Rodgers future

[Drj820]

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.

Rodgers has rarely ever had the short ball receivers that Brady has, and probably the reason Rodgers looks a little deeper to pass then Tom, thats the biggest difference to me, in 2020 we had players that more fit a short passing offense and we saw Rodgers milking clock with long time consuming drives a bit more, if ya lack players for certain schemes to work then obviously that will limit the ability to do that stuff, Cobb was limited due to injury's, same with Aaron Jones, Hill went to IR, same with that scat back we had last year, other then Adams the cupboard is bare for gadget type short ball receivers.

totally disagree. Adams can run any route on the field, Cobb was perfect short route candidate for many years, Aaron Jones and AJ Dillon can catch 5 yard passes all day long. For most of Rodgers career he had very good WRs. Now, in the last 5 or so years that position has depleted, but its not like Brady was working with stars most of his career. He made them stars.

[Half Empty]

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.

Unfortunately Rodgers first read is doubled 90% of the time and not open like you mentioned with Brady. Imagine Rodgers with an open primary read

Possible that Brady's first read was open because it wasn't the same one every play?

[bud fox]

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.

Unfortunately Rodgers first read is doubled 90% of the time and not open like you mentioned with Brady. Imagine Rodgers with an open primary read

Possible that Brady's first read was open because it wasn't the same one every play?

Yeah which is the coach's problem. Play concept.

[packman114]

When I say an uptempo offense I don't mean getting the ball out quickly. I mean getting the play off quickly. Seems to me MLF changes personnel after every snap and Rodgers will wait until 1 or 2 seconds on the clock to snap it. When our offense gets "out of rhythm" as like they say I would like to see us go no-huddle just to change things up and try something different. We didn't change anything against SF. Patriots always changed things up. I thinkwe don't because this is the way Aaron prefers it but maybe I'm wrong.

[bud fox]

When I say an uptempo offense I don't mean getting the ball out quickly. I mean getting the play off quickly. Seems to me MLF changes personnel after every snap and Rodgers will wait until 1 or 2 seconds on the clock to snap it. When our offense gets "out of rhythm" as like they say I would like to see us go no-huddle just to change things up and try something different. We didn't change anything against SF. Patriots always changed things up. I thinkwe don't because this is the way Aaron prefers it but maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah but at the same time he was the best player in the league this year.

Shouldn't it be enough being better than everyone else?

[Half Empty]

When I say an uptempo offense I don't mean getting the ball out quickly. I mean getting the play off quickly. Seems to me MLF changes personnel after every snap and Rodgers will wait until 1 or 2 seconds on the clock to snap it. When our offense gets "out of rhythm" as like they say I would like to see us go no-huddle just to change things up and try something different. We didn't change anything against SF. Patriots always changed things up. I thinkwe don't because this is the way Aaron prefers it but maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah but at the same time he was the best player in the league this year.

Shouldn't it be enough being better than everyone else?

Yes, it should. Unfortunately, it wasn't, when it counted.

[Half Empty]

Unfortunately Rodgers first read is doubled 90% of the time and not open like you mentioned with Brady. Imagine Rodgers with an open primary read

Possible that Brady's first read was open because it wasn't the same one every play?

Yeah which is the coach's problem. Play concept.

Are we talking about the first read of the called play or the first read of the QB?

[Yoop]

When I say an uptempo offense I don't mean getting the ball out quickly. I mean getting the play off quickly. Seems to me MLF changes personnel after every snap and Rodgers will wait until 1 or 2 seconds on the clock to snap it. When our offense gets "out of rhythm" as like they say I would like to see us go no-huddle just to change things up and try something different. We didn't change anything against SF. Patriots always changed things up. I thinkwe don't because this is the way Aaron prefers it but maybe I'm wrong.

theres been a lot of discussion on running the game clock down to next to nothing prior to the snap, and right from Lafluer this is a concentrated plan, it all comes into play, long time consuming drives turn TOP in your favor when you have a lead, plus it gives Rodgers time to read the defense, and as we know DL man become impatient and jump off sides, all things considered it's a plus.

people for whatever reason seem to think we have this great stable of WR's, or that Rodgers wont throw to anyone but Devonte, when actually Rodgers would gladly spread the ball around, which he does against weaker coverage, all one has to do is look at game stats, he often throws to 6 or 7 different receivers, however against great coverage defenses Devonte is often the only guy that clears in under a 3 count.

sometimes it looks like we refuse to adjust mid game, imo I think it might have to do with a lack of available player that would fit what we could adjust to, if ya don't have a player that can succeed with jet sweeps for example it's a waste to even try, the goal is to use high % plays as much as possible, contingent of course on player availability, and our receiver core is thin due to injury and also a general lack of talent, sure Rodgers misses the open guy at times, but can you imagine what a average QB would be able to do?

[Yoop]

When I say an uptempo offense I don't mean getting the ball out quickly. I mean getting the play off quickly. Seems to me MLF changes personnel after every snap and Rodgers will wait until 1 or 2 seconds on the clock to snap it. When our offense gets "out of rhythm" as like they say I would like to see us go no-huddle just to change things up and try something different. We didn't change anything against SF. Patriots always changed things up. I thinkwe don't because this is the way Aaron prefers it but maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah but at the same time he was the best player in the league this year.

Shouldn't it be enough being better than everyone else?

Yes, it should. Unfortunately, it wasn't, when it counted.

Heeeeeeeeeeee Sucked

[bud fox]

Possible that Brady's first read was open because it wasn't the same one every play?

Yeah which is the coach's problem. Play concept.

Are we talking about the first read of the called play or the first read of the QB?

