Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2022 07:30

bud fox wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2022 21:23

Labrev wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2022 16:00

me: we didn't add enough weapons other than Adams over the last five years!
also me: KC added weapons when they got rid of Hill, like... MVS!

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.

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

Watsons long TD catch accomplished the same thing, and the result was 1x1 coverage for everyone else.

Labrev your such a nim rod, no &%$@, Rodgers could/can do this every game if the receivers play up to there projected talent level and the blocking gives him some time.

For a guy who plays the victim card on this forum a lot...you sure are a jerk a$$ to others. Good lord.

Yoop wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2022 07:30

bud fox wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2022 21:23

Labrev wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2022 16:00

me: we didn't add enough weapons other than Adams over the last five years!
also me: KC added weapons when they got rid of Hill, like... MVS!

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.

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

Watsons long TD catch accomplished the same thing, and the result was 1x1 coverage for everyone else.

Labrev your such a nim rod, no &%$@, Rodgers could/can do this every game if the receivers play up to there projected talent level and the blocking gives him some time.

No it was aimed at bud but you are free to take offense if you like.

go pak go wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2022 07:36

Yoop wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2022 07:30

bud fox wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2022 21:23

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.

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

Watsons long TD catch accomplished the same thing, and the result was 1x1 coverage for everyone else.

Labrev your such a nim rod, no &%$@, Rodgers could/can do this every game if the receivers play up to there projected talent level and the blocking gives him some time.

For a guy who plays the victim card on this forum a lot...you sure are a jerk a$$ to others. Good lord.

he calls me out just as you do concerning Rodgers and the crap receivers being good enough, when for 5 years all he's really had is Adams and a field stretching MVS to work with, both of you where ready to bench Rodgers, tank for draft slots and you call me a jerk, look in the mirror, you both act like bandwagon fans, when the team isn't doing well your the first couple to bail.

I hate to admit this. But maybe I was premature in starting this thread. Our offense was horrid and our defense underperforming. And our former-MVP QB wasn’t able to right the ship. Even while I felt this ship was sinking, I noted some “signs of life” that should have offered hope. The thing was, how often is it that a team waits until the season is half over before it “wakes up” and gets right? Even other teams (Tampa, Denver, etc.) were feeling the same pain as Green Bay.

But we have had our worst injury season in times that I can remember, at least ten years now.

And our QB made two, count them, two, BAD interceptions against the lowly Lions in the Red Zone.

What else was there to think?

As I’ve also noted, if our OLine could just stay healthy and keep 69 and Jenkins upright, that would change things for the offense. And if the young WRs ever started doing their jobs, that would change the offense entirely. And if those things happen, maybe the defense is fresh enough to be more competitive.

After watching the Pack compete well against Dallas, I think we are on a one game roll with positive momentum. I need a solid game against the Titans to change my thinking much. But at least there’s hope that this Packer squad can finally compete with notable teams. FINALLY.

Yes, there is hope. There are greater signs of life. Don’t trade off or bench 12 just yet! Let’s see if this turns into something sweet.

Let's see if they keep this up, first.

They play well when they stick with a balanced offense; this is not the first game to prove that. They just keep going away from what works mid-game and trying to force plays that aren't there.

It does feel to me like *someone* played with more pride and gumption last night because he couldn't stand the idea of being besting by a man on the other side who was notably scapegoated for him, whereas every/any other week, content to just cash the check and bring the team down for not playing enough backyard 'ball.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2022 10:27

I hate to admit this. But maybe I was premature in starting this thread. Our offense was horrid and our defense underperforming. And our former-MVP QB wasn’t able to right the ship. Even while I felt this ship was sinking, I noted some “signs of life” that should have offered hope. The thing was, how often is it that a team waits until the season is half over before it “wakes up” and gets right? Even other teams (Tampa, Denver, etc.) were feeling the same pain as Green Bay.

But we have had our worst injury season in times that I can remember, at least ten years now.

