Page 2 of 5
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 25 Apr 2020 12:06
by go pak go
2016 Packers fans:
"Aaron Rodgers has to carry this team on his back! What a disservice the GM and organization has done to not help Rodgers out in the slightest."
2017 - 2020: Packers invest heavily in defense and run game so we are a more physical team that no longer is dependent on the arm talent of Rodgers.
2020 Packers fans:
"How can you waste the talent of Rodgers! He is once in a liftime! Put the ball in his hands! You need to win on Aaron's arm! What a disservice the GM and organization has done to waste this talent!"
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 25 Apr 2020 12:30
by Yoop
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑25 Apr 2020 11:42
Yoop wrote: ↑25 Apr 2020 11:24
why should I think that Dequara is going to walk on and do what most, almost all TE/H-B's can't in there first year or that every down that Dillon is on the field leaves more production on the bench? it doesn't even make sense to me Yoho, to me Dillon is a attempt to replace the soon to be expensive Jones, just as Love is for Rodgers, so to say the offense got better while possibly true to a extent, is it enough?
In other threads, I have made a realistic case for exactly what role I think these guys would play AS A ROOKIE.
Deguara: I pointed out that Danny Vitale played 170 snaps for us, and that rookie 4th round pick Foster Moreau, who had a very siumilar skillset and profile, played 250+ snaps for the Raiders this year. Expecting a rookie to be a fulltime starting TE is WAY too much. Expecting a FB/H-back to have a defined role that is mostly blocking and underneath safety valve receiving is perfectly acceptable. Gutey said Deguara could do what Vitale did but would play more snaps. This is a 3rd round guy who is likely to have a defined role on about 25-30% of our offensive snaps this year.
Dillon: I pointed out that in short yardage and late in games/late in the season, this guy will have a valuable role. I pointed out that Jamaal Williams had a role on our team and this guy is a better rusher than him. I pointed out that the 49ers did a RB committee last year. Dillon is CLEARLY a complementary back to Jones; like, CLEARLY. If anyone thinks that we're replacing a 5'9" 209 pound explosive back with a 6'0" 250 pound north-south runner, they're wildly off base. I can't even IMAGINE the negative mentality you'd have to ingraine in your head to see Dillon as a year-away replacement for Jones rather than a big powerful counter/complement to him.
These guys are not year one game-changers. But they'll have a defined role in the offense from year one. Rookie RBs often contribute. The FB/H-back role has specific examples as to how he might contribute.
I didn't want to hear what you had to say concerning Dequara or Dillon it might have changed my mind, and now your doing it again
I didn't see or it went right past, (in an out) where you mentioned the part where MLF said he will have a roll similiar to Vitiali, I suppose in a limited scope he could be productive
Dillon, ehhhhh, Jones can get the yrds, it's the blocking more so then who runs for our woes with short yardage runs, just look how often our RB's have to bounce out, and it wouldn't matter if we ran a tank, our OL is simply rolled back, so I dont know if a bigger back makes that blocking issue better, sure, some of course, I still think this is Jones last year with us.
drafting Love changed everything after.
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 02 May 2020 14:14
by RingoCStarrQB
From a pure WINNING point of view, as Packers QBs Rodgers and Favre are pretty much tied at a 65% winning percentage. They are both about tied for passing yardage per season as well. Rodgers averages about 3 more TD passes per season than Favre. Rodgers has a much better passer rating due to much fewer INTs thrown. Favre averaged 27 sacks per season and Rodgers averages about 36 sacks per season. That's why Brett is called the gunslinger.
If stats were kept on downfield blocks ............ Favre would be champion.
Both are obviously Hall of Famers.
Go PACK Go!
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 02 May 2020 16:44
by British
Guys, the NFL media now has nothing to talk about for the next 3 months (at least). Angry hot takes on the Packers is all they've got. The angrier the better. I suggest you ignore the shock jocks entirely. It only encourages them. This forum is better off without their takes infecting the sensible discussion.
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 02 May 2020 16:52
by RingoCStarrQB
British wrote: ↑02 May 2020 16:44
Guys, the NFL media now has nothing to talk about for the next 3 months (at least). Angry hot takes on the Packers is all they've got. The angrier the better. I suggest you ignore the shock jocks entirely. It only encourages them. This forum is better off without their takes infecting the sensible discussion.