I am talking about the primary option of the play. MLF said 90% of all play concepts are based on Adams being the primary option. THe intention of the play is to get the ball to Adams if he is the primary option. That may change with a pre snap audible and then post snap if Adams is covered. If the intention of the play is for short yardage to the flat or a slant or something to Cobb than that would be play design.

It is strange that people try to make out that the best player in the league right now and one of the best all time is the problem. The off did enough to win the game - special teams cost us the game.

[Pckfn23]

No, the offense didn't do enough to win the game. They didn't score 14 points and they went 3 and out deep in our own territory leading up to the blocked punt TD. 55 yards through the air in the 2nd half isn't near enough. Special teams definitely was a problem along with other things. Teams that hold the opponent to 13 points or less win 88.5% of the time. Only 20 times in 227 games has an Aaron Rodgers led offense scored 13 points or less... not near enough.

[bud fox]

No, the offense didn't do enough to win the game. They didn't score 14 points and they went 3 and out deep in our own territory leading up to the blocked punt TD. 55 yards through the air in the 2nd half isn't near enough. He did definitely was a problem along with other things. Teams that hold the opponent to 13 points or less win 88.5% of the time. Only 20 times in 227 games has an Aaron Rodgers led offense scored 13 points or less... not near enough.

Not true special teams missed on 3 points and let in 7.

That is the difference.

Off and Def did the job.

It is just fact and easily done by removing special teams influence on the numbers.

[Pckfn23]

That's the difference, it doesn't mean the expectations of our offense should have been so low. They obviously didn't do enough because they didn't score 14 points to win the game. 14 points is never too much to ask in the NFL. The defense did it's job, no other facet did, fact.

[bud fox]

That's the difference, it doesn't mean the expectations of our offense should have been so low. They obviously didn't do enough because they didn't score 14 points to win the game. 14 points is never too much to ask in the NFL. The defense did it's job, no other facet did, fact.

14 points was too much for the team that won the game.

Two teams play the game. Our off was better than the other team and def. Our special teams was not and was a major influence on the result.

Our offensive coordinator got a head coaching job following this game and our special teams coach got sacked.

[Drj820]

and our special teams coach got sacked

a well earned sackage

[Pckfn23]

Doing enough means to meet or exceed expectations, or win. 14 points shouldn't have been too much for our offense. The Packer offense averaged 26.5 points a game throughout the season. The 49er defense averaged 21.5 points a game given up throughout the season. Scoring only 10 points does not meet or exceed expectations, not even close. The offensive side of the ball did not do enough to win.

There are generally agreed upon 3 facets or phases to the game: offense, defense, and special teams. That our special teams played exceptionally poorly does not mean any other facet did enough to win. The defense far exceeded expectations, they did enough. The offense didn't even even meet expectations, they didn't do enough. The only team to score less against the 49ers... The Texans.

Our offensive line coach is now our offensive coordinator. Our QB coach is now the OC for the Bears. We have yet to hire a new special teams coordinator.

[bud fox]

Doing enough means to meet or exceed expectations, or win. 14 points shouldn't have been too much for our offense. The Packer offense averaged 26.5 points a game throughout the season. The 49er defense averaged 21.5 points a game given up throughout the season. Scoring only 10 points does not meet or exceed expectations, not even close. The offensive side of the ball did not do enough to win.

There are generally agreed upon 3 facets or phases to the game: offense, defense, and special teams. That our special teams played exceptionally poorly does not mean any other facet did enough to win. The defense far exceeded expectations, they did enough. The offense didn't even even meet expectations, they didn't do enough. The only team to score less against the 49ers... The Texans.

Our offensive line coach is now our offensive coordinator. Our QB coach is now the OC for the Bears. We have yet to hire a new special teams coordinator.

Two teams play on the day across three phases of the game. Our off scored more than the other team, our def scored more than the other team and our special teams got destroyed. The off or def should not have to make up for special teams - if so it is due to lousy team building and/or coaching.

[Pckfn23]

Let's put it this way, had each team scored 20 more points and the final score was 33-30, we would say the offense did enough to win, but the defense did not do enough to win, even if all special teams blunders were the same.

As it were the final was 13-10 and the offense did not do enough to win the game, but the defense sure did. This is not about special teams, they were the difference in the game, but that does not mean the other 2 facets did enough to win. In this case the defense did do enough, they made up for the special teams blunders. The offense didn't do enough, they didn't come close to meeting expectations, and we lost. The special teams is not an excuse for putting up 10 points on offense. It did not score more than the other team, who scored 13. Our defense did not score.

[bud fox]

Let's put it this way, had each team scored 20 more points and the final score was 33-30, we would say the offense did enough to win, but the defense did not do enough to win, even if all special teams blunders were the same.

As it were the final was 13-10 and the offense did not do enough to win the game, but the defense sure did. This is not about special teams, they were the difference in the game, but that does not mean the other 2 facets did enough to win. In this case the defense did do enough, they made up for the special teams blunders. The offense didn't do enough, they didn't come close to meeting expectations, and we lost. The special teams is not an excuse for putting up 10 points on offense. It did not score more than the other team, who scored 13. Our defense did not score.

Special teams would lose that phase but it wouldn't be as important because of the score of the game. The td was more than 50% of 49ers total score. That is how important it was to the outcome of the game. You can say well the packers averaged 26 why couldn't they score 26 and not 10. Well 49ers average 25 and they scored 6 points on offense - not a single td.

I think the big miss is the fact the packers didn't realize how important special teams would be in freezing cold, windy, snowing games in January.

[Pckfn23]

I don't disagree with anything said in the above singular post.