Page 11 of 47
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 09:59
by Yoop
now where discussing firing Lafluer, insane where this convo is going, Lafluer ran out of offensive impact players, course never had enough in the first place, ya always want to have more then ya think you'll need because injury's happen, we lost Dillon, who is simply another receivers as well as a battering RB that gets first downs, Adams and Jones where doubled up and rarely did the other Receivers get open before the pass rush was getting to Rodgers, yes he missed a open Lazard, and a TE, but those where rare occasions.
Guty's answer to the need for a more impactful WR was drafting Amari Rodgers and bringing back the continuously injured Randal Cobb, Rodgers acts like he's dumber then a box of rocks, and Cobb can't be counted on to be healthy, Guty gets a miss on both guys, and we sure as hell could have used a better player then both became against the niner defense, Lafluer can only work with players provided.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 10:04
by Drj820
Yoop wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 09:59
now where discussing firing Lafluer, insane where this convo is going, Lafluer ran out of offensive impact players, course never had enough in the first place, ya always want to have more then ya think you'll need because injury's happen, we lost Dillon, who is simply another receivers as well as a battering RB that gets first downs, Adams and Jones where doubled up and rarely did the other Receivers get open before the pass rush was getting to Rodgers, yes he missed a open Lazard, and a TE, but those where rare occasions.
Guty's answer to the need for a more impactful WR was drafting Amari Rodgers and bringing back the continuously injured Randal Cobb, Rodgers acts like he's dumber then a box of rocks, and Cobb can't be counted on to be healthy, Guty gets a miss on both guys, and we sure as hell could have used a better player then both became against the niner defense, Lafluer can only work with players provided.
Odell would have been a nice weapon to have in that game
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 10:24
by Pckfn23
Odell was not an option, so no need to repeat it every few days.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 10:28
by Yoop
Drj820 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 10:04
Yoop wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 09:59
now where discussing firing Lafluer, insane where this convo is going, Lafluer ran out of offensive impact players, course never had enough in the first place, ya always want to have more then ya think you'll need because injury's happen, we lost Dillon, who is simply another receivers as well as a battering RB that gets first downs, Adams and Jones where doubled up and rarely did the other Receivers get open before the pass rush was getting to Rodgers, yes he missed a open Lazard, and a TE, but those where rare occasions.
Guty's answer to the need for a more impactful WR was drafting Amari Rodgers and bringing back the continuously injured Randal Cobb, Rodgers acts like he's dumber then a box of rocks, and Cobb can't be counted on to be healthy, Guty gets a miss on both guys, and we sure as hell could have used a better player then both became against the niner defense, Lafluer can only work with players provided.
Odell would have been a nice weapon to have in that game
amen, almost any receiver with short are quicks would have provided Matt with options he didn't posses and made it harder for the Niners to defend.
If your building a offense around running the ball then a receiver with great blocking skills like Lazard is needed, however by definition a small ball focus offense also needs receivers that can separate and get open fast, we havn't had one that could stay healthy in a long time, just Adams isn't enough.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 10:35
by Drj820
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 10:24
Odell was not an option, so no need to repeat it every few days.
Lol. Wrong.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 10:57
by Pckfn23
Drj820 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 10:35
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 10:24
Odell was not an option, so no need to repeat it every few days.
Lol. Wrong.
Hilariously right actually. With OBJs likely to be made playoff incentives due to the Packers making the NFCCG in 2020, we could not have beaten the Rams offer of $4.25 million.
Now, if we had not kowtowed to Rodgers and got Cobb, then OBJ would have been an option. That said, I don't believe for a second that OBJ actually had any intention of going to Green Bay.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 11:04
by go pak go
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 10:57
Drj820 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 10:35
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 10:24
Odell was not an option, so no need to repeat it every few days.
Lol. Wrong.
Hilariously right actually. With OBJs likely to be made playoff incentives due to the Packers making the NFCCG in 2020, we could not have beaten the Rams offer of $4.25 million.
Now, if we had not kowtowed to Rodgers and got Cobb, then OBJ would have been an option. That said, I don't believe for a second that OBJ actually had any intention of going to Green Bay.
Odell Beckham is going to turn into the 2022 Antonio Brown.
Was never going to actually happen. We reached out and tried to make it happen. WR decides to play elsewhere but it will get sprinkled in occasionally as support for the Packers "not going all in"
Packers gave Rodgers Cobb and Amari Rodgers. Both sucked. But it doesn't mean good faith effort wasn't made.
