Rodgers wants out

[YoHoChecko]

It is hard for me to imagine us being able to retain these guys and build up the talent to 2021 levels without having exceptionally good to unimaginably good drafts. That's where I get stuck.

Ok, easy then! Let's draft exceptionally well!

[British]

I have to take exception here, your trying to watch a movie with no supporting cast changes, we saw Rodgers struggle under McCarthys schemes that required excellent receivers, and basically had minimal run success, thats a ton for any QB to carry, put Lafluer in place back in 2016 and simply that alone would provide a different picture show, MLF schemes don't require as much receiver talent, run the ball far more, and rely on getting the ball out of the QB's hands quicker.

I could make this argument that a lower talented QB could also yield similar results in an MLF scheme.

It's QB friendly.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it's pure supposition to say a it's a QB friendly scheme. The only other QB we've ever actually seen run it is Love. The results so far do not back up this claim.

Versions of this scheme managed to take Jared Goff and Jimmy G to the Superbowl. I think it's fair to say it's QB friendly.

[YoHoChecko]

I could make this argument that a lower talented QB could also yield similar results in an MLF scheme.

It's QB friendly.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it's pure supposition to say a it's a QB friendly scheme. The only other QB we've ever actually seen run it is Love. The results so far do not back up this claim.

Versions of this scheme managed to take Jared Goff and Jimmy G to the Superbowl. I think it's fair to say it's QB friendly.

Not to mention with MLF in-house, Matt Ryan--the stereotype for the "good but not great, uninspiring QB" won an MVP in the version of the scheme implemented there, with MLF coaching the QB.

The very reason I brought up MLF's name as a potential hire before MM was even fired is because he had a track record of QBs outperforming their career stats when MLF was in town. Even in Tennessee, we saw Mariota's completion percentage jump, even if it didn't translate to results. Goff, Ryan, even dating back to RGIII in Washington. When MLF got his hands on a QB, that QB improved.

[bud fox]

The primary reason I am fine letting Rodgers walk...

In my opinion, from my observation, the main reason you are fine with punting Rodgers is because you think the success we have had with him, can be found without him. You seem to think the recent success is due to the toys around him, so you want to keep the toys.

To that I say, good luck.

This is particularly frustrating because he literally made a post to explain his rationale, and you responded by saying "in my opinion, your rationale is..." and then just filled in bias and gobbledegook.

Like here's the thing. Aaron Rodgers has been our starting QB for 14 seasons now. Two of those seasons have been injury-shortened. In that time period we have seen the highest of highs (MVP performances, Super Bowl win), and the middlingest of lows (our lows are usually pretty danged good, only occasionally missing the playoffs). MOST of that time has been spent in the in-betweenland.

When you look back at the years where Rodgers was on the team but the team's output and Rodgers' output sank down into the land of mediocrity (in terms of stats, wins, and losses) you ask "why isn't this team doing better with Rodgers on the team? And so the team replaces the General manager, fires and replaces the head coach, signs 3-4 high-value free agents, identifies players from the previous regime that count as building blocks for the future, drafts a handful of young emerging stars, and finds some free agent bargains.

These changes have led to three 13-win seasons, a 2-seed, two 1-seeds, two (and counting) trips to the NFC championship, a return of Rodgers to MVP levels for the first time since 2014, but in consecutive years, and hopefully a Super Bowl this year.

And then people say "our success is because of Rodgers"


Obviously, Rodgers being the best QB enhances every outcome of every game. But Rodgers being great at QB wasn't enough to escape mediocrity for half a decade. So OBVIOUSLY the changes we made to the team around him mattered. We are getting better play from Rodgers and better results from Rodgers because we surrounded him with better coaching and better playing.

Go Pack Go explicitly stated that his belief is that if we keep Rodgers, while we may still have the coaching, the salary cap will push the state of his supporting cast back to where it was prior to all of these changes and acquisitions. His view is that we have seen that movie, and we know that Rodgers without a strong supporting cast is a waste of his talent and unlikely to result in championships, if even playoff wins, if even playoffs. We know this because we all, every one of us, watched it happen. For years. We watched Aaron Rodgers not be enough.

So when people start talking about gutting the team of high-value players in order to keep Rodgers, we simply ask: how will that yield better outcomes and results than 2018 and 2017? Why do you believe that 39, 40, and 41-year old Rodgers is better able to overcome personnel and supporting cast shortcomings than 35 and 36 year old Rodgers was?

