Packers Huddle

APB wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 16:07

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 16:03

last year was a complete lack of chemistry with receivers...

Hmmm...

I wonder what could have been done to maybe alleviate some of those chemistry issues...?

obviously not attending OTA's and off season stuff didn't help, but again, if your having to try and build chemistry every season from complete scratch with new receivers it gets old, not defending that, but we know just how that stuff gets, how'd ya like to train in a new recruits every month.

yes we paid him a lot of dough to do it, but human natured don't give two hoots about that, reality that s how burn out starts, If Labrev was right about anything, that is what I think we saw, specially once it became obvious that Watkins was washed up, it was beyond obvious to me that Rodgers became frustrated.

In Yoop's math, Rodgers was a constant, not a variable.

In Yoop's imagination, AR was simply great, always. Every game, every play, every year. The level of his play didn't vary at all. Always great and accurate, like the best assembly line robot in the world.

Since AR was great all the time, the only thing that changed was the rest of the talent on the team. If the production line failed to produce a SB win, the fault must've been somewhere else than with the perfect robot.

It's actually interesting to see if yoop coats Love in the same blame-kevlar armor than he clad AR, where all the blame is deflected to the QB's teammates, but all the credit for success goes to the QB.

Is Love also automatically not to blame for anything? Does the same "nothing is the QB's fault" apply to him?

If Love performs badly, will yoop still build it as someone else's fault?

If Love succeeds, is any credit given to his teammates or to the coach or GM?

salmar80 wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 18:05

In Yoop's math, Rodgers was a constant, not a variable.

In Yoop's imagination, AR was simply great, always. Every game, every play, every year. The level of his play didn't vary at all. Always great and accurate, like the best assembly line robot in the world.

Since AR was great all the time, the only thing that changed was the rest of the talent on the team. If the production line failed to produce a SB win, the fault must've been somewhere else than with the perfect robot.

It's actually interesting to see if yoop coats Love in the same blame-kevlar armor than he clad AR, where all the blame is deflected to the QB's teammates, but all the credit for success goes to the QB.

Is Love also automatically not to blame for anything? Does the same "nothing is the QB's fault" apply to him?

If Love performs badly, will yoop still build it as someone else's fault?

If Love succeeds, is any credit given to his teammates or to the coach or GM?

Except when AR was throwing it in the dirt or missing open WRs in his effort to get MM fired.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 18:05

If Love performs badly, will yoop still build it as someone else's fault?

If Love succeeds, is any credit given to his teammates or to the coach or GM?

If Love is good then Love is good.

If Love is bad but the team wins, then we have had a strong team that spent too much on QB - Good for players,coach. Kinda good for gute. Bad for Love.

If the team loses - you get it.

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 16:11

Acrobat wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 15:58

NCF wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 15:57

This is true, but I will gladly throw out 2020. I had to double-check the stat lines again to be sure they were right, but Rodgers in the 2020 NFCCG was very good. Like, really, really good. Definitely outplayed Brady and that is really what the ask was heading into that game. He was the best player on the field. The INT wasn't his fault (should have been PI and a better receiver might have won the rep, anyway), Adams dropped the TD, Jones fumbled... that day the supporting cast let Rodgers down.

2021 and 2022 are the opposite. Rodgers was not solely to blame, but he definitely was not the best player on the field those days and whatever happened with the supporting cast (they were not great, either), Rodgers was abysmal.

I'm on board with this opinion.

I am not. Rodgers was ass in that game.

The only ass Rodgers was in was your mommas.

bud fox wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 19:52

salmar80 wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 18:05

If Love performs badly, will yoop still build it as someone else's fault?

If Love succeeds, is any credit given to his teammates or to the coach or GM?

If Love is good then Love is good.

If Love is bad but the team wins, then we have had a strong team that spent too much on QB - Good for players,coach. Kinda good for gute. Bad for Love.

If the team loses - you get it.

No worries guys. There will be plenty of time to see exactly who is good at their jobs and who is not, now that the “coverer of sins” is in New York.