And our QB made two, count them, two, BAD interceptions against the lowly Lions in the Red Zone.

What else was there to think?

As I’ve also noted, if our OLine could just stay healthy and keep 69 and Jenkins upright, that would change things for the offense. And if the young WRs ever started doing their jobs, that would change the offense entirely. And if those things happen, maybe the defense is fresh enough to be more competitive.

After watching the Pack compete well against Dallas, I think we are on a one game roll with positive momentum. I need a solid game against the Titans to change my thinking much. But at least there’s hope that this Packer squad can finally compete with notable teams. FINALLY.

Yes, there is hope. There are greater signs of life. Don’t trade off or bench 12 just yet! Let’s see if this turns into something sweet.

It wasn't premature at all. It is a valid thread.

But yes. Yesterday proved that we aren't dead yet. Two more losses though and we are dead. So this thread is absolutely relevant. Because the question will be looming regardless in the next 3 months.

Labrev wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2022 10:43

Let's see if they keep this up, first.

They play well when they stick with a balanced offense; this is not the first game to prove that. They just keep going away from what works mid-game and trying to force plays that aren't there.

It does feel to me like *someone* played with more pride and gumption last night because he couldn't stand the idea of being besting by a man on the other side who was notably scapegoated for him, whereas every/any other week, content to just cash the check and bring the team down for not playing enough backyard 'ball.

McCarthy was let go because he wouldn't/couldn't adapt to the loss of prime Nelson and Cobb, and wouldn't run the football, Rodgers came right out and said we need to run more in 2017.

people blame Rodgers for us not running the ball enough, yet there he was again last not saying we need to run the ball.
again though, Lafluer is no dummy, in games when we stop running and try to pass it is due to yrdage on first and second down running the ball, we don't average 5ypc on every run, so when someone brings a stat like that it's deceitful and only clouds reality, last nights success ( Jones & Dillon 203 yrds) was made easier because of the passing success, and if receivers had been catching passes all year like last night we'd have a winning record.

Sometime in the third quarter, Rodgers started to look interested again. whether he was interested because things started going well, or whether things started going well because he was interested again, I don't know - I suspect the latter. But his attitude in recent weeks has stunk IMO, and against the Cowboys, at least later on, he was back to business - and as we all know, an MVP quarterback who believes his team might win, has a chance to win every game and to carry his team with him.

That block he threw in the 4th quarter - that's a sign of a QB who means business.

dsr wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2022 17:47

Sometime in the third quarter, Rodgers started to look interested again. whether he was interested because things started going well, or whether things started going well because he was interested again, I don't know - I suspect the latter. But his attitude in recent weeks has stunk IMO, and against the Cowboys, at least later on, he was back to business - and as we all know, an MVP quarterback who believes his team might win, has a chance to win every game and to carry his team with him.

That block he threw in the 4th quarter - that's a sign of a QB who means business.

Sadly, the passion seemed to not be there last night ............... again.

Yeah, I thought we'd win, but I'm not surprised at all that we lost.

It's like I said, this team has had 'the formula' for a while now, the issue was sticking with what works. They just don't.

Find excitement/enjoyment in the rest of the season from watching the young guys that can give be a solid nucleus of future Packers teams:
Watson, Doubs, Toure, deQuara, JRJ, Myers, Tom, Walker, Wyatt, McDuffie, Ford, Nixon, and what-have-you.

Back to the OP, what to do with Rodgers?

I would give Love the second half of every game from here on out. Probably not gonna do that, because it will be seen as "giving up" but I disagree, starting Rodgers is more like "giving up" with how badly he has been, Love is more likely to spark something. That's the only reason I would hesitate, because the draft slot could suffer, but Love getting PT is a worthwhile trade-off.

But when we are mathematically eliminated, there's no excuse for not doing giving Love at least half of each game.

Cobb probably retires now. Hopefully it prompts Rodgers to do the same. If not, let Lazard walk. Lazard is the only WR we have left who Rodgers has some trust in to do the 'little things' he likes/wants, and then don't add any noteworthy WR through free agency. Hopefully that will be enough to make Rodgers want out without forcing him out the door. If that's still not enough, just bite the bullet and cut him.