It's a very clear point of view. It's well reasoned, and it's been explicitly articulated. And then DrJ comes in and just says "nah, I don't think that's your rationale; I've observed you, and in my opinion, you think we can be just as good as we are now without Rodgers"

Like gimme a break.

We have examples this year of Rodgers without much of the current rostered talent and then also the team without Rodgers.

It is better to use that data given the variables involved e.g. play calling, scheme, Rodgers play.

Packers won when it was Rodgers with no talent
Packers lost when it was Packers talent without Rodgers

[Pckfn23]

Packers lost when it was Rodgers and no talent. See 2015 to 2018. Packers won when Rodgers wasn't playing well, but the team had talent. See 2019. So yes, I agree, use ALL the data.

[go pak go]

Packers lost when it was Rodgers and no talent. See 2015 to 2018. Packers won when Rodgers wasn't playing well, but the team had talent. See 2019. So yes, I agree, use ALL the data.

Hogwash. The sample size of one makes sense when it proves a point to differentiate two games that was within one score.

Never mind that the supporting cast was the following:

Mason Crosby vs AZ - 1 for 1 FGs
Mason Crosby vs KC - 0 for 2 FGs

Defense Turnovers Forced vs AZ - 3 Turnovers forced
Defense Turnovers Forced vs KC - 0 Turnovers forced

Only one variable matters when it is needed to prove a point. Rodgers.

[bud fox]

Packers lost when it was Rodgers and no talent. See 2015 to 2018. Packers won when Rodgers wasn't playing well, but the team had talent. See 2019. So yes, I agree, use ALL the data.

What... Rodgers played in 2019 and they won. Despite players adapting to new system.

We have data from this year with a Rodgers replacement and then also with talent replacement.

[Yoop]

QB:
Rodgers
Love

RB:
Taylor
Hill
Dillon
Jones

TE:
Lewis
Deguara
Davis

WR:
Cobb
Rodgers
Winfree

OL:
Bakhtiari
Jenkins
Newman
Runyan
Myers
Turner

DL:
Clark
Slaton
Lowry
Keke
Heflin

OLB:
Z. Smith
P. Smith
Gary
Galeai
Garvin

ILB:
Summers
McDuffie

CB:
Alexander
Stokes
Jean-Charles

S:
Amos
Savage
Scott

LS:
Wirtel

K:
Crosby

With a restructure situation, the roster would look like above maybe with the addition of a low level FA or 2. We are going to be super young to fill out the roster in 2022. Moving on to 2023, 2024, and 2025, Rodgers cap number goes up again, each year. During those years it also makes it hard for us to sign our young challenge. It is hard for me to imagine us being able to retain these guys and build up the talent to 2021 levels without having exceptionally good to unimaginably good drafts. That's where I get stuck.

when ya look at the situation like this, the the choice seems clear, Keep Rodgers, the cap level will go up, so that should take care of Rodgers contract increases, and after that it's back to keeping others we can afford, with Rodgers anything is possible, often the best team is not the one who wins the SB.

[bud fox]

Packers lost when it was Rodgers and no talent. See 2015 to 2018. Packers won when Rodgers wasn't playing well, but the team had talent. See 2019. So yes, I agree, use ALL the data.

Hogwash. The sample size of one makes sense when it proves a point to differentiate two games that was within one score.

Never mind that the supporting cast was the following:

Mason Crosby vs AZ - 1 for 1 FGs
Mason Crosby vs KC - 0 for 2 FGs

Defense Turnovers Forced vs AZ - 3 Turnovers forced
Defense Turnovers Forced vs KC - 0 Turnovers forced

Only one variable matters when it is needed to prove a point. Rodgers.

It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile ... winning is winning - the great Dominic Terreto.

[Pckfn23]

Packers lost when it was Rodgers and no talent. See 2015 to 2018. Packers won when Rodgers wasn't playing well, but the team had talent. See 2019. So yes, I agree, use ALL the data.

What... Rodgers played in 2019 and they won. Despite players adapting to new system.

We have data from this year with a Rodgers replacement and then also with talent replacement.

I said the the Packers won in 2019. I bolded it for you.

We also have data from previous years. Rodgers hasn't only played in 2021. IF you want to use "data" then use all the data, don't cherry pick.

