Packers Huddle

go pak go wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022 10:01

Acrobat wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022 09:05

I said it in the other thread too, but I really believe now that the Packers are going to find a way (I am not a cap specialist so $%@# me) to keep Rodgers in GB for the rest of his career and I wouldn't be surprised if a deal is announced within the next 3 weeks.

I'm kind of thinking that is the case too.

I don't agree with the decision unless we can make a deal that realistically gives us a shot to stay competitive (meaning stop giving a very rich man a lot of money). But I think too it's going to happen.

Yeah, I am putting some blind faith that Russ Ball will be able to figure it out. I do fear that the best teams that Rodgers had are behind him and that we'll have him for 4-5 years and the teams will still be competitive but not as much. My hope is that one of the teams over the next few years catches fire at the right time even if they don't resemble the squad we assembled this year.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022 10:05

go pak go wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022 10:01

Acrobat wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022 09:05

I said it in the other thread too, but I really believe now that the Packers are going to find a way (I am not a cap specialist so $%@# me) to keep Rodgers in GB for the rest of his career and I wouldn't be surprised if a deal is announced within the next 3 weeks.

I'm kind of thinking that is the case too.

I don't agree with the decision unless we can make a deal that realistically gives us a shot to stay competitive (meaning stop giving a very rich man a lot of money). But I think too it's going to happen.

Yeah, I am putting some blind faith that Russ Ball will be able to figure it out. I do fear that the best teams that Rodgers had are behind him and that we'll have him for 4-5 years and the teams will still be competitive but not as much. My hope is that one of the teams over the next few years catches fire at the right time even if they don't resemble the squad we assembled this year.

Russ Ball isn't this some high-level genius. This stuff isn't that hard. It's simply kicking the expense to future years.

Basically our option to keep Rodgers is we need to convert roughly $20 million of his CY cap to signing bonus. We then need to move from guys like Z Smith or any other position where we can trim depth. A serious question needs to happen around Adams. And I'm serious here. Keeping Adams handcuffs us a lot.

We then need to then make a lot of dummy deals for other players we want to keep for the next 2 - 3 year run and push some of their cap into 2024 and beyond (think Aaron Jones, Amos, Clark, Bakh). Finally, we have to find more diamond in the roughs (like Douglas) and hit on some drafted players these next two year to fill our undeniable holes because we are keeping Rodgers.

Ball's job is easy. The real job is how committed is Rodgers to actually winning, how good is Gute at finding below market players to subsidize keeping Rodgers and how much is the franchise willing to be in absolute cap hell 3 years from now.

My stance has always been the same. We likely can't field a team like we did in 2020 and 2021. We would have to get so unbelievably lucky. All our star players are only getting more expensive (because of how the contracts were set up) and getting older (which would expect a decline in play).

I view the Packers with Rodgers more like the 2019 Patriots than I do like the 2020 Bucs if Rodgers decides to come back.

I believe he will almost for-sure be a Packer next year.

I think his fate beyond 2022 will be contingent on Love's development at the end of the season. If Love still does not look starting-caliber, then I think that they have to pull the plug on that project (if the light does not come on by Year 3, it ain't gonna happen) and for-sure commit to Rodgers until he hangs 'em up. If Love does become competent, then they have a choice, and I think they would go with the younger guy... but this is the bigger "if" of the two scenarios.

When you think about this, imagine the alternate reality where Jordan Love went in and just looked awesome against KC last year (and to a much lessor degree, the Detroit game). I don't think there would be any debate and it would all be inevitable that Rodgers is getting traded.

Alas, here we are.

Labrev wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022 10:34

I believe he will almost for-sure be a Packer next year.

I think his fate beyond 2022 will be contingent on Love's development at the end of the season. If Love still does not look starting-caliber, then I think that they have to pull the plug on that project (if the light does not come on by Year 3, it ain't gonna happen) and for-sure commit to Rodgers until he hangs 'em up. If Love does become competent, then they have a choice, and I think they would go with the younger guy... but this is the bigger "if" of the two scenarios.

None of this is contingent on Love.

The choice and control is with Rodgers - he made sure of that last year.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022 12:35

When you think about this, imagine the alternate reality where Jordan Love went in and just looked awesome against KC last year (and to a much lessor degree, the Detroit game). I don't think there would be any debate and it would all be inevitable that Rodgers is getting traded.

Alas, here we are.