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 14:19

again for the 100th time and to close, I shouldn't have to explain this stuff to you, but you seem unable or unwilling to grasp these simple truths,

I am not unable/unwilling to grasp; you fail to persuade. Every time you "explain" it to me, I bring up things that debunk your claims, and you don't have any fact-based or otherwise credible answers; you just repeat the same debunked points.

In fact, RODGERS HIMSELF is one of the #1 sources I use to debunk your claims!

All this slavish defense of Rodgers isn't even about him; he is just a Rorschach ink blot for you (and others who claim him) to project your pet issues and other weird underlying pathologies onto.

You defend Rodgers just to harp on how we "need" to put exorbitant resources into the WR position, and then Rodgers comes out and contradicts your whole shtick, saying we need to "cUt rEpS" for talented guys we draft high (i.e. the thing you want us to do) like Watson and give more reps guys you complain about like Lazard, Jake Kumerow--whose release almost made Rodgers quit the team--, or a 50 year old Cobb. That's another debunk you never answer when you "explain."

It is such an exercise in futility.

rather your interested more in blaming Rodgers for the failures of the General Managers, and some of the coaches.

Correct, I am more interested in blaming the guy who deserves the most blame. And no, I am not interested in acting like other guys are comparably blameworthy to risk letting the main culprit off the hook. Deal with it!

I actually find it kind of disgusting to try to scapegoat the low-paid guys who are trying their best but are not as gifted or job secure like MVS or whoever... all to make sure the image of the tenured diva who is rich enough to buy them all their own mansions (which I would be fine with if he actually, you know, won us even 1 more 'chip) is kept spotless. That part also -really- does not sit right.

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 08:20

You defend Rodgers just to harp on how we "need" to put exorbitant resources into the WR position, and then Rodgers comes out and contradicts your whole shtick, saying we need to "cUt rEpS" for talented guys we draft high (i.e. the thing you want us to do) like Watson and give more reps guys you complain about like Lazard, Jake Kumerow--whose release almost made Rodgers quit the team--, or a 50 year old Cobb.

this is such complete horse &%$@ I shouldn't even respond.

the insanity of this whole receiver situation is to not allow yourself to be forced to deal with resigning Adams or go with a very inexperienced and low floor receiver group as we had to last year, and the QB having to build chemistry with raw players every season, that was why Rodgers wants receivers he already has chemistry with, talent wasn't the reason he wanted Cobb, Kumerow, Alison etc. back, it was familiarity, duh.

drafting high floor receivers every couple years gives a GM bargain ability when there contracts are due because he has other alternatives, instead of drafting a replacement for Adams, he drafted a replacement for Rodgers who easily could still play, and the result of that was what you got last year.

And I defended Rodgers because that was a lame ass thing to d, Guty is the person you should be upset with,

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 16:03

NCF wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 15:57

go pak go wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 15:17

The 4th quarter comeback thing was overblown.

BUT

2020, 2021, and 2022 Rodgers had the ball in Lambeau to keep the Packers season alive. He either was playing with the lead and needed to extend drives to end the game or needed a TD to take the lead and failed three years in a row.

In 2020, 2021, and 2022, the inability to take the game in your hands has validity.

This is true, but I will gladly throw out 2020. I had to double-check the stat lines again to be sure they were right, but Rodgers in the 2020 NFCCG was very good. Like, really, really good. Definitely outplayed Brady and that is really what the ask was heading into that game. He was the best player on the field. The INT wasn't his fault (should have been PI and a better receiver might have won the rep, anyway), Adams dropped the TD, Jones fumbled... that day the supporting cast let Rodgers down.

2021 and 2022 are the opposite. Rodgers was not solely to blame, but he definitely was not the best player on the field those days and whatever happened with the supporting cast (they were not great, either), Rodgers was abysmal.

I need to check stats as well, but off the top of my head I think SF kept the ball away from us by running for well over 200 yrds, if ya can't sustain drives ( and some of that could be Rodgers) then ya might go most of a quarter with your QB on the bench.