[bud fox]

Packers lost when it was Rodgers and no talent. See 2015 to 2018. Packers won when Rodgers wasn't playing well, but the team had talent. See 2019. So yes, I agree, use ALL the data.

What... Rodgers played in 2019 and they won. Despite players adapting to new system.

We have data from this year with a Rodgers replacement and then also with talent replacement.

I said the the Packers won in 2019. I bolded it for you.

We also have data from previous years. Rodgers hasn't only played in 2021. IF you want to use "data" then use all the data, don't cherry pick.

The more present the data the more accurate. Variables e.g. coaching, play calling, Rodgers ability, league ability, rules - more easily measured.

[Pckfn23]

What... Rodgers played in 2019 and they won. Despite players adapting to new system.

We have data from this year with a Rodgers replacement and then also with talent replacement.

I said the the Packers won in 2019. I bolded it for you.

We also have data from previous years. Rodgers hasn't only played in 2021. IF you want to use "data" then use all the data, don't cherry pick.

The more present the data the more accurate. Variables e.g. coaching, play calling, Rodgers ability, league ability, rules - more easily measured.

No, not even remotely so since a lot of those variables will change for next year. We also need to look back to when the team did not have as much talent as it does now. Recency does not mean accuracy. You are just wrong here. Cherry picking data points doesn't provide a full picture it provides a biased picture.

[go pak go]

when ya look at the situation like this, the the choice seems clear, Keep Rodgers, the cap level will go up, so that should take care of Rodgers contract increases, and after that it's back to keeping others we can afford, with Rodgers anything is possible, often the best team is not the one who wins the SB.

I could get on board with this if the rest of the players' contracts didn't also increase. But the fact of the matter is all contracts are designed now to increase to take advantage of the COL structure of the Cap.

So you can't really have one player take up the entire increase or you will be in trouble quickly.

[bud fox]

I said the the Packers won in 2019. I bolded it for you.

We also have data from previous years. Rodgers hasn't only played in 2021. IF you want to use "data" then use all the data, don't cherry pick.

The more present the data the more accurate. Variables e.g. coaching, play calling, Rodgers ability, league ability, rules - more easily measured.

No, not even remotely so since a lot of those variables will change for next year. We also need to look back to when the team did not have as much talent as it does now. Recency does not mean accuracy. You are just wrong here. Cherry picking data points doesn't provide a full picture it provides a biased picture.

Okay old data is more accurate than present data. Nice to know logic and science is wrong.

When I think of modern day life expectancy I consider the variables from the dark ages.

[Pckfn23]

The more present the data the more accurate. Variables e.g. coaching, play calling, Rodgers ability, league ability, rules - more easily measured.

No, not even remotely so since a lot of those variables will change for next year. We also need to look back to when the team did not have as much talent as it does now. Recency does not mean accuracy. You are just wrong here. Cherry picking data points doesn't provide a full picture it provides a biased picture.

Okay old data is more accurate than present data. Nice to know logic and science is wrong.

When I think of modern day life expectancy I consider the variables from the dark ages.

WTF even is this reply? First, I didn't say old data is more accurate than present data. I said use ALL the data. Second, we aren't talking about science here...

[salmar80]

Packers lost when it was Rodgers and no talent. See 2015 to 2018. Packers won when Rodgers wasn't playing well, but the team had talent. See 2019. So yes, I agree, use ALL the data.

What... Rodgers played in 2019 and they won. Despite players adapting to new system.

We have data from this year with a Rodgers replacement and then also with talent replacement.

I think the point is that this, the 2021 team, is a legit amazing, all-in, SB win expected -level roster. AR isn't winning by himself, not by a long shot. It may be the best top-to-bottom quality Packers roster I've seen (= since 1997). It's a shame we haven't been able to see 'em all play together much. Anyways, AR has so many high quality players around him, that we've won even while missing several top guys, even the games AR hasn't been the best at. Love played bad. That's not an expected -level Rodgers replacement. We'd never settle for that long term. Make no mistake, this is a GREAT roster.

But it could be better... If one wanted to aim for HISTORIC -level roster quality, a dynasty, or Best Team Ever, you can only do that with an amazing QB on a rookie deal, or on first 2 years of a second contract (or if your star QB gives an actual discount). If we traded AR for a huge haul, spent 2022 to purge all the bad off the cap, and then reloaded with massive resources, if EVERYTHING fell into place, there's would be a tiny but real chance at historic greatness and perhaps several SBs in a short time. There's also a high chance it all goes to &%$@, and we'd end up way worse off than by keeping AR.