It would be nice if they would all just put on masks and shut up the entire Spring and Summer. What are those Pink Floyd lyrics anyway? "We don't need no education We don't need no thought control No dark sarcasm in the classroom ..... Hey media ..... leave us
fans alone
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 03 May 2020 07:58
by Pugger
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑25 Apr 2020 11:09
I was happy to skip right over that crap from Florio. That’s malpractice for him to publish that baloney. It shows that he has a very low standard of quality and truth.
His trash hardly deserves any more explanation than that.
I thought I heard/read somewhere that Florio is a Vikings fan...
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 04 May 2020 08:58
by Scott4Pack
Pugger wrote: ↑03 May 2020 07:58
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑25 Apr 2020 11:09
I was happy to skip right over that crap from Florio. That’s malpractice for him to publish that baloney. It shows that he has a very low standard of quality and truth.
His trash hardly deserves any more explanation than that.
I thought I heard/read somewhere that Florio is a Vikings fan...
That idea might've been started in this forum. But raptor would know.
:-)
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 04 May 2020 09:04
by Raptorman
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑04 May 2020 08:58
Pugger wrote: ↑03 May 2020 07:58
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑25 Apr 2020 11:09
I was happy to skip right over that crap from Florio. That’s malpractice for him to publish that baloney. It shows that he has a very low standard of quality and truth.
His trash hardly deserves any more explanation than that.
I thought I heard/read somewhere that Florio is a Vikings fan...
That idea might've been started in this forum. But raptor would know.
:-)
Nope. Don't know for sure. But I do think he is. It's the little things he says when talking to Viking players or coaches. His "Fanboy" comes out a little.
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 04 May 2020 09:36
by Yoop
British wrote: ↑02 May 2020 16:44
Guys, the NFL media now has nothing to talk about for the next 3 months (at least). Angry hot takes on the Packers is all they've got. The angrier the better. I suggest you ignore the shock jocks entirely. It only encourages them. This forum is better off without their takes infecting the sensible discussion.
haha, it's always been this way, hey man these guys need to buy shoes for there kids, put food on the table, and pay all the other bills just like we all do, there jobs simply require them to invent more stuff then ours does
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 04 May 2020 09:38
by Packfntk
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑25 Apr 2020 11:09
I was happy to skip right over that crap from Florio. That’s malpractice for him to publish that baloney. It shows that he has a very low standard of quality and truth.
His trash hardly deserves any more explanation than that.
Yep, once I see anything Packer related with Florio or McGinn on it, I immediately skip over that negative trashbag.
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 04 May 2020 10:16
by YoHoChecko
I used to accuse Florio of being a Steelers fan because of the way he reported and the fact that he (originally) was based in West Virginia--firmly Steelers territory. After throwing around that theory a bunch, someone on some message board, or maybe in PFT comments, showed me something that felt very definitive that no, Florio was in fact a Vikings fan. This was when PFT was a one-man operation that actually reported wild rumors and wasn't legitimized by being purchased by NBC and therefore had a lot less accountability, so it's been a WHILE. But I do have a distinct memory of having it proven to me that he was a Vikings fan prior to starting his football reporting operation.
On another note entirely, I can't help but think about how different the narrative would be if the Packers had traded up to 25 instead of 26 and taken Ayiuk and not Love. Obviously, that's not fair because we did NOT do that. But I feel strongly that people are looking at the RB, the H-back, and the 3 OL in round 6 as "moving away from Rodgers" because of the Love pick. But if we took a WR, a RB, an H-back, and 3 OL, people would be like "The Packers are finally getting Rodgers the help he needs; adding a weapon in the receiving game and strengthening the run game and continuing to try to fill the void at TE.
It just seems wild to me that we're living in a world where building a more balanced offense is being seen as antagonistic to the QB when in all my experience ever listening to NFL analysis, building a more balanced offense has been viewed as helping the QB. It seems wild to me that after successfully burying the "can Rodgers and MLF coexist" rumors with a very successful season in which they got along very well and there was no drama, the narrative is being spun as MLF winning a power struggle at the expense of our QB.
The QB pick stands out and it deserves to. But the way it impacted the narrative surrounding the rest of the picks is just so backwards--and it's unfair to those players and to MLF. I'm still disappointed that we didn't get a receiver and I'm still disappointed that we traded up for a QB, making it a choice more than just a value proposition. I get why people made a fuss out of that. But I'm far more disappointed in the reaction around the league and media who are determined to make the rest of the picks out to be in opposition with a successful Rodgers rather than a help to him.
