The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
Who is contending this? Of course a quality slot receiver would help us. I'm super excited we added Amari Rodgers. You have to spread the blame, though. Your hero didn't come through. The receivers didn't get open. The play calls could have been better. They could have went for it. Not everything that everyone types is a blast at Aaron Rodgers. He is, IMO, as much to blame as anyone else, though. It is a team effort and in the end the offense didn't put the ball in the end zone like they had so many times before. &%$@ happens.Yoop wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 11:28the season last year ended with Rodgers trying to find a target from the 8 yrd line, 3 times and we kicked a FG, we had lost our #1 RB, had our #1 receiver draped all game, and had no one really ever get open on schedule on those 3 plays, yet it's the contention around here that a quality slot receiver was never missed last year at any time, sorry again no sale.
There is literally not a single contention that we couldn't use a better slot receiver and everyone loves the Amari Rodgers pick.Yoop wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 11:28the season last year ended with Rodgers trying to find a target from the 8 yrd line, 3 times and we kicked a FG, we had lost our #1 RB, had our #1 receiver draped all game, and had no one really ever get open on schedule on those 3 plays, yet it's the contention around here that a quality slot receiver was never missed last year at any time, sorry again no sale.
If the front office was better, Rodgers would have ran it in for a TD.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 11:36There is literally not a single contention that we couldn't use a better slot receiver and everyone loves the Amari Rodgers pick.Yoop wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 11:28the season last year ended with Rodgers trying to find a target from the 8 yrd line, 3 times and we kicked a FG, we had lost our #1 RB, had our #1 receiver draped all game, and had no one really ever get open on schedule on those 3 plays, yet it's the contention around here that a quality slot receiver was never missed last year at any time, sorry again no sale.
But your insistence on not pointing out that not once, but twice, inside the ten yard line, the Packers/Rodgers were unable to get a TD without including that Rodgers, the QB, had, ya know, something to do with that (and your decision to ignore that we had one of the top red zone TD rates ALL SEASON last year) show that you have emotionally bound yourself to blindspots in your critique. There's nothing objective happening anymore.
Maybe a better receiver would have gotten a TD there. But a better decision by our QB, better ball placement on a couple throws, no drops by Adams... it's fine if you want to say that the red zone possession(s) would have yielded TDs with a better slot receiver. But you also have to acknowledge that they easily could and should have yielded TDs with the players who actually existed on our team at the time, regardless of any sort of imaginary couterfactual anyone wants to type up
Yup. And it makes people super, super emotional because everyone knows how close the Packers have been the last 13 years. Only the Buffalo Bills in the 90s and Vikings in the 70's have been as consistently amazing with little hardware to show for it.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:56Winning the Super Bowl last year would have eliminated all of this. Rodgers wouldn't be acting this way, but if he were we could move on. But it just erases the whole narrative that "planning ahead cost us in the short term." The fan base is both spoiled by success, but also gut-wrenchingly wounded by the near-misses and "just a couple plays" that allows anyone to take a single change, a single swapped draft pick, a single player decision, a single pass, a single blown coverage, a single play call, a single FG decision.... and say "this is why we don't have a ring."
Because the team has been SO close SO often that any one thing really might change it. It muddies the big picture by zooming in super tightly on every pixel. That's as true, seemingly, for Rodgers as it is for the fans. Everyone can pick a different pixel to focus on, but the narrative won't TRULY change until the big picture has another Lombardi in it; and that is an extremely high bar with very little room for error. It just begs for high tensions.
Yeah I'd say the only team that has come close recently from a frustration standpoint would be the Indianapolis Colts in the 2000's, even though they did get one championship.go pak go wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 11:47Yup. And it makes people super, super emotional because everyone knows how close the Packers have been the last 13 years. Only the Buffalo Bills in the 90s and Vikings in the 70's have been as consistently amazing with little hardware to show for it.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:56Winning the Super Bowl last year would have eliminated all of this. Rodgers wouldn't be acting this way, but if he were we could move on. But it just erases the whole narrative that "planning ahead cost us in the short term." The fan base is both spoiled by success, but also gut-wrenchingly wounded by the near-misses and "just a couple plays" that allows anyone to take a single change, a single swapped draft pick, a single player decision, a single pass, a single blown coverage, a single play call, a single FG decision.... and say "this is why we don't have a ring."
Because the team has been SO close SO often that any one thing really might change it. It muddies the big picture by zooming in super tightly on every pixel. That's as true, seemingly, for Rodgers as it is for the fans. Everyone can pick a different pixel to focus on, but the narrative won't TRULY change until the big picture has another Lombardi in it; and that is an extremely high bar with very little room for error. It just begs for high tensions.
And you don't have to read very far into a Packers fan's brain of how well we are coping with it. The answer is not good.
