got the ball out as fast or faster then any other starting QB, it was a laugher watching Mahomes extend plays Sunday, it's obvious he never took a lesson from Rodgers, who years ago was one of the best ever at extending so his down field receivers could clear, but imo thats not who Rodgers has been ever since MLF became our HC.

I think Brady is the all time best at winning a snap before taking that snap. He didn't need all-superstar WR crews (tho he certainly utilized stars when he had 'em, just like AR), since the O wasn't dependent on winning 1-1s. Instead Brady was a master of predicting what the D would do, and adjusting to exploit the weakness in whatever they called.

AR became close to that this year. And LaFleur's scheme adjusted into a quick passing game due to the injuries to the OL. I HATE it when people give zero credit to LaFleur, as if he has been just chillaxing in a hammock and taken an advantage of the greatness of AR. This scheme has been very good to AR. Especially considering AR isn't the young escape artist he used to be. Just 30 sacks allowed in a year when we scraped the bottom of the roster for OL...

Are people really blind to the immense development of the offensive system and the variation inherent in that system, when compared with MM's era?! It's a completely different thing, and has been able to have more successful variation in these 3 years than MM's system went through in all of his years.

Does LaFleur's system require good players? Yes. All schemes do. There is no scheme that works if no one executes it.

Is LaFleur tough? Well, he's no drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket, but I think most people forget what happens to that character in the movie... 13-win seasons don't require the most disciplining. He overcame injury adversity very well this season. He fired Mo, as he should. I mean, he didn't do it as early or as dramatically as some fans woulda preferred, but still fired him.

I personally think we hit a home run with the LaFleur hire. And the Barry hire seems pretty sweet at this point, too. I think we not only need to get a better STs coordinator, but Gutey needs to focus on bringing in some STs demons.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

02 Feb 2022 07:44

The biggest difference between Brady and Rodgers in terms of pure on field activity is that Brady would be content to run the ball 100x a game if it meant a win, as well as he would be content to throw 30 5 yard drag routes or 5 yard outs per game as long as it meant winning.

Rodgers is risk adverse, but not really patient. He wants that home run ball. He might get bored with a 9 minute drive, not sure. But Rodgers will get to a 3 and out much quicker than Brady because Rodgers wants to take low percentage shots down field. Brady is happy as can be to be in 3rd and managable and toss another out route.