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 04 May 2020 10:32
by British
Yoop wrote: ↑04 May 2020 09:36
British wrote: ↑02 May 2020 16:44
Guys, the NFL media now has nothing to talk about for the next 3 months (at least). Angry hot takes on the Packers is all they've got. The angrier the better. I suggest you ignore the shock jocks entirely. It only encourages them. This forum is better off without their takes infecting the sensible discussion.
haha, it's always been this way, hey man these guys need to buy shoes for there kids, put food on the table, and pay all the other bills just like we all do, there jobs simply require them to invent more stuff then ours does
Indeed. I work in media myself so have a soft spot for journalists. But we don't need to fall into the trap of the anger merchants. Honestly, my life is so much better without getting my knickers in a twist over Skip Bayless' latest wind up.
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 04 May 2020 11:58
by Pckfn23
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 04 May 2020 12:21
by Drj820
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 04 May 2020 12:40
by YoHoChecko
yyyyyyeah.
Honestly, it's annoying that he would post that and then say the criticism is over-stated. That is a TD off the board. Even on lesser plays--3rd down conversions, perhaps--if something like that happens twice per game, that's probably 3 points per game and a handful of TDs over the course of the season. Wildly improves the look of Rodgers' and the Packers' numbers.
In a game of inches, plays like this just sacrifice yards.
He's got to see the field better and lock on less. He's proven to have the ability. It's all attitude and effort at this point.
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 04 May 2020 12:48
by Pckfn23
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑04 May 2020 12:40
yyyyyyeah.
Honestly, it's annoying that he would post that and then say the criticism is over-stated. That is a TD off the board. Even on lesser plays--3rd down conversions, perhaps--if something like that happens twice per game, that's probably 3 points per game and a handful of TDs over the course of the season. Wildly improves the look of Rodgers' and the Packers' numbers.
In a game of inches, plays like this just sacrifice yards.
He's got to see the field better and lock on less. He's proven to have the ability. It's all attitude and effort at this point.
It's a microcosm of what many of us have been saying for a few years now. So many more examples as well, which is disconcerting. Not saying there aren't other areas to see improvement, but this is also an area that needs to improve.
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 04 May 2020 13:16
by Drj820
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑04 May 2020 12:48
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑04 May 2020 12:40
yyyyyyeah.
Honestly, it's annoying that he would post that and then say the criticism is over-stated. That is a TD off the board. Even on lesser plays--3rd down conversions, perhaps--if something like that happens twice per game, that's probably 3 points per game and a handful of TDs over the course of the season. Wildly improves the look of Rodgers' and the Packers' numbers.
In a game of inches, plays like this just sacrifice yards.
He's got to see the field better and lock on less. He's proven to have the ability. It's all attitude and effort at this point.
It's a microcosm of what many of us have been saying for a few years now. So many more examples as well, which is disconcerting. Not saying there aren't other areas to see improvement, but this is also an area that needs to improve.
i hear alot of people say "receivers have to earn rodgers trust" or "we know how rodgers is with young receivers" or some form of that. Basically saying, a WR probably isnt going to get the ball unless Rodgers is very confident he is going to catch it or something. You also hear Rodgers himself talk about how he needs to see the play run well in practice, and then he logs that memory, and wants to replicate that exact same process in a game.
At some point that mindset and plays like above are an indictment on Rodgers. The indicment would be that he isnt capable of improvising within the structure of a play. Now we know he can improvise once he breaks away from the structure of the play. But it seems if something doesnt go exactly how he had it envisioned in his head from a practice or something, instead of absorbing that punch and moving on to the next available thing inside the play, he just completely bails. Or if a receiver is not exactly where he was supposed to be, rodgers is content with throwing it into the dirt instead of adjusting to where he is and hitting him where he is. We also see this when he throws the ball on the wrong side of a guy and he shames them with his facial expression and points like they were supposed to go the other way. Maybe they were supposed to go the other way, but if they have already committed to one side before rodgers throws the ball..maybe rodgers could use his eyes and make an adjustment.
Rodgers seems to use his eyes pretty well once the play has collapsed and he is making magic happen, but inside the play he doesnt seem to to get off reads as fast as you would expect, or see where his WRs actually are on the field.
i mean think about. Trust shouldnt really even be a factor unless he isnt using his eyes. If Rodgers throws it to the open guy on the above play, and the guy drops the ball that hit him in the hands..the guy is going to get trashed like MVS got trashed all year. Its not going to be Rodgers. Rodgers needs to get off his reads within the play, adjust to breakdowns within the play, and throw the ball. If the WRs drop the ball, i will happy to blame them.
