Green Bay Packers News 2022

[Acrobat]

I'm still confused why I need to prove that the teams that beat us at home in the playoffs had really good front 4's.

no no, you need to prove that they got pressure only using a 4 man rush group, we all know at times Rodgers would extend plays hoping for big gain plays, but that has mostly changed under Matt Lafluer, actually there was a article that stated Rodgers has been getting rid of the ball faster then ever before during his career since the arrival of this coach.

imo it was always over blown anyway, we had a ton of success because Rodgers was the best in the league outside the pocket and scrambling

I wasn't talking about Rodgers at all, just making a general comment that those teams were really good at rushing the passer without needing to blitz a bunch of guys.

[go pak go]

Pretty sure yoop was on a big rant 2 weeks ago how a huge problem we have in our playoff losses was because we allowed the opponent to get to us with only 4 men.

But two weeks can change a man I guess.

[Yoop]

Pretty sure yoop was on a big rant 2 weeks ago how a huge problem we have in our playoff losses was because we allowed the opponent to get to us with only 4 men.

But two weeks can change a man I guess.

I doubt that very much, but the day would not be complete without you chiming in with some sort of conspiracy provoking type comment against me.

[Acrobat]

Pretty sure yoop was on a big rant 2 weeks ago how a huge problem we have in our playoff losses was because we allowed the opponent to get to us with only 4 men.

But two weeks can change a man I guess.

I doubt that very much, but the day would not be complete without you chiming in with some sort of conspiracy provoking type comment against me.

Still trying to figure out why I need to prove that the Packers faced teams with good front 4’s.

[go pak go]

Pretty sure yoop was on a big rant 2 weeks ago how a huge problem we have in our playoff losses was because we allowed the opponent to get to us with only 4 men.

But two weeks can change a man I guess.

I doubt that very much, but the day would not be complete without you chiming in with some sort of conspiracy provoking type comment against me.

The day also wouldn't be complete if you looked at a post, didn't read what the post actually said, but instead use yoop glasses, call a poster a loser while demanding he prove something because you read that he was bashing Aaron Rodgers when the poster never even mentioned Aaron Rodgers.

The combination of not reading people's posts and then angry responses will continue to yield meme and sarcastic responses.

[Yoop]

Pretty sure yoop was on a big rant 2 weeks ago how a huge problem we have in our playoff losses was because we allowed the opponent to get to us with only 4 men.

But two weeks can change a man I guess.

I doubt that very much, but the day would not be complete without you chiming in with some sort of conspiracy provoking type comment against me.

The day also wouldn't be complete if you looked at a post, didn't read what the post actually said, but instead use yoop glasses, call a poster a loser while demanding he prove something because you read that he was bashing Aaron Rodgers when the poster never even mentioned Aaron Rodgers.

The combination of not reading people's posts and then angry responses will continue to yield meme and sarcastic responses.

wha, wha, wha, first of all I didn't call Acrobat a loser, and you out right lied about what I said about our OL, and you brought those stats to to point out not only that we lost at Lambeau, but also to complain about the QBing, Acrobat imo took that further by pointing out those opponents only needed to rush four to get pressure on Rodgers, presumedly because he took to long to get rid of the ball, thats why you brought that info, fess up or don't I really don't give a damn.

[Pugger]

A) I'd hate to lose a Lambeau Field playoff game.
B) No one in their right mind wants to play in rainy, miserable London in December or January.

I think the Skeptic got the joke...

I got the joke, but to me it's not a joke. I haven't yet given up on the Packers 2022 success like some have, as shouldn't the team.

I haven't given up either. I am also one of the minority who want Rodgers back.

[Acrobat]

I doubt that very much, but the day would not be complete without you chiming in with some sort of conspiracy provoking type comment against me.

The day also wouldn't be complete if you looked at a post, didn't read what the post actually said, but instead use yoop glasses, call a poster a loser while demanding he prove something because you read that he was bashing Aaron Rodgers when the poster never even mentioned Aaron Rodgers.

The combination of not reading people's posts and then angry responses will continue to yield meme and sarcastic responses.

wha, wha, wha, first of all I didn't call Acrobat a loser, and you out right lied about what I said about our OL, and you brought those stats to to point out not only that we lost at Lambeau, but also to complain about the QBing, Acrobat imo took that further by pointing out those opponents only needed to rush four to get pressure on Rodgers, presumedly because he took to long to get rid of the ball, thats why you brought that info, fess up or don't I really don't give a damn.

When did I say that Rodgers held onto the ball too long in my post?

[Yoop]

I think the Skeptic got the joke...

