Re: Rodgers Traded
Posted: 08 May 2023 10:34
Good story about how the trade happened.
Is it just me or is it weird to call out Labrev for "insulting you" when you refer to him as "sonny"?Yoop wrote: ↑07 May 2023 14:01insulting me and others who blame management for the &%$@ that went on here the last half doz years is a fools errand sonny, only a homer like you would suck up to the bs of not drafting high floor high ceiling receivers for 7 years and asking a HOF QB to make do with the chicken scratchings they've brought in since Adams, same crap at TE, all to keep building what they hope will eventually be a servicable defense, it's a running Joke to anyone not a Packer fan, the biggest reason we've had winning Records in that 7 year span or even longer is the guy you keep dissing, and that makes you a fool.Labrev wrote: ↑07 May 2023 10:45You are not missing anything. The slavish defense of Rodgers/pathological criticism of Mgmt for doing stuff they don't like (it's hard to know where one begins and the other ends) is 100% confirmation bias; everything is proof-positive of it.
Last season, drafting Watson and Doubs was both negligence of the WR position for which our O woes were to blame *and* (later, when the O improved) the WR position finally getting the help it needed, and then back to negligence when we lost to DET (even as one of the rookie WRs in question was one of the only players to actually play well).
the Jets beat us last year using a 22 package and running the football, and this defense with it's gobs of 1st round draft picks couldn't stop it, and then our receivers kept dropping passes.
Rodgers hasn't been the problem, the GM's we've had have been, don't take my word for it, as anyone that has nothing to lose taking a side, look around at the best offenses in the league, there rounded out with skill position talent, something this team has lacked for that 7 years span, people that just keep blaming the QB either have no clue why, or a agenda of protecting the FO.
It's one thing to dislike Rodgers, it's another to insult me or anyone that isn't agenda driven to support this BS, better receivers help the QB do better, so to say the ones he had where good enough obviously is false, because we freaking saw how good he was with a better cast of talent, duh, seriously Labrev, are you on meds? you spout this non sense and expect no response.
I will be laughing my ass off at you Labrev and that goes for the rest of you Rodgers doubters too, again last season you center your distaste for the team on the QB when it was a FO issue again, sad actually that the Jets don't come to Lambeau and this QB doesn't get to seek some revenge as Favre did, I'am sure he'd love to ( no pun intended)
Damn, I had no clue that the Packers won the Super Bowl in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. My day just got a whole lot better!
How about this variable for ya. Rodgers only won a SB when the defense scored a TD in 3 out of the 4 playoff games and all but one of them were needed to pull off the victory because we won by only one score.
good point, thing is Starks was not good enough as a RB to help slow the Giants pass rush, opponents like KC ??who exposed our weakness first, simply used deep cover and didn't even bother to try and stop the run or anything short, max pass rush and prevent coverage caused the 2011 lossgo pak go wrote: ↑08 May 2023 11:21How about this variable for ya. Rodgers only won a SB when the defense scored a TD in 3 out of the 4 playoff games and all but one of them were needed to pull off the victory because we won by only one score.
The 2011 team was an offensive story. The 2010 team was a defensive story.
Good read!
Sorry Crazy legs
The Jets gambled a lot on Rodgers, a lot more then they gambled on Favre, picking up a 100 mil contract, plus the draft compensation.paco wrote: ↑10 May 2023 09:28How it all happened, according to some (which Rodgers will probably say is BS cuz it make him look bad).
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/375 ... l-contract
Aaron doesn't know about wi-fi calling? Yeah, okay.paco wrote: ↑10 May 2023 09:28How it all happened, according to some (which Rodgers will probably say is BS cuz it make him look bad).
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/375 ... l-contract
At his introductory news conference with the Jets, Rodgers blamed the lack of communication on bad cell service at his Malibu home and said the only way to reach him is via FaceTime.
If they don't win it all with him this trade isn't going to age very well.Yoop wrote: ↑10 May 2023 10:14The Jets gambled a lot on Rodgers, a lot more then they gambled on Favre, picking up a 100 mil contract, plus the draft compensation.paco wrote: ↑10 May 2023 09:28How it all happened, according to some (which Rodgers will probably say is BS cuz it make him look bad).
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/375 ... l-contract
sorta reminds me of the Dandy Devine insanity with John Hadl, going for broke can really come back to haunt you, but just like the Packer fans of 73 the jets fans are ecstatic with this trade, we'll see how they feel towards the end of the season, good chance the jets FO people will have to protect there pets, kids, wifes, heck probably have to sell there glass houses and live behind bars
Let‘s assume that to be true (and I actually agree that Rodgers was „undertalented“ most of his Packers time). Then why would Rodgers go for max deals, knowing it will worsen the situation for him and his team? Rodgers wasn‘t and isn‘t the typical NFL player who does rightfully prioritize money over anything bc his window is small and unsafe. Since 2011 Rodgers became a megastar and money flows naturally and plenty to those. Ad deals, tv deals after retirement, networks with rich & mighty people - if you are not some King Midas you can focus on other things than money…like legacy. Rodgers did not and this is why he is to blame at least as much as the organization: his monster deals strangled us from mid 2010s to now and prevented loaded Packer teams.
I'll never fault a player for getting all the money they can, but it absolutely comes at a price in who else you can sign to support.German_Panzer wrote: ↑12 May 2023 17:56Let‘s assume that to be true (and I actually agree that Rodgers was „undertalented“ most of his Packers time). Then why would Rodgers go for max deals, knowing it will worsen the situation for him and his team? Rodgers wasn‘t and isn‘t the typical NFL player who does rightfully prioritize money over anything bc his window is small and unsafe. Since 2011 Rodgers became a megastar and money flows naturally and plenty to those. Ad deals, tv deals after retirement, networks with rich & mighty people - if you are not some King Midas you can focus on other things than money…like legacy. Rodgers did not and this is why he is to blame at least as much as the organization: his monster deals strangled us from mid 2010s to now and prevented loaded Packer teams.
He was paid based on his QB ranking just as most others are, and he took the money because it is how others perceive status across the league, same with all sports.Madcity_matt wrote: ↑13 May 2023 09:39I'll never fault a player for getting all the money they can, but it absolutely comes at a price in who else you can sign to support.German_Panzer wrote: ↑12 May 2023 17:56Let‘s assume that to be true (and I actually agree that Rodgers was „undertalented“ most of his Packers time). Then why would Rodgers go for max deals, knowing it will worsen the situation for him and his team? Rodgers wasn‘t and isn‘t the typical NFL player who does rightfully prioritize money over anything bc his window is small and unsafe. Since 2011 Rodgers became a megastar and money flows naturally and plenty to those. Ad deals, tv deals after retirement, networks with rich & mighty people - if you are not some King Midas you can focus on other things than money…like legacy. Rodgers did not and this is why he is to blame at least as much as the organization: his monster deals strangled us from mid 2010s to now and prevented loaded Packer teams.
Nobody is baffled as to why he -was- pissed; he explained that in no uncertain terms.