Very good point. I absolutely forgot the 2000's Colts. Probably the best comparison for us honestly as we both did get a ring.Acrobat wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 11:50Yeah I'd say the only team that has come close recently from a frustration standpoint would be the Indianapolis Colts in the 2000's, even though they did get one championship.go pak go wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 11:47Yup. And it makes people super, super emotional because everyone knows how close the Packers have been the last 13 years. Only the Buffalo Bills in the 90s and Vikings in the 70's have been as consistently amazing with little hardware to show for it.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:56
Winning the Super Bowl last year would have eliminated all of this. Rodgers wouldn't be acting this way, but if he were we could move on. But it just erases the whole narrative that "planning ahead cost us in the short term." The fan base is both spoiled by success, but also gut-wrenchingly wounded by the near-misses and "just a couple plays" that allows anyone to take a single change, a single swapped draft pick, a single player decision, a single pass, a single blown coverage, a single play call, a single FG decision.... and say "this is why we don't have a ring."
Because the team has been SO close SO often that any one thing really might change it. It muddies the big picture by zooming in super tightly on every pixel. That's as true, seemingly, for Rodgers as it is for the fans. Everyone can pick a different pixel to focus on, but the narrative won't TRULY change until the big picture has another Lombardi in it; and that is an extremely high bar with very little room for error. It just begs for high tensions.
And you don't have to read very far into a Packers fan's brain of how well we are coping with it. The answer is not good.
every time I've mentioned that our chances would have been better last year with a quality slot receiver I've been bombarded with this, " we had the #1 offense in the league", as though our offense couldn't have been any better, or that having that guy wouldn't have translated to a even more potent offense in that 3 downs from the 8 situation I just mentioned, I get so tired of people telling me stuff I know not to be true.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 11:36There is literally not a single contention that we couldn't use a better slot receiver and everyone loves the Amari Rodgers pick.Yoop wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 11:28the season last year ended with Rodgers trying to find a target from the 8 yrd line, 3 times and we kicked a FG, we had lost our #1 RB, had our #1 receiver draped all game, and had no one really ever get open on schedule on those 3 plays, yet it's the contention around here that a quality slot receiver was never missed last year at any time, sorry again no sale.
But your insistence on not pointing out that not once, but twice, inside the ten yard line, the Packers/Rodgers were unable to get a TD without including that Rodgers, the QB, had, ya know, something to do with that (and your decision to ignore that we had one of the top red zone TD rates ALL SEASON last year) show that you have emotionally bound yourself to blindspots in your critique. There's nothing objective happening anymore.
Maybe a better receiver would have gotten a TD there. But a better decision by our QB, better ball placement on a couple throws, no drops by Adams... it's fine if you want to say that the red zone possession(s) would have yielded TDs with a better slot receiver. But you also have to acknowledge that they easily could and should have yielded TDs with the players who actually existed on our team at the time, regardless of any sort of imaginary couterfactual anyone wants to type up
again we where minus the red zone players that made us so good down there all season, A Jones was injured, and Adams had two and 3 guys covering his every move, and no one else got open fast enough that Rodgers didn't have to start paying attention to pass rushers, that they did a split second later when Rodgers was manuevering to avoid the rush has to be taken into consideration.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 11:36There is literally not a single contention that we couldn't use a better slot receiver and everyone loves the Amari Rodgers pick.Yoop wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 11:28the season last year ended with Rodgers trying to find a target from the 8 yrd line, 3 times and we kicked a FG, we had lost our #1 RB, had our #1 receiver draped all game, and had no one really ever get open on schedule on those 3 plays, yet it's the contention around here that a quality slot receiver was never missed last year at any time, sorry again no sale.
But your insistence on not pointing out that not once, but twice, inside the ten yard line, the Packers/Rodgers were unable to get a TD without including that Rodgers, the QB, had, ya know, something to do with that (and your decision to ignore that we had one of the top red zone TD rates ALL SEASON last year) show that you have emotionally bound yourself to blindspots in your critique. There's nothing objective happening anymore.
Maybe a better receiver would have gotten a TD there. But a better decision by our QB, better ball placement on a couple throws, no drops by Adams... it's fine if you want to say that the red zone possession(s) would have yielded TDs with a better slot receiver. But you also have to acknowledge that they easily could and should have yielded TDs with the players who actually existed on our team at the time, regardless of any sort of imaginary couterfactual anyone wants to type up
Oh my gosh. Could you imagine being a teacher of a helicopter parent's kid on the same level of yoop for Rodgers?
Rodgers doesn't need my defense, most football players agree with his position, and everyone while they may not admit it know he's been probably the best throwing QB ever, we won 15 games in 011, minus a good run game or defense, we lost in the playoffs because of those short comings.
The only truth in this is I did defend and promote Kevin King after his 2019 season as a solid #2 CB alongside Jaire.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 14:53Yoop just respects greatness.
Meanwhile this board will typically stick it out for failing prospects like Dumbarious, King, Datone Jones, and even when TT was letting the team erode people were still on his side. Even Bustin Harrell had his supporters for years back on the old planet site when it was clear he wasnt gonna cut it.
Rodgers has back to back season with 25+ TDs and <5 INTs and everyone was ready to call him finito.
I think very few were willing to call him done.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 14:53Rodgers has back to back season with 25+ TDs and <5 INTs and everyone was ready to call him finito.