No. The Packers defense held SF to 212 total yards. 106 passing. 106 rushing.

The Packers defense held SF to 6 points.

NCF wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 15:57

go pak go wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 15:17

The 4th quarter comeback thing was overblown.

BUT

2020, 2021, and 2022 Rodgers had the ball in Lambeau to keep the Packers season alive. He either was playing with the lead and needed to extend drives to end the game or needed a TD to take the lead and failed three years in a row.

In 2020, 2021, and 2022, the inability to take the game in your hands has validity.

This is true, but I will gladly throw out 2020. I had to double-check the stat lines again to be sure they were right, but Rodgers in the 2020 NFCCG was very good. Like, really, really good. Definitely outplayed Brady and that is really what the ask was heading into that game. He was the best player on the field. The INT wasn't his fault (should have been PI and a better receiver might have won the rep, anyway), Adams dropped the TD, Jones fumbled... that day the supporting cast let Rodgers down.

2021 and 2022 are the opposite. Rodgers was not solely to blame, but he definitely was not the best player on the field those days and whatever happened with the supporting cast (they were not great, either), Rodgers was abysmal.

He had a good game. Brady had the picks. But Brady also had the three big plays.

Rodgers was let down by Adams on the TD, EQSB on the 2 pt conversion, and Lazard on the communication issue. Was also let down on a non DPI in the INT.

Rodgers also had a couple plays he messed up on. Missing Tonyan in the middle. Missing Lazard and throwing in dirt rather than trying to make a run at EZ.

I always felt he played a good game. But I can't say more than that. Anything more would have resulted in a W.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 08:43

the insanity of this whole receiver situation is to not allow yourself to be forced to deal with resigning Adams or go with a very inexperienced and low floor receiver group as we had to last year,

And what you miss is that Rodgers was an inextricable part of the "insanity" you complain about, not only in the sense that his bloated contract made it more difficult for us to keep the WR room intact, but also in the sense that he was telling them he was (and he *is*) content with these scrub players.

If we wanted the loaded WR corps. you dream of, he was always free to pursue that with some other team. Look at him now. He is going to a "better" WR situation and they are adding the same exact guys GB gave him because they know that's what he likes.

Instead he bitched at us for cutting Kumerow, a guy who wouldn't even make that 2011 team you pine for.

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 09:10

NCF wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 15:57

go pak go wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 15:17

The 4th quarter comeback thing was overblown.

BUT

2020, 2021, and 2022 Rodgers had the ball in Lambeau to keep the Packers season alive. He either was playing with the lead and needed to extend drives to end the game or needed a TD to take the lead and failed three years in a row.

In 2020, 2021, and 2022, the inability to take the game in your hands has validity.

This is true, but I will gladly throw out 2020. I had to double-check the stat lines again to be sure they were right, but Rodgers in the 2020 NFCCG was very good. Like, really, really good. Definitely outplayed Brady and that is really what the ask was heading into that game. He was the best player on the field. The INT wasn't his fault (should have been PI and a better receiver might have won the rep, anyway), Adams dropped the TD, Jones fumbled... that day the supporting cast let Rodgers down.

2021 and 2022 are the opposite. Rodgers was not solely to blame, but he definitely was not the best player on the field those days and whatever happened with the supporting cast (they were not great, either), Rodgers was abysmal.

He had a good game. Brady had the picks. But Brady also had the three big plays.

Rodgers was let down by Adams on the TD, EQSB on the 2 pt conversion, and Lazard on the communication issue. Was also let down on a non DPI in the INT.

Rodgers also had a couple plays he messed up on. Missing Tonyan in the middle. Missing Lazard and throwing in dirt rather than trying to make a run at EZ.

I always felt he played a good game. But I can't say more than that. Anything more would have resulted in a W.

thanks for the clarity.


thing is all players mess up, my point has always been that having more talent tends to balance out the times even talented players mess up, no one plays a perfect game, even Rodgers, I do contend though that he is/was usually our player that messed up the least, but usually the focal point when we lost, my defense of him centered on that.