I got the joke, but to me it's not a joke. I haven't yet given up on the Packers 2022 success like some have, as shouldn't the team.

I haven't given up either. I am also one of the minority who want Rodgers back.

minority around here.

[Yoop]

The day also wouldn't be complete if you looked at a post, didn't read what the post actually said, but instead use yoop glasses, call a poster a loser while demanding he prove something because you read that he was bashing Aaron Rodgers when the poster never even mentioned Aaron Rodgers.

The combination of not reading people's posts and then angry responses will continue to yield meme and sarcastic responses.

wha, wha, wha, first of all I didn't call Acrobat a loser, and you out right lied about what I said about our OL, and you brought those stats to to point out not only that we lost at Lambeau, but also to complain about the QBing, Acrobat imo took that further by pointing out those opponents only needed to rush four to get pressure on Rodgers, presumedly because he took to long to get rid of the ball, thats why you brought that info, fess up or don't I really don't give a damn.

When did I say that Rodgers held onto the ball too long in my post?

I'am done playing word games with you, the only person your fooling is yourself.

[Acrobat]

wha, wha, wha, first of all I didn't call Acrobat a loser, and you out right lied about what I said about our OL, and you brought those stats to to point out not only that we lost at Lambeau, but also to complain about the QBing, Acrobat imo took that further by pointing out those opponents only needed to rush four to get pressure on Rodgers, presumedly because he took to long to get rid of the ball, thats why you brought that info, fess up or don't I really don't give a damn.

When did I say that Rodgers held onto the ball too long in my post?

I'am done playing word games with you, the only person your fooling is yourself.

Huh? I really don’t understand what you’re talking about. I made an observation about the opposing teams and how they’re made.

Yikes man, what a joke.

[go pak go]

When did I say that Rodgers held onto the ball too long in my post?

I'am done playing word games with you, the only person your fooling is yourself.

Huh? I really don’t understand what you’re talking about. I made an observation about the opposing teams and how they’re made.

Yikes man, what a joke.

Yeah I'm confused too.

I brought up our record at Lambeau since 2002 being .500 and you added that the teams who have beaten us since 2007 all had really good front 4's.

But only yoop knows we are doing a dig at the OL and Rodgers.

Just another day I guess.

[Half Empty]

I was just guilty of this myself, but the most effective way to avoid having to deal with responses that just don't make sense, in a forum with no 'ignore' feature is "don't feed the troll". If we all try it, that approach may be successful.

[Acrobat]

I'am done playing word games with you, the only person your fooling is yourself.

Huh? I really don’t understand what you’re talking about. I made an observation about the opposing teams and how they’re made.

Yikes man, what a joke.

Yeah I'm confused too.

I brought up our record at Lambeau since 2002 being .500 and you added that the teams who have beaten us since 2007 all had really good front 4's.

But only yoop knows we are doing a dig at the OL and Rodgers.

Just another day I guess.

Yeah, I guess other than one other time I went back and forth with him and then he accused me of being a new member (even though I joined in 2007), I don't have a lot of experience with yoop, so this kind of blindsided me.

[Labrev]

All that to say about Rodgers, the ring helped him to be seen early in his career as being better. Now, with a string of playoff losses, there's a bigger shadow on his accomplishments than ever. I think he DOES have something to prove. I only hope he thinks so too, if he stays with GB.

I didn't say he doesn't have something to prove, he certainly does. It's just that the drive is not as intense now, mainly because the stakes are not as high. Back in his early years, it was proving that he was worth choosing over Favre, who made them a perennial playoff contender (even if he did choke it away every time) and was an elite QB. It was make-or-break then.

At this point, he can pretty safely be considered one of the Top 10 greatest QBs to *ever* play even if every playoff appearance from now until his retirement ends the same way as this past season. He's made it.


He can't realistically overtake Brady as GOAT this late into his career, either, even if he was always the more talented passer. A couple of rings would cement him in the 2-4 range, where a lot of folks might already argue he should be anyway.

[Scott4Pack]

That thing about the "chip on his shoulder" was true back when he had to prove himself. But now, for the most part, he is done needing to prove himself. The only real thing he yet needs to prove is that he can add another ring to his achievements, but when you win MVP, you kind of have a built-in defense of "Well, *I* was the best player in the league, don't look at me!"

I can't quite get on board with that. All of the awards and recognitions for September through December are wonderful and they can certainly accumulate enough for a legitimate HOF career. But January football is altogether different. Example:

How much value is your Most Valuable Player from the regular season if he isn't good enough to elevate his own performance and his team's performance in the playoffs?

