Packers Huddle

I also want to say the above post is my attempt to get to the heart of the disagreement at a root level. It’s not intended to attack yoop or lupe. I actually agree with a ton each of them say and only get really really sticky on this issue, which is why I’ve tried to figure out what the philosophical root of the difference is

we where 15-1 in 011, we had the 20th rated defense and Ryan Grant was a shadow of the player had had been prior, defense practically dared us to beat them small ball < KC and the Giants just abandoned even trying, used 3 cover shells and used max pass rush and beat us, morale of the story, if Grant had been a little better, or we had a #10 rated defense and we may have went to the SB that season.

the defense minus the 014 season usually sucked, and as Nelson and Cobb declined, so did the rest of the offense, imo thats what changed, Rodgers was forced so often to extend plays because the receivers couldn't beat 1 0n 1 coverage, as was said a QB like Rodgers doesn't want to check it down, he's used to not having too, and McCarthys idea of a short pass was a slant, or curl, stuff a defenses begs you to throw cause there so easily defended

I started calling for new offensive skill players back in 015 or 016,

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2021 14:57

salmar80 wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2021 14:40

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2021 14:16

How good would life be if you had someone advocated for you like yoop does for Rodgers?

I wish my mom believed in me, or even in God, like yoop believes in AR.

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.

I support Rodgers because it's very likely I will never see another Packer QB as good, never been just about winning to me, that is so shallow, fans that don't connect to players on the teams they support are the real losers.

When he's playing at his peak level, AR is the best QB to ever play the game. He's the only QB in history who could have a season with zero INTs that are his fault (not tipped or dropped). That hasn't happened yet, it would be super, super hard to do, but AR is the only candidate to do it with some luck. No one else comes close. And that is with a QB who throws long balls, one who doesn't just dink and dunk. The best QB I've ever seen.

So yes, AR contributes a LOT to the team's success. More than any other player on the roster by a wide margin.

But where I stop is at this: More often than not, AR elevates the team around him. But he's still human. AR still has rare bad and mediocre games among lots of brilliant ones.

Unfortunately some non-stellar performances have happened at NFCCGs. I will forgive those ones, and will never blame him solely for those losses. It's a team game, you could always have built a better team somehow with hindsight, or other players should've performed better. For example, in the latest loss, Aaron Jones isn't getting the blame he deserves for the fumbles because it doesn't fit the narrative of him being a RB who just doesn't fumble.

But I'm sure AR doesn't forget bad plays by him. When AR throws a bad ball, I will call it a bad ball by him. Pretty sure he calls it a bad throw when watching film, and that's how he got so good. I think it's very disrespectful to look for artificial culprits on the rare plays and games AR isn't on MVP level. As if writing Aaron Rodgers out of history whenever bad things happened.

Should we erase AR mistakes from our memories because of the things he has done for the team? Yes, kinda. In due time, when his bust is being revealed in Canton and revealed beside other greats at Lambeau. But while he's an active player, the only thing AR gains from blind worship is more power to leave the team.

Bravo, [mention]YoHoChecko[/mention].

You people should be bowing 5 times a day to Rodgers. I break out a Packers towel every morning and pray in the direction of Butte Community College.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2021 18:31

You people should be bowing 5 times a day to Rodgers. I break out a Packers towel every morning and pray in the direction of Butte Community College.

If you asked what you could say to best prove my point about a worldview of infallibility, I genuinely could not have scripted a more effective response. Thanks.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2021 18:48

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2021 18:31

You people should be bowing 5 times a day to Rodgers. I break out a Packers towel every morning and pray in the direction of Butte Community College.

If you asked what you could say to best prove my point about a worldview of infallibility, I genuinely could not have scripted a more effective response. Thanks.

Im here for you.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2021 18:48

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2021 18:31

You people should be bowing 5 times a day to Rodgers. I break out a Packers towel every morning and pray in the direction of Butte Community College.

If you asked what you could say to best prove my point about a worldview of infallibility, I genuinely could not have scripted a more effective response. Thanks.

