Do we even want Rodgers back?

[go pak go]

Anybody else here remember feeling just a bit relieved after the Packers first drive, thinking "good" Rodgers showed up for this game rather than "middling" Rodgers who had a tendency to rear his head in the playoffs?

Yeah, so much for that...

I was getting really excited during drive 2. We were crushing them.

Then the fumble and I was panicking.

When we went into half only up 7-3 with how dominant we were, I was petrified. You see it over and over. Teams who dominate but the score doesn't show it almost always find a way to lose.

[dsr]

The average defense Brady had in the years he won his Super Bowls was 17.9 ppg during the year. If you add up all the games during that time period of all the teams and see what the winning percentage is for all teams, QB doesn't matter, it's right around 85%. I know, I did the math on this about 2 years ago. If you only have to score 18 points a game win, it makes winning a hell of a lot easier. Do you want to beat Brady? Score more than 34 points a game. He doesn't do so well when the other team scores a lot of points. In Tampa, Brady has 13 games where the other team scored 27+ points. He's 6-7 in those games. Under 27 he's 18-2 In the same time Period, Rodgers has had 12 games over 27 and is 6-6. Under 27 he's 20-0. Remember how everyone has always said he feasted on a weak division in NE? He was 87-21 against division opponents in his time in NE. FWIW, that is 1/3 of all his wins. For some reason, the Saints have is number. He is 3-5 against them.

I don't think anyone is disputing that, during the regular season, Rodgers is as good as or better than Brady. It's just that in the post season, Brady is better at winning games.

[Drj820]

The average defense Brady had in the years he won his Super Bowls was 17.9 ppg during the year. If you add up all the games during that time period of all the teams and see what the winning percentage is for all teams, QB doesn't matter, it's right around 85%. I know, I did the math on this about 2 years ago. If you only have to score 18 points a game win, it makes winning a hell of a lot easier. Do you want to beat Brady? Score more than 34 points a game. He doesn't do so well when the other team scores a lot of points. In Tampa, Brady has 13 games where the other team scored 27+ points. He's 6-7 in those games. Under 27 he's 18-2 In the same time Period, Rodgers has had 12 games over 27 and is 6-6. Under 27 he's 20-0. Remember how everyone has always said he feasted on a weak division in NE? He was 87-21 against division opponents in his time in NE. FWIW, that is 1/3 of all his wins. For some reason, the Saints have is number. He is 3-5 against them.

I don't think anyone is disputing that, during the regular season, Rodgers is as good as or better than Brady. It's just that in the post season, Brady is better at winning games.

The thing your math leaves out Raptor is that offense helps the defense. Put up 50 points quickly, and the defense will probably give up more points because the high scoring team has kicked off to the opposing team so much.

Be an awful offense and go three and out all game and your own defense will give up more points as the opposing team starts with good field position and has more chances to score.

But...limit 3 and outs, run the ball, throw short passes to wes welker and julian edelmen for 2 decades, control the clock, play near perfect special teams and pin the opposing team back in awful field position....and you set your own defense up very well to not give up many points.

Trust me, i agree that Bill complemented Brady. I agree that Brady does not win so much elsewhere. He always had perfect STs and a good D. The Pats supplied Brady with everything he would need to win...but he still went out there and did it. Brady is a winner. He holds himself and his teammates to such a standard that everyone is elevated. Thats exactly what he did in Tampa. Tampa was a talented mess with fast and loose Jameis and Arians. Arians isnt known to have a disciplined team. I remember mid year last year brady screaming his head off at the OL for a false start on national tv. And soon enough, that crap stopped. Brady doesnt allow other people to sabotage his dreams.

Rodgers doesnt seem to inspire that same greatness when the stakes are the highest.

[APB]

Responding to [mention]go pak go[/mention]'s comment in the BF004 mock here as I don't want to derail discussion of the fine work [mention]BF004[/mention] provided.

Sports Illustrated and Matt Schneideman are reporting potential compensation for Rodgers and Adams is 4 1st rounders, 2 2nd rounders and a player.

I don't think it's that much, but I do expect heavy compensation.

I mean "technically" Rodgers and Adams going to DEN would make them instant contenders. And that is tough to turn down

I think one thing working in the Packers favor regarding potential trade compensation is that two of the widely speculated interested teams reside in the same division and both compete against teams within their division with young, gifted QBs. The Raiders and Broncos could both be argued as "on the cusp" of competing if only they had a quality QB/WR tandem to put them over the top. Both teams have cap space to lure both Rodgers and Adams.

This sets up as quite favorable for the Packers. You have one team that isn't quite as near to competing for a championship (Raiders) but with an owner who is known to be aggressive and less-than-pragmatic when it comes to making deals. Then you have another team ( Broncos) who are arguably legitimate contenders ([mention]YoHoChecko[/mention]'s objection duly noted) only lacking a quality QB. Adding Rodgers AND Adams would certainly bolster their championship aspirations.