And honestly I am surprised how much Cobb sucked. I thought he was going to have a big performance with key third down plays. He was just invisible in that game.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 12:14
by Drj820
Whatever helps you guys feel better
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 12:18
by Pckfn23
Facts do make me feel better! Thanks!
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 13:02
by go pak go
Drj820 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 12:14
Whatever helps you guys feel better
I'm curious how we should have gone about it differently to ensure Odell came to GB?
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 13:38
by bud fox
It was said that Odell went to rams cause Packers didn't have a plan for him outside of helping when possible.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 13:40
by bud fox
salmar80 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 02:35
@bud fox your idea of O and D and STs not being part of a team, and instead of just having to beat the opposing team's counterparts performance is a novel one. Never seen it before.
Probably because it makes no sense. If the opposing team's O sucks, it's OK for ours to suck, too, as long as they don't suck quite as intensely?
I frankly don't care one bit that the 49ers O was even worse. For me, that means a golden opportunity to score a lot early and make it even harder for their struggling O. Our O failed at that miserably. You don't get stickers and gold stars on O for being slightly less bad than the opponent. Bad is still bad.
Scoring 10 points is only ever OK in conditions that make throwing the ball impossible. That wasn't the case.
Two teams played that day. One that averages 26 per game during season and the other 25 per game.
They scored 10 and 6 points.
Just a coincidence or maybe the open field game may have been affected by the weather. The cold, wind and snow.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 13:44
by bud fox
dsr wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 07:15
bud fox wrote: ↑05 Feb 2022 22:51
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑05 Feb 2022 21:37
Again, no, the offense did not do enough. Gaslighting this will not happen.
Did the packers Off score more points than the 49ers Off?
If we say the packers off didn't do enough to overcome the horrible special teams, either did the def. The packers off was closer to their season average points per game than the 49ers Off. It is telling that both off's performed well below the season average points per game.
Ultimately the special teams lost the game. I would rather have Aaron Rodgers at his contract value than Jimmy G at his contract value.
I thought the Packers offense was playing against the San Francisco defense.
But you're right about the defense not doing enough. If you give the offense 13 points which ncludes the missed field goal, and the special teams minus 10 for their various foul-up, then the defense had to ensure they gave up no points at all and we would have won the game. On those lines, special teams and offense did enough to win and the defense did not.
Special teams are part of the team, defence is part of the team, offense is part of the team. The idea that special teams and defence are the units that have to win the game and all the offence needs do is the bare minimum? Nonsense. The offense should be going out to try and win the game, not just "manage" it for the special teams.
Anyway, it's all besides the point. Did Rodgers do enough to win a play-off game in which the opposition offense scored 6 points? Whether it's yes or no, the follow-up question is, Did Rodgers do enough to justify a $40m contract? The answer is obviously no.
Rodgers is 33.5m and yes he did justify his contract because he won the $%@# MVP
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 14:27
by go pak go
bud fox wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 13:38
It was said that Odell went to rams cause Packers didn't have a plan for him outside of helping when possible.
Yes. That is what was reported. Rodgers and Lafluer were the two main people who were reported to talk to Odell and both said they were honest and said they would love to have him but not in a prominent role because of their strong running attack and Adams, Cobb and MVS ahead in the lineup.
Rodgers was on board with that too.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 14:51
by Drj820
go pak go wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 14:27
bud fox wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 13:38
It was said that Odell went to rams cause Packers didn't have a plan for him outside of helping when possible.
Yes. That is what was reported. Rodgers and Lafluer were the two main people who were reported to talk to Odell and both said they were honest and said they would love to have him but not in a prominent role because of their strong running attack and Adams, Cobb and MVS ahead in the lineup.
Rodgers was on board with that too.
Hey buddy ya sure you can come here. You will make the minimum and won’t see more targets than MVS or Cobb, but ya buddy come on if you want. We got a seat for you in the trunk.
Lol some recruitment effort.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 15:02
by go pak go
Drj820 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 14:51
go pak go wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 14:27
bud fox wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 13:38
It was said that Odell went to rams cause Packers didn't have a plan for him outside of helping when possible.
Yes. That is what was reported. Rodgers and Lafluer were the two main people who were reported to talk to Odell and both said they were honest and said they would love to have him but not in a prominent role because of their strong running attack and Adams, Cobb and MVS ahead in the lineup.
Rodgers was on board with that too.