And please don't repeat that stuff that he made the most there fore he deserves the blame cause money doesn't create mistake free football, that is such a benign reason to blame a player.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 08:43

and the QB having to build chemistry with raw players every season,

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE'D HAVE TO DO if we invest premium draft picks into WRs, LIKE YOU WANT!!!!!

You will literally even go against what you yourself want just to defend this bozo. It's unbelievable.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 08:43

that was why Rodgers wants receivers he already has chemistry with, talent wasn't the reason he wanted Cobb, Kumerow, Alison etc. back, it was familiarity, duh.

"I don't wanna throw to guys with talent but are raw and make rookie mistakes!"
---> okay, here's guys you're familiar with.
"I don't want to throw to them, they do not get open easily!"
--> okay, here's some talented guys who will get open if you just work with them a little.
"I don't wanna work with guys who are raw and might make mistakes!"
---> okay, here's guys you're familiar with.
"I don't want to throw to them, they do not get open easily!"

(... do I need to keep going, or are you going to fixate on the last point and make the next excuse like always?)

That is what is called Circular Logic.

I don't accept your explanations because they are absurdities like this, but maybe you are actually right and Rodgers really is just this irrational. If so, then we should have moved on even sooner. Even your defenses of him are damning.

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 09:24

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 08:43

the insanity of this whole receiver situation is to not allow yourself to be forced to deal with resigning Adams or go with a very inexperienced and low floor receiver group as we had to last year,

And what you miss is that Rodgers was an inextricable part of the "insanity" you complain about, not only in the sense that his bloated contract made it more difficult for us to keep the WR room intact, but also in the sense that he was telling them he was (and he *is*) content with these scrub players.

If we wanted the loaded WR corps. you dream of, he was always free to pursue that with some other team. Look at him now. He is going to a "better" WR situation and they are adding the same exact guys GB gave him because they know that's what he likes.

Instead he bitched at us for cutting Kumerow, a guy who wouldn't even make that 2011 team you pine for.

come on, quit acting like do do, Rodgers didn't stump those players because of talent, and you damn well know he didn't so quit spouting that non sense

and it's not Rodgers contract for us not drafting high floor receivers for 7 years, that was the GM's fault.

004 just brought that list of teams with highest cap cost for receivers, even when we had tae we wouldn't have been on it, and as I said the way to never be on it and also have quality receivers ( more then just ONE) is to refresh the position every 2 or 3 drafts with a Watson caliber player, that is what And Reid has been doing, that is what Thompson did when he took over, and that is what Gutekunst is now doing with Love.

it is a track record of success, and your going to sit here and argue with me over this , I didn't fall off the turnup truck last night Labrev

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 09:28

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE'D HAVE TO DO if we invest premium draft picks into WRs, LIKE YOU WANT!!!!!

seriously Labrev do you ever look at history, that is not how it works, when you do as Thompson did Rodgers always had at least 3 quality receivers he had chemistry with and a 4th grooming up, then Ted stopped drafting receivers and that is what started a steady decline right till the only one left was Adams, MCS EQB, others took longer to catch on and never really did.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 09:45

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 09:28

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE'D HAVE TO DO if we invest premium draft picks into WRs, LIKE YOU WANT!!!!!

seriously Labrev do you ever look at history, that is not how it works, when you do as Thompson did Rodgers always had at least 3 quality receivers he had chemistry with and a 4th grooming up, then Ted stopped drafting receivers and that is what started a steady decline right till the only one left was Adams, MCS EQB, others took longer to catch on and never really did.