If these two get into some sort of bidding war against each other - with the loser clearly at a significant competitive disadvantage within the division going forward - then that could mean good things as far as compensation for the Packers.

I'm not expecting a haul as large as what SI and Schneideman are projecting but I certainly don't think multiple R1/R2-3 compensation picks and/or players in return are out of the question either.

[go pak go]

Yeah I was always hoping for a Raiders and Broncos bidding war.

The Broncos have significantly more 2022 draft capital than Las Vegas. So the Raiders would have to give up more volume of picks than Denver. But I think both would be absolute fantastic landing spots for both players.

[Half Empty]

Okay but he played better than the opposing qbs in the two most recent losses.

Maybe so, but his bar isn't the other guy, it's GOAT. And my measuring stick is doing enough to win, especially when that's well below your standard.

The other guy last year was Brady ... what is he? A guy who did enough to win last year and came back from three TDs down this year to tie.

How much can a qb do in freezing, snowing, windy weather with one receiver and bad protection. Apparently, it was possible for the other guy this year, given the game-winning drive. Need we go back to check out the 3-and-outs?

The truth is special teams lost the game and the team knew it was a liability all year. Nobody is going to deny that ST play was atrocious, and had been. Just like 2014, though, there are a number of things that could have changed the outcome, and better output from the offense is one of them. ST HELPED to lose it, but a maybe-GOAT QB should have been able to do more. If I told you that SF would be going into the 4th quarter with 3 points, how much of the farm would you have bet on the Pack?

[Half Empty]

The other guy last year was Brady ... what is he?

How much can a qb do in freezing, snowing, windy weather with one receiver and bad protection.

The truth is special teams lost the game and the team knew it was a liability all year.

Well, he's a guy who lost this year to a worse defense than he had. He's also a guy who has never won anything without a top defense. Brady has never won a Super Bowl with a defense ranked lower than 8th in ppg during the year. Matter of fact, he's only ever had a Defense ranked lower than 10th three times(15,17,17) in his career. But yeah, it's all him.

Compare Brady's wins and losses to how many points he has had to score to win to Rodgers, and then come back and tell us who you think is the better QB. Given the same defenses and offenses, I'd take Rodgers over Brady.

Agree

I think we are in the minority here though despite it being a packer s forum, which is insane.

It's BECAUSE this is a Packer forum that you may be in the minority. We want our team to win, and the bottom line is that Brady has done that more and better for his team(s).

[Half Empty]

At the end of the game Brady is making plays. Rodgers is on the bench.

Yep. This is one of those arguments where stats don’t mean a thing. Brady is clutch. Rodgers is not. Is that simple.

Well if this is just on feeling and not anything objective like stats, it's a useless argument.

If Brady is truly better the stats will show it.

Can we save this for later, should you contend at some point that they don't? Plus, as has been discussed, the stat that some of us are looking at is big wins.

[go pak go]

Maybe so, but his bar isn't the other guy, it's GOAT. And my measuring stick is doing enough to win, especially when that's well below your standard.

The other guy last year was Brady ... what is he? A guy who did enough to win last year and came back from three TDs down this year to tie.

How much can a qb do in freezing, snowing, windy weather with one receiver and bad protection. Apparently, it was possible for the other guy this year, given the game-winning drive. Need we go back to check out the 3-and-outs?

The truth is special teams lost the game and the team knew it was a liability all year. Nobody is going to deny that ST play was atrocious, and had been. Just like 2014, though, there are a number of things that could have changed the outcome, and better output from the offense is one of them. ST HELPED to lose it, but a maybe-GOAT QB should have been able to do more. If I told you that SF would be going into the 4th quarter with 3 points, how much of the farm would you have bet on the Pack?

Yup. When the excuses keep piling up for Rodgers:

1. Defense needs to be stout
2. Need a run game to support the pass game
3. Need 3+ WRs to throw to
4. Need an Oline that protects him
5. Need STs to do their job

At some point you're like...."why are we paying an MVP QB when we could just allocate those resources to the rest of the team?"

And I think 2020 and 2021 answered my question of the title of this thread. My answer is no. When I hear "well Adams and Rodgers are enough"...my response is then, "well why hasn't it been enough?"

We got everything we wanted. A good defense, a good running attack, an elite - once in a decade WR -, a great coach and offensive scheme, home field advantage twice throughout the playoffs.

None of it ended up mattering. New year. Additional excuses. I'm done with the excuses.