Hey buddy ya sure you can come here. You will make the minimum and won’t see more targets than MVS or Cobb, but ya buddy come on if you want. We got a seat for you in the trunk.
Lol some recruitment effort.
Done by yours truly. If he really wanted him. The Packers would have gone after him.
But he didn't. And it was either because he didn't truly think Beckham had a true fit or because he already knew his good friend was going to go to LA.
Let's just not make this into another "Gute didn't go all in" argument.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 15:10
by Half Empty
bud fox wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 13:44
dsr wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 07:15
bud fox wrote: ↑05 Feb 2022 22:51
Did the packers Off score more points than the 49ers Off?
If we say the packers off didn't do enough to overcome the horrible special teams, either did the def. The packers off was closer to their season average points per game than the 49ers Off. It is telling that both off's performed well below the season average points per game.
Ultimately the special teams lost the game. I would rather have Aaron Rodgers at his contract value than Jimmy G at his contract value.
I thought the Packers offense was playing against the San Francisco defense.
But you're right about the defense not doing enough. If you give the offense 13 points which ncludes the missed field goal, and the special teams minus 10 for their various foul-up, then the defense had to ensure they gave up no points at all and we would have won the game. On those lines, special teams and offense did enough to win and the defense did not.
Special teams are part of the team, defence is part of the team, offense is part of the team. The idea that special teams and defence are the units that have to win the game and all the offence needs do is the bare minimum? Nonsense. The offense should be going out to try and win the game, not just "manage" it for the special teams.
Anyway, it's all besides the point. Did Rodgers do enough to win a play-off game in which the opposition offense scored 6 points? Whether it's yes or no, the follow-up question is, Did Rodgers do enough to justify a $40m contract? The answer is obviously no.
Rodgers is 33.5m and yes he did justify his contract because he won the $%@# MVP
OK, now I can stop bashing him. I always thought winning the team-game Super Bowl would justify everything.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 15:15
by bud fox
go pak go wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 14:27
bud fox wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 13:38
It was said that Odell went to rams cause Packers didn't have a plan for him outside of helping when possible.
Yes. That is what was reported. Rodgers and Lafluer were the two main people who were reported to talk to Odell and both said they were honest and said they would love to have him but not in a prominent role because of their strong running attack and Adams, Cobb and MVS ahead in the lineup.
Rodgers was on board with that too.
Have you got anything showing Rodgers indicating he said that?
I remember Rodgers saying he had conversation with him directly but Odell also had separate convos with the packers he wasn't involved in. I only ever saw the reference to not really using him based on the convos packers had with him.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 15:17
by bud fox
Half Empty wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 15:10
bud fox wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 13:44
dsr wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 07:15
I thought the Packers offense was playing against the San Francisco defense.
But you're right about the defense not doing enough. If you give the offense 13 points which ncludes the missed field goal, and the special teams minus 10 for their various foul-up, then the defense had to ensure they gave up no points at all and we would have won the game. On those lines, special teams and offense did enough to win and the defense did not.
Special teams are part of the team, defence is part of the team, offense is part of the team. The idea that special teams and defence are the units that have to win the game and all the offence needs do is the bare minimum? Nonsense. The offense should be going out to try and win the game, not just "manage" it for the special teams.
Anyway, it's all besides the point. Did Rodgers do enough to win a play-off game in which the opposition offense scored 6 points? Whether it's yes or no, the follow-up question is, Did Rodgers do enough to justify a $40m contract? The answer is obviously no.
Rodgers is 33.5m and yes he did justify his contract because he won the $%@# MVP
OK, now I can stop bashing him. I always thought winning the team-game Super Bowl would justify everything.
The team game the one in which special teams that the QB has no part of scored more than 50% of the winning teams points? The fact is people can't just understand that special teams was so vital in that game in part due to extreme weather and that the packers org screwed up in not fixing it.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 15:20
by dsr
bud fox wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 13:44
Rodgers is 33.5m and yes he did justify his contract because he won the MVP
I understand your nit-picky technicality about both salary and MVP awards being based on regular season and play-offs and Superbowls don't count for either. But as a football fan, they count for me.
bud fox wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022 15:17
The team game the one in which special teams that the QB has no part of scored more than 50% of the winning teams points? The fact is people can't just understand that special teams was so vital in that game in part due to extreme weather and that the packers org screwed up in not fixing it.
I think we all understand that point. What we don't understand is your attitude of "you're the MVP, your offense scored 10 points that might have been 13, you did your job."