After years of heartbreak with a narcissist, I AM READY for LOVE!!

Back to the conundrum of how much/little to let Rodgers play. His performances are hardly inspiring. But Guty paid the guy, so Guty will tell MLF to play him. Anything short of a broken leg or arm, I think that Rodgers plays out the season.

Maybe the one thing that affected the judgment of many, Guty and many of us fans alike, is what I will call the “Brady anomaly.” That is, as Tom Brady still plays at a high level well into his 40s, we look at a guy like Aaron Rodgers and assume that he will also do the same. That inspires us to have higher expectations of Rodgers and the Packers. It inspires Guty to PAY Rodgers forward instead of trading him when there was maybe a good market for him.

Now, we are suffering. And we will continue to suffer, not just for this year but next as well. (Assuming that Rodgers does not retire.)

I’m the kind of fan that used to think that you hold on to aging vets when they have paid big dividends in the past. It’s a loyalty thing. But there’s also a time when you need to move on to what you think is next for a team. Maybe Rodgers actually has a couple of real good years left. But frankly, I don’t care. I’m tired of him playing poorly when it’s cold. I’m thinking he can no longer elevate the rest of the team like he used to. I’m tired of younger QBs making the passes and he doesn’t. I have higher expectations of him still making a handful of superb, even amazing passes, each game, while the team goes down the tubes.

I want a new path forward - sometime before the end of this season.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

18 Nov 2022 10:37

Back to the conundrum of how much/little to let Rodgers play. His performances are hardly inspiring. But Guty paid the guy, so Guty will tell MLF to play him.

I'm not so sure Gutekunst wanted to pay Rodgers to return for more money this past offseason, but Gutekunst's boss Mark Murphy certainly did and Gutekunst and Ball both at the very least went along with it.

I, along with a significant chunk of the fan base, was hoping the Packers would unload Rodgers as soon as the clock hit 0:00 in the playoff loss to SF, but that obviously did not happen.

Instead, Packer management went out of its way to bring Rodgers back. The team is now beholden to Rodgers financially and otherwise in 2023 and to a lesser extent in 2024 when Rodgers turns 41.

I agree with those who maintain that Rodgers' play has slipped and is a big reason for the 4-7 record.

I also agree with those who are advocating for Jordan Love to get some starts to demonstrate his abilities. This is year 3 with the team after all.

I do not, however, agree with those who contend that Packers' management gets a pass for tying the team's fate to Rodgers.

The team is facing a financial and operational conundrum not just for the rest of 2022, but 2023-2024 as well due to the new contract given to Rodgers.

Hence, every time someone criticizes Rodgers they are either being obtuse or disingenuous if they do not simultaneously criticize the men who insisted that he return to Green Bay to play for even more money. And that would be Mark Miurphy, Brian Guteknust, and Russ Ball.

never heard of a GM dumping a league MVP, people that expect Rodgers to carry this team as he mostly has for the better part of this last decade are demanding to much, improve the blocking, and receiver ability and we can still win with him, Lafluer needs to ask Murphy to bring in a seasoned OC and DC, the OL compared to last year has declined, demote Adam Stenavich back to just OL coach, and buy Barry a ticket out of GB, those two things would go a long way to righting this ship.

We wont be doing anything about Rodgers, why anyone thinks our FO would eat 50 mil. to get rid of him hasn't been paying attention, we keep so tight a wallet we won't even offer a proper trade value to get UFA or make trades for obvious needs, and popular belief that Rodgers is the root cause of our problems is basically over looking why he is struggling, OL, and lack of ability at WR seem obvious to me.

LombardiTime wrote: ↑

18 Nov 2022 11:02

I do not, however, agree with those who contend that Packers' management gets a pass for tying the team's fate to Rodgers.