[Raptorman]

The average defense Brady had in the years he won his Super Bowls was 17.9 ppg during the year. If you add up all the games during that time period of all the teams and see what the winning percentage is for all teams, QB doesn't matter, it's right around 85%. I know, I did the math on this about 2 years ago. If you only have to score 18 points a game win, it makes winning a hell of a lot easier. Do you want to beat Brady? Score more than 34 points a game. He doesn't do so well when the other team scores a lot of points. In Tampa, Brady has 13 games where the other team scored 27+ points. He's 6-7 in those games. Under 27 he's 18-2 In the same time Period, Rodgers has had 12 games over 27 and is 6-6. Under 27 he's 20-0. Remember how everyone has always said he feasted on a weak division in NE? He was 87-21 against division opponents in his time in NE. FWIW, that is 1/3 of all his wins. For some reason, the Saints have is number. He is 3-5 against them.

I don't think anyone is disputing that, during the regular season, Rodgers is as good as or better than Brady. It's just that in the post season, Brady is better at winning games.

The thing your math leaves out Raptor is that offense helps the defense. Put up 50 points quickly, and the defense will probably give up more points because the high scoring team has kicked off to the opposing team so much.

Be an awful offense and go three and out all game and your own defense will give up more points as the opposing team starts with good field position and has more chances to score.

But...limit 3 and outs, run the ball, throw short passes to wes welker and julian edelmen for 2 decades, control the clock, play near perfect special teams and pin the opposing team back in awful field position....and you set your own defense up very well to not give up many points.

Trust me, i agree that Bill complemented Brady. I agree that Brady does not win so much elsewhere. He always had perfect STs and a good D. The Pats supplied Brady with everything he would need to win...but he still went out there and did it. Brady is a winner. He holds himself and his teammates to such a standard that everyone is elevated. Thats exactly what he did in Tampa. Tampa was a talented mess with fast and loose Jameis and Arians. Arians isnt known to have a disciplined team. I remember mid year last year brady screaming his head off at the OL for a false start on national tv. And soon enough, that crap stopped. Brady doesnt allow other people to sabotage his dreams.

Rodgers doesnt seem to inspire that same greatness when the stakes are the highest.

Yeah, that's the story that's always told. And the one place you would see that is in time of possession. Yet the Patriots don't have any great TOP over other teams. BTW, last year. 2020, Brady beat one team with a winning record during the regular season. Something Cousins is always criticized for. Not beating winning teams.

[Half Empty]

Ya, but the one winning team they DID beat was the Pack. And, in the playoffs, they beat two of the three they lost to in the regular season (along with the Pack agai)n. As with some others, I'd be fine with a shaky regular season (if 11-5 is shaky) if the playoffs turned out differently, say like the Packers 2010 season.

[Acrobat]

I think it would be a fair statement to say that if you put Brady on the same Packers teams from 2008 to Present, the Packers would have at least 1 more Super Bowl victory. The stats may not have looked as impressive. More INT's would have been thrown, but the guy would have showed up when it mattered most. He probably would have put the dagger in Seattle in 2014, at minimum.

Also, I hate saying this because I don't like Brady at all.

[bud fox]

I think it would be a fair statement to say that if you put Brady on the same Packers teams from 2008 to Present, the Packers would have at least 1 more Super Bowl victory. The stats may not have looked as impressive. More INT's would have been thrown, but the guy would have showed up when it mattered most. He probably would have put the dagger in Seattle in 2014, at minimum.

Also, I hate saying this because I don't like Brady at all.

It isn't fair because it can't be tested.

If Rodgers played on Brady teams he would have 10 super bowls.

It can't be tested

[Acrobat]

I think it would be a fair statement to say that if you put Brady on the same Packers teams from 2008 to Present, the Packers would have at least 1 more Super Bowl victory. The stats may not have looked as impressive. More INT's would have been thrown, but the guy would have showed up when it mattered most. He probably would have put the dagger in Seattle in 2014, at minimum.

Also, I hate saying this because I don't like Brady at all.

It isn't fair because it can't be tested.

If Rodgers played on Brady teams he would have 10 super bowls.

It can't be tested

Look, I'm not looking to make scientific experiments where we have Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady switch bodies and then go back in time. I don't have the capability to do so. But there's also a thing called "common sense".

[bud fox]

Maybe so, but his bar isn't the other guy, it's GOAT. And my measuring stick is doing enough to win, especially when that's well below your standard.

The other guy last year was Brady ... what is he? A guy who did enough to win last year and came back from three TDs down this year to tie.

How much can a qb do in freezing, snowing, windy weather with one receiver and bad protection. Apparently, it was possible for the other guy this year, given the game-winning drive. Need we go back to check out the 3-and-outs?

The truth is special teams lost the game and the team knew it was a liability all year. Nobody is going to deny that ST play was atrocious, and had been. Just like 2014, though, there are a number of things that could have changed the outcome, and better output from the offense is one of them. ST HELPED to lose it, but a maybe-GOAT QB should have been able to do more. If I told you that SF would be going into the 4th quarter with 3 points, how much of the farm would you have bet on the Pack?