Meh. I just thought it was pretty funny.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2021 18:31

You people should be bowing 5 times a day to Rodgers. I break out a Packers towel every morning and pray in the direction of Butte Community College.

zactly, a person needs to get there ducks in a row, know which side the bread is buttered on, cover all the bases, once all the Hero's are gone, dispare and heartache are soon to follow

Packers record with Rodgers is .657%
Packers record without Rodgers is .483%

A .657% record will likely always get you into the playoffs and give you a shot to win a superbowl.

A .483% record will likely always have you miss the playoffs and never give you a shot to win a superbowl.

People seem to be in a rush to get there comments in minimalizing Rodgers impact on the packers success. I think why not just wait as our time without Rodgers may be fast approaching.

Are we talking Matt Flynn?

Seneca Wallace?

Scott Tolzein?

Brett Hundley?

Very disingenuous post to assume that we would not find a QB better than Matt Flynn?

Read page 35, NO ONE is minimalizing Rodgers' impact on the Packers' success.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2021 22:10

Are we talking Matt Flynn?

Seneca Wallace?

Scott Tolzein?

Brett Hundley?

Very disingenuous post to assume that we would not find a QB better than Matt Flynn?

Read page 35, NO ONE is minimalizing Rodgers' impact on the Packers' success.

It was more of a general post. It is obvious there are people on this forum that believe Rodgers impact has not been great albeit it is a stupid ridiculous notion. The way some people comment would lead you to believe the packers will be better without Rodgers. Hard evidence states we have been better with Rodgers.

Well we will find out soon if a different QB from the ones you mentioned gives a different result.

bud fox wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 01:33

It is obvious there are people on this forum that believe Rodgers impact has not been great albeit it is a stupid ridiculous notion.

For people who keep saying stuff like this, i must ask, who? Who is saying that?

BF004 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 06:02

bud fox wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 01:33

It is obvious there are people on this forum that believe Rodgers impact has not been great albeit it is a stupid ridiculous notion.

For people who keep saying stuff like this, i must ask, who? Who is saying that?

The people who make arguments against him

bud fox wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 06:54

BF004 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 06:02

bud fox wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 01:33

It is obvious there are people on this forum that believe Rodgers impact has not been great albeit it is a stupid ridiculous notion.

For people who keep saying stuff like this, i must ask, who? Who is saying that?

The people who make arguments against him

BF004 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 06:02

bud fox wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 01:33

It is obvious there are people on this forum that believe Rodgers impact has not been great albeit it is a stupid ridiculous notion.

For people who keep saying stuff like this, i must ask, who? Who is saying that?

why ask for names when there have been so many that said (in no specific terms) that Rodgers had 3 oppertunity's to score from the 8 yrd line, he missed on a open player, tossed one to Adams that he shouldn't have, plus could have easily waltzed in to the EZ himself, all 3 are very debatable situations, yet he's suppose to make those plays work according to a half doz posters on this site.

bud fox wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 06:54

BF004 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 06:02

bud fox wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 01:33

It is obvious there are people on this forum that believe Rodgers impact has not been great albeit it is a stupid ridiculous notion.

For people who keep saying stuff like this, i must ask, who? Who is saying that?

The people who make arguments against him

Who are those people?

No one ever mentions Lazard ducking a ball he could have caught and scored on 2nd down though on a run pass option.

bud fox wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 06:54

BF004 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 06:02

bud fox wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 01:33

It is obvious there are people on this forum that believe Rodgers impact has not been great albeit it is a stupid ridiculous notion.

For people who keep saying stuff like this, i must ask, who? Who is saying that?

The people who make arguments against him

Who is making arguments against Rodgers having a great impact on the success of the Packers?

Acrobat wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:43

bud fox wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 06:54

BF004 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 06:02

For people who keep saying stuff like this, i must ask, who? Who is saying that?

The people who make arguments against him

Who are those people?

seems we have a echo in this room, we should possibly by some wall hangings