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 04 May 2020 13:29
by YoHoChecko
Have we talked yet about the fact that Rodgers' first public post since the draft was him atop a hiking trail and included the hashtag #relax
Sort of his thing when he thinks the media and fans should calm down and trust him?
- image.png (840.5 KiB) Viewed 378 times
Or have we mentioned how former teammate Brady Poppinga popped off at Rob Demovsky for making it out as if Rodgers was unhappy or going to struggle with this, Rodgers liked it?
- image.png (733.29 KiB) Viewed 378 times
I know these are small potatoes, but we also know Rodgers doesn't do things like that without thinking them through/having an agenda.
The only person in the Rodgers circle who has expressed negativity was basically Favre, who reacted poorly to this situation when it happened to him, and basically just mirrored the same response now as he had then, while everyone else close to Rodgers says that experience made him determined to do it differently if it happened to him
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 04 May 2020 13:41
by YoHoChecko
Drj820 wrote: ↑04 May 2020 13:16
i mean think about. Trust shouldnt really even be a factor unless he isnt using his eyes. If Rodgers throws it to the open guy on the above play, and the guy drops the ball that hit him in the hands..the guy is going to get trashed like MVS got trashed all year. Its not going to be Rodgers. Rodgers needs to get off his reads within the play, adjust to breakdowns within the play, and throw the ball. If the WRs drop the ball, i will happy to blame them.
I really think the coaches need to instill in Rodgers the mentality that someone with his talent and knowledge of the game shouldn't be throwing incompletions unless it's a drop. I know that seems absurd, but the throw-aways and forced balls and quick-throw 50/50 balls down the field have gotten too common. Brees is out there completing 70% every season now because he checks down when he's pressured instead of throws it away. There's no reason for Rodgers not to be able to find the open guy and get the ball out.
You coach and train to the system. His ability off schedule is natural, elite, and won't go away. But it's just one tool and he shouldn't reach for it as often.
That said, I want a speedy, sudden receiver with YAC monster potential to help him out with that, just like the rest of us do.
Re: Aaron Rodgers
Posted: 04 May 2020 13:50
by Labrev
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑04 May 2020 10:16
I used to accuse Florio of being a Steelers fan because of the way he reported and the fact that he (originally) was based in West Virginia--firmly Steelers territory. After throwing around that theory a bunch, someone on some message board, or maybe in PFT comments, showed me something that felt very definitive that no, Florio was in fact a Vikings fan. This was when PFT was a one-man operation that actually reported wild rumors and wasn't legitimized by being purchased by NBC and therefore had a lot less accountability, so it's been a WHILE. But I do have a distinct memory of having it proven to me that he was a Vikings fan prior to starting his football reporting operation.
On another note entirely, I can't help but think about how different the narrative would be if the Packers had traded up to 25 instead of 26 and taken Ayiuk and not Love. Obviously, that's not fair because we did NOT do that. But I feel strongly that people are looking at the RB, the H-back, and the 3 OL in round 6 as "moving away from Rodgers" because of the Love pick. But if we took a WR, a RB, an H-back, and 3 OL, people would be like "The Packers are finally getting Rodgers the help he needs; adding a weapon in the receiving game and strengthening the run game and continuing to try to fill the void at TE.
It just seems wild to me that we're living in a world where building a more balanced offense is being seen as antagonistic to the QB when in all my experience ever listening to NFL analysis, building a more balanced offense has been viewed as helping the QB. It seems wild to me that after successfully burying the "can Rodgers and MLF coexist" rumors with a very successful season in which they got along very well and there was no drama, the narrative is being spun as MLF winning a power struggle at the expense of our QB.
The QB pick stands out and it deserves to. But the way it impacted the narrative surrounding the rest of the picks is just so backwards--and it's unfair to those players and to MLF. I'm still disappointed that we didn't get a receiver and I'm still disappointed that we traded up for a QB, making it a choice more than just a value proposition. I get why people made a fuss out of that.
But I'm far more disappointed in the reaction around the league and media who are determined to make the rest of the picks out to be in opposition with a successful Rodgers rather than a help to him.
I agree with this. Of all the criticisms I have of this last draft, "not giving Rodgers enough help" isn't one of them. I remember Rodgers saying that having Lacy in the backfield was a big help, and we just got a RB who can play that role. I also expect the "TE" will be more than a little involved in the offense right away, and our success with OL in the middle of the draft makes it hard to believe we won't hit on one of those three guys we took in 6.
Rodgers got help. It wasn't at WR, but LaFleur's scheme does not emphasize WRs much beyond WR2 anyway.