Both teams had 5 3 and outs but Packers had 1 more off penalty.

Ultimately the off and def did enough - special teams got outplayed and it was the difference. Well a GOAT should do more? Not in freezing, windy, snowy weather against a top def and a weak oline.

[bud fox]

I think it would be a fair statement to say that if you put Brady on the same Packers teams from 2008 to Present, the Packers would have at least 1 more Super Bowl victory. The stats may not have looked as impressive. More INT's would have been thrown, but the guy would have showed up when it mattered most. He probably would have put the dagger in Seattle in 2014, at minimum.

Also, I hate saying this because I don't like Brady at all.

It isn't fair because it can't be tested.

If Rodgers played on Brady teams he would have 10 super bowls.

It can't be tested

Look, I'm not looking to make scientific experiments where we have Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady switch bodies and then go back in time. I don't have the capability to do so. But there's also a thing called "common sense".

Agree - my common sense says the best qb over that period is better. Your common sense is the guy who won with pats and bucs is better because his team won.

That's fine.

[Acrobat]

It isn't fair because it can't be tested.

If Rodgers played on Brady teams he would have 10 super bowls.

It can't be tested

Look, I'm not looking to make scientific experiments where we have Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady switch bodies and then go back in time. I don't have the capability to do so. But there's also a thing called "common sense".

Agree - my common sense says the best qb over that period is better. Your common sense is the guy who won with pats and bucs is better because his team won.

That's fine.

Do you really think that Rodgers on the Pats would have come down from 28-3? Or that the same Rodgers that had better weapons on the 2014 Packers team would have put up 28 on the Seahawks in the Super Bowl?

[Half Empty]

The other guy last year was Brady ... what is he? A guy who did enough to win last year and came back from three TDs down this year to tie.

How much can a qb do in freezing, snowing, windy weather with one receiver and bad protection. Apparently, it was possible for the other guy this year, given the game-winning drive. Need we go back to check out the 3-and-outs?

The truth is special teams lost the game and the team knew it was a liability all year. Nobody is going to deny that ST play was atrocious, and had been. Just like 2014, though, there are a number of things that could have changed the outcome, and better output from the offense is one of them. ST HELPED to lose it, but a maybe-GOAT QB should have been able to do more. If I told you that SF would be going into the 4th quarter with 3 points, how much of the farm would you have bet on the Pack?

Both teams had 5 3 and outs but Packers had 1 more off penalty.

Ultimately the off and def did enough - special teams got outplayed and it was the difference. Well a GOAT should do more? Not in freezing, windy, snowy weather against a top def and a weak oline.

OK, one more and then I'm done since your reply to Acrobat pretty well sums it up - you feel one way, he and I feel differently. Can't help noting, though, that (obviously ) the offense didn't do enough. Regardless of the defense or ST play, if the opposition has 3 points going into the 4th quarter and AR plays the whole game, we're winning (or should). Also, don't see that weather has any effect unless it different for the other guys.

[Pckfn23]

Rodgers is 1-8 in the playoffs when the defense gives up 26 or more points.

Tom Brady is 8-8 in the playoff when the defense gives up 26 or more points.

[go pak go]

The other guy last year was Brady ... what is he? A guy who did enough to win last year and came back from three TDs down this year to tie.

How much can a qb do in freezing, snowing, windy weather with one receiver and bad protection. Apparently, it was possible for the other guy this year, given the game-winning drive. Need we go back to check out the 3-and-outs?

The truth is special teams lost the game and the team knew it was a liability all year. Nobody is going to deny that ST play was atrocious, and had been. Just like 2014, though, there are a number of things that could have changed the outcome, and better output from the offense is one of them. ST HELPED to lose it, but a maybe-GOAT QB should have been able to do more. If I told you that SF would be going into the 4th quarter with 3 points, how much of the farm would you have bet on the Pack?

Both teams had 5 3 and outs but Packers had 1 more off penalty.

Ultimately the off and def did enough - special teams got outplayed and it was the difference. Well a GOAT should do more? Not in freezing, windy, snowy weather against a top def and a weak oline.

So when it's Jordan Love who effectively put up 13 points vs the Chiefs, he didn't do enough.

But when Rodgers effectively effectively put up 13 points vs the 49ers he did do enough?...



It's this moving goal post thing to slant every discussion and argument that Rodgers is always the best and any reason for loss is everyone but his fault is just weird.

By the way, nothing would make me happier than to call Rodgers the GOAT. I would so, so much love him to have 2 - 4 Packers SB rings and I would scream it from the mountain tops. But we now have at least 3 seasons where we had the horses in the playoffs to win it all and came up with nothing. And that isn't even counting "stealing" a championship or SB berth like Brady has done over the years.

If an MVP couldn't put up 14 points with the offense he had that game, I just have my doubts if he can ever do it. Especially when you multiply it two years in a row of coming up short.