Allen Lazard destroys this logic. Rodgers loved him, lobbied for him, and he eventually followed Rodgers to NY. Same with Cobb. So in Rodger's eyes, he had a good couple of WR's along with Davante and MVS....you know....those years he won the MVP and had monster regular season stats. At least that's what history tells me.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 10:46

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 09:45

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 09:28

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE'D HAVE TO DO if we invest premium draft picks into WRs, LIKE YOU WANT!!!!!

seriously Labrev do you ever look at history, that is not how it works, when you do as Thompson did Rodgers always had at least 3 quality receivers he had chemistry with and a 4th grooming up, then Ted stopped drafting receivers and that is what started a steady decline right till the only one left was Adams, MCS EQB, others took longer to catch on and never really did.

Allen Lazard destroys this logic. Rodgers loved him, lobbied for him, and he eventually followed Rodgers to NY. Same with Cobb. So in Rodger's eyes, he had a good couple of WR's along with Davante and MVS....you know....those years he won the MVP and had monster regular season stats. At least that's what history tells me.

Lazard was no more then a tier 4 or 5 receiver just as MVS and the others till at least year 3, Lazard had his best year last season because there was no one else till Watson broke out, like Brady with Gronk, any QB is bound to want a player he has chemistry established with, human nature, and it is smart for a GM to listen to that, doesn't mean in any way that any of them will be featured as Gronk was, not many are as good as he is, but a coach can use them sparingly and neither of Lazard or Cobb ar4e stopping the jets from bringing in others, just depends on team make up.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 10:59

Acrobat wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 10:46

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 09:45

seriously Labrev do you ever look at history, that is not how it works, when you do as Thompson did Rodgers always had at least 3 quality receivers he had chemistry with and a 4th grooming up, then Ted stopped drafting receivers and that is what started a steady decline right till the only one left was Adams, MCS EQB, others took longer to catch on and never really did.

Allen Lazard destroys this logic. Rodgers loved him, lobbied for him, and he eventually followed Rodgers to NY. Same with Cobb. So in Rodger's eyes, he had a good couple of WR's along with Davante and MVS....you know....those years he won the MVP and had monster regular season stats. At least that's what history tells me.

Lazard was no more then a tier 4 or 5 receiver just as MVS and the others till at least year 3, Lazard had his best year last season because there was no one else till Watson broke out, like Brady with Gronk, any QB is bound to want a player he has chemistry established with, human nature, and it is smart for a GM to listen to that, doesn't mean in any way that any of them will be featured as Gronk was, not many are as good as he is, but a coach can use them sparingly and neither of Lazard or Cobb ar4e stopping the jets from bringing in others, just depends on team make up.

Lazard just got a 4 year contract worth more than 10mil per year. MVS had a monster game to catapult KC to the Super Bowl. So you are factually incorrect.

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 16:18

APB wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 16:07

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 May 2023 16:03

last year was a complete lack of chemistry with receivers...

Hmmm...

I wonder what could have been done to maybe alleviate some of those chemistry issues...?

obviously not attending OTA's and off season stuff didn't help, but again, if your having to try and build chemistry every season from complete scratch with new receivers it gets old, not defending that, but we know just how that stuff gets, how'd ya like to train in a new recruits every month.

yes we paid him a lot of dough to do it, but human natured don't give two hoots about that, reality that s how burn out starts, If Labrev was right about anything, that is what I think we saw, specially once it became obvious that Watkins was washed up, it was beyond obvious to me that Rodgers became frustrated.

I'm really missing some of the logic behind this apparent obsession regarding the lack of receiver talent with the MVP QB who is thankfully no longer with us.
Turn the table a bit for a minute....
1988 with Majik and Wrong splitting time at QB Sterling Sharpe snagged 55 as an unproven rookie. Then with Majik in 1989 Sterling snagged 90.
Other WRs were guys like Perry Kemp and Walter Stanley. Just sayin'

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

10 May 2023 11:22

1988 with Majik and Wrong splitting time at QB Sterling Sharpe snagged 55 as an unproven rookie. Then with Majik in 1989 Sterling snagged 90.
Other WRs were guys like Perry Kemp and Walter Stanley. Just sayin'

Lmao, I've never heard 88 referred to as Majik and Wrong but its so perfect. Wright was terrible.