The team is facing a financial and operational conundrum not just for the rest of 2022, but 2023-2024 as well due to the new contract given to Rodgers.

Hence, every time someone criticizes Rodgers they are either being obtuse or disingenuous if they do not simultaneously criticize the men who insisted that he return to Green Bay to play for even more money. And that would be Mark Miurphy, Brian Guteknust, and Russ Ball.

Even with everything else that I and others have said, for any GM to part ways with a 2-time MVP is almost akin to calling that GM a fool. It was right for Packer brass to admit that there would be risk with any QB at this stage of his life and career. But I’d challenge anybody to show me any GM that would part ways with Rodgers at the point of last year. That would be falling on the sword and no GMs would do that. They could, but then they’d be unceremoniously walked out of Lambeau Field the next hour.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

18 Nov 2022 13:50

LombardiTime wrote: ↑

18 Nov 2022 11:02

I do not, however, agree with those who contend that Packers' management gets a pass for tying the team's fate to Rodgers.

The team is facing a financial and operational conundrum not just for the rest of 2022, but 2023-2024 as well due to the new contract given to Rodgers.

Hence, every time someone criticizes Rodgers they are either being obtuse or disingenuous if they do not simultaneously criticize the men who insisted that he return to Green Bay to play for even more money. And that would be Mark Miurphy, Brian Guteknust, and Russ Ball.

Even with everything else that I and others have said, for any GM to part ways with a 2-time MVP is almost akin to calling that GM a fool. It was right for Packer brass to admit that there would be risk with any QB at this stage of his life and career. But I’d challenge anybody to show me any GM that would part ways with Rodgers at the point of last year. That would be falling on the sword and no GMs would do that. They could, but then they’d be unceremoniously walked out of Lambeau Field the next hour.

You are leaving out tons of context. Is this GM dealing with a QB that is threatening to quit? Doing hallucinogenics instead of coming to OTAs?

Also, they didn’t HAVE to rework rodgers deal. He was under contract for this season anyways. That’s not “parting ways” with Rodgers. The smart thing to do with the QB threatening retirement would be to pay him the league high for a QB each year, but make the deals be basically one year deals.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Nov 2022 14:49

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

18 Nov 2022 13:50

LombardiTime wrote: ↑

18 Nov 2022 11:02

I do not, however, agree with those who contend that Packers' management gets a pass for tying the team's fate to Rodgers.

The team is facing a financial and operational conundrum not just for the rest of 2022, but 2023-2024 as well due to the new contract given to Rodgers.

Hence, every time someone criticizes Rodgers they are either being obtuse or disingenuous if they do not simultaneously criticize the men who insisted that he return to Green Bay to play for even more money. And that would be Mark Miurphy, Brian Guteknust, and Russ Ball.

Even with everything else that I and others have said, for any GM to part ways with a 2-time MVP is almost akin to calling that GM a fool. It was right for Packer brass to admit that there would be risk with any QB at this stage of his life and career. But I’d challenge anybody to show me any GM that would part ways with Rodgers at the point of last year. That would be falling on the sword and no GMs would do that. They could, but then they’d be unceremoniously walked out of Lambeau Field the next hour.

You are leaving out tons of context. Is this GM dealing with a QB that is threatening to quit? Doing hallucinogenics instead of coming to OTAs?

Also, they didn’t HAVE to rework rodgers deal. He was under contract for this season anyways. That’s not “parting ways” with Rodgers. The smart thing to do with the QB threatening retirement would be to pay him the league high for a QB each year, but make the deals be basically one year deals.

Rodgers had no interest in a 1 yr deal, he was either leaving for a deal like the one we gave him or staying here for it, he said he either wants to retire a Packer ( foremost) or go to a team who gives him a contract that would be long enough to do it, he wasn't interested in bouncing around on 1 year contracts.

Thank goodness that Ted Thompson had the intestinal fortitude to make the much more difficult decision to move on from the far more popular Brett Favre in 2008.

He made a bold move and it paid off for both he and the franchise.