That is also a measure by which we can evaluate. It's certainly used in the regular season too. People often say that Rodgers was the biggest key in GB winning 13 games again. I think they'd be right to say so. Anyhow, that is a measuring rod in the regular season. So, it should also be a standard in the playoffs.

Rodgers wasn't the issue in some games that the Pack lost in the playoffs, clearly. But he played miserably in this last game, clearly. He made no difference, or at least not nearly enough, to help the Pack in January.

That's also a standard that past players have benefitted from (for better or for worse):
Starr (better)
Bradshaw (lots better)
Fouts (worse)
Kelly (worse)
Unitas (better)
Namath (way better)
Marino (worse)
McNabb (worse)
Tarkenton (worse)
Brady (about even actually, in my book)
Manning (better)
Elway (worse, and then better)
and so on

supporting cast really makes a difference in the PO when your playing against the NFL's best, your top two of Starr and Bradshaw had the best defenses in the league during there SB years, this last season was the best since he won the SB for Rodgers, and this last loss was with a depleted OL, WR group, several players missing on defense, and the worst ST's unit in the league, hardly a fair comparison to those 60's Packers or 70's Steelers, same with Manning or Elway etc. from that list Scott, why people discount the ability of the supporting cast to make playing easier for QB's of those teams makes no sense to me, we all know it does.
this is in no way a defense for Rodgers missing a wide open Lazard, but that in no way should have been the deciding factor in that loss, Lewis Fumble, Dillon injury, countless mistakes from ST's, MVS, Cobb???? Bakh, and other starters missing didn't make it easier to win either.

I hear ya. But this last loss we scored how many (few) points? The OLine was good enough. The WRs were good enough. It's Rodgers, Aaron Rodgers who didn't play up to par this year.

[Yoop]

I hear ya. But this last loss we scored how many (few) points? The OLine was good enough. The WRs were good enough. It's Rodgers, Aaron Rodgers who didn't play up to par this year.

true, but he's not the only goat to play like a sheep at times, Brady played poorly in several SB's and lost a bunch of PO games during his bad stretch that lasted a decade as well.

Bill Huber from Packer Nation

Brady was well on his way to becoming an NFL legend after capping the 2004 season with a third Super Bowl win in four years. He was merely 27 years old on the night New England edged Philadelphia 24-21 for Super Bowl ring No. 3.

But the Brady-led Patriots didn’t win the Super Bowl in 2005. Or 2006. Or 2007. Or 2008. Or 2009. Or 2010. Or 2011. Or 2012. Or 2013.

A great quarterback gives his team a realistic opportunity to win the Super Bowl every season. Greatness – whether it’s as a player or as a team – isn’t guaranteed, though. Even with Brady’s legendary success, consider this: During that one-decade championship drought, Brady lost eight playoff games. He put 17 or fewer points on the scoreboard six times and 21 points in a seventh game

https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/news/whi ... wrong-move

It starts out mimicking many comments people have made here, and then gives his opinion why he thinks it's a bad idea, good read, and you get to listen to our GM

[salmar80]

I hear ya. But this last loss we scored how many (few) points? The OLine was good enough. The WRs were good enough. It's Rodgers, Aaron Rodgers who didn't play up to par this year.

true, but he's not the only goat to play like a sheep at times, Brady played poorly in several SB's and lost a bunch of PO games during his bad stretch that lasted a decade as well.

Bill Huber from Packer Nation

Brady was well on his way to becoming an NFL legend after capping the 2004 season with a third Super Bowl win in four years. He was merely 27 years old on the night New England edged Philadelphia 24-21 for Super Bowl ring No. 3.

But the Brady-led Patriots didn’t win the Super Bowl in 2005. Or 2006. Or 2007. Or 2008. Or 2009. Or 2010. Or 2011. Or 2012. Or 2013.

A great quarterback gives his team a realistic opportunity to win the Super Bowl every season. Greatness – whether it’s as a player or as a team – isn’t guaranteed, though. Even with Brady’s legendary success, consider this: During that one-decade championship drought, Brady lost eight playoff games. He put 17 or fewer points on the scoreboard six times and 21 points in a seventh game

https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/news/whi ... wrong-move

It starts out mimicking many comments people have made here, and then gives his opinion why he thinks it's a bad idea, good read, and you get to listen to our GM

The Pats were just afraid of moving on from Brady. Belichick just wanted to win the division and keep his job while rising ticket prices.

[paco]

[Pugger]

I got the joke, but to me it's not a joke. I haven't yet given up on the Packers 2022 success like some have, as shouldn't the team.

I haven't given up either. I am also one of the minority who want Rodgers back.

minority around here.

Minority on other forums too.