If we manage to extend AR, he will still have such high cap numbers, so we simply won't have as many resources than other teams to build around him. I'm personally fine with making the playoffs every season and rolling the dice in a one-and-done format. Lack of cap can be overcome by good GMing, but won't be easy. But we're never gonna be a bad team with AR under center. High floor, lower ceiling.

[bud fox]

Packers lost when it was Rodgers and no talent. See 2015 to 2018. Packers won when Rodgers wasn't playing well, but the team had talent. See 2019. So yes, I agree, use ALL the data.

What... Rodgers played in 2019 and they won. Despite players adapting to new system.

We have data from this year with a Rodgers replacement and then also with talent replacement.

I think the point is that this, the 2021 team, is a legit amazing, all-in, SB win expected -level roster. AR isn't winning by himself, not by a long shot. It may be the best top-to-bottom quality Packers roster I've seen (= since 1997). It's a shame we haven't been able to see 'em all play together much. Anyways, AR has so many high quality players around him, that we've won even while missing several top guys, even the games AR hasn't been the best at. Love played bad. That's not an expected -level Rodgers replacement. We'd never settle for that long term. Make no mistake, this is a GREAT roster.

But it could be better... If one wanted to aim for HISTORIC -level roster quality, a dynasty, or Best Team Ever, you can only do that with an amazing QB on a rookie deal, or on first 2 years of a second contract (or if your star QB gives an actual discount). If we traded AR for a huge haul, spent 2022 to purge all the bad off the cap, and then reloaded with massive resources, if EVERYTHING fell into place, there's would be a tiny but real chance at historic greatness and perhaps several SBs in a short time. There's also a high chance it all goes to &%$@, and we'd end up way worse off than by keeping AR.

If we manage to extend AR, he will still have such high cap numbers, so we simply won't have as many resources than other teams to build around him. I'm personally fine with making the playoffs every season and rolling the dice in a one-and-done format. Lack of cap can be overcome by good GMing, but won't be easy. But we're never gonna be a bad team with AR under center. High floor, lower ceiling.

Our Oline is nobodies, our receivers outside of Adams are random picks and an old vet, our TE is an old vet and a 3rd round FB, our RBs are quality.

Our DT quality, pass rushers have been good, Corners a rookie first rounder and then street guys, our LBs are a low asset value group, our safeties have been playing bad according to several players.

We have won this year without Bahk, Adams (1 game), Jenkins, Jaire, Zdarius, MVS (not sure when he has played), Tonyan, Turner. That is a large portion of the high quality players you talk about.

[bud fox]

No, not even remotely so since a lot of those variables will change for next year. We also need to look back to when the team did not have as much talent as it does now. Recency does not mean accuracy. You are just wrong here. Cherry picking data points doesn't provide a full picture it provides a biased picture.

Okay old data is more accurate than present data. Nice to know logic and science is wrong.

When I think of modern day life expectancy I consider the variables from the dark ages.

WTF even is this reply? First, I didn't say old data is more accurate than present data. I said use ALL the data. Second, we aren't talking about science here...

It is regression analysis - statistics - math - science. What are you talking about?

[go pak go]

Okay old data is more accurate than present data. Nice to know logic and science is wrong.

When I think of modern day life expectancy I consider the variables from the dark ages.

WTF even is this reply? First, I didn't say old data is more accurate than present data. I said use ALL the data. Second, we aren't talking about science here...

It is regression analysis - statistics - math - science. What are you talking about?

Pretty weird to use "science" and Statistical terms when you are basing your conclusion on two data points that has a lot of variable messiness to have any reliability of correlation fit.

[Pckfn23]

Okay old data is more accurate than present data. Nice to know logic and science is wrong.

When I think of modern day life expectancy I consider the variables from the dark ages.

WTF even is this reply? First, I didn't say old data is more accurate than present data. I said use ALL the data. Second, we aren't talking about science here...

It is regression analysis - statistics - math - science. What are you talking about?

No, not even close. To be a regression analysis you have to know all the variables. We don't and never will as it is too subjective and the variables are too great. There are statistics involved, but not the only thing involved as again, it's all very subjective. You aren't giving us any math or science, you are just spouting your biased opinion, nothing more, nothing else. Unless you want to show us the regression analysis you did. I would love to see that!