Yeah. He even didn't have to look awesome. I wish he just didn't look like a liability.

He looked like an absolute liability vs KC. He did look better vs Detroit, but when plays are there to be made....you gotta make em. I say that about Rodgers and I mean that above Love too. He had the play to EQSB to tie that game. You have to make that play. The fact his throw was so off and "off on the wrong side" is definitely concerning.

Now that being said, Rodgers has had some sh*t games too the last two years. If you were to judge Rodgers vs the Saints, Tampa in October 2020, against SF January 2022, a number of games in 2019, you would also come away not too pleased.

We all like to point at that 2007 Dallas game and say, "see..I knew" but the reality is we had no clue even after 2008 what this guy was going to turn into. We didn't really start knowing it was the right thing to move on until after the SB and especially 2011 and beyond.

Maybe the team will start to get better throughout the year instead of thinking they are golden bc they beat up on the bears and lions and start to feel real proud

I mean it's not like the Packers beat the:
playoff Cardinals
playoff Steelers
NFCCG 49ers
AFC Champion Bengals
Super Bowl Champion Rams


Oh wait, they did... The only playoff team they played in the regular season and did not beat was the Chiefs...

Yeah. By all intents and purposes the Packers did get better throughout the year. Rodgers was a whole new QB after the Q2 at Minnesota and beyond. The defense was great all year but definitely peaked in the postseason.

We were all very confident going into that game for a reason. We were all confident after we scored an easy first TD and then Z Smith gets a sack on his first play since week 1 for a reason.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022 12:58

I mean it's not like the Packers beat the:
playoff Cardinals
playoff Steelers
NFCCG 49ers
AFC Champion Bengals
Super Bowl Champion Rams


Oh wait, they did... The only playoff team they played in the regular season and did not beat was the Chiefs...

I would have been happier had they beat a playoff team in the playoffs. Oh wait, they didnt. Given ur logic I guarantee we beat the Chiefs....

Realist wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022 17:10

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022 12:58

I mean it's not like the Packers beat the:
playoff Cardinals
playoff Steelers
NFCCG 49ers
AFC Champion Bengals
Super Bowl Champion Rams


Oh wait, they did... The only playoff team they played in the regular season and did not beat was the Chiefs...

I would have been happier had they beat a playoff team in the playoffs. Oh wait, they didnt. Given ur logic I guarantee we beat the Chiefs....

Looks like my comment went over your head, or you didn't follow the thread. It was pointing out that we didn't just feast on &%$@ teams in the regular season leading to an overinflated record. That was the Eagles. Commendable effort on trying to be witty though.

I would have rather been 9-7 and then won 4 playoff games.

We played in the easiest division in the NFC. Even easier than the god awful NFC East. We did get up and play well against many quality opponents, but we basically had several bye weeks built in too.

This is common though for most teams other than probably members of the battle tested NFC West.

However, knowing we were only competing for seeding and enjoying a cake walk in terms of the division race allowed us think "We were all good" or "good enough to get by" in areas that would prove to be fatal flaws. Most obviously I am speaking of STs. Then I would say the WR position. This is because EVERY year the O looks good and is statistically very good through the regular season, then we play Very Good to Great defenses who lock down Davante and we havent practiced the O without forcing him the ball because its fun and we can.

Further, the STs cost us a win in the playoffs, in a tougher division it could have cost us a chance to host a playoff game...which may have forced the problem to be fixed earlier in the season instead of feeling false security that it was ever possible to win a SB with STs in that state.

Yeah I don't buy it. This whole, "blaming our division" has been brought up before.

This is all bar talk at this point.

I read for years on this forum that Brady has so many rings because he was in the AFC East which guaranteed him a top 2 seed because of playing in such a bad division and then all needed to do was win two games (one of them always being at home) and he is in the SB.

Now because the Packers have an easy division it's because they weren't "battle tested" enough. All this stuff is just straw grasping to explain January happenings.

The Packers drew the NFC West, and played the top 2 teams in the AFC on the road. Our schedule was plenty tough. We played all four Conference Championship teams. We also played two other playoff teams as well as the conference's 8 seed. We were definitely battle tested enough in the season.

If Rodgers, Adams and MLF haven't figured out that playoff football is different by now, then that is on them. Which is why I want to move on because they had their shot. The whole STs thing...our STs cost us at least 2 wins as it was. That's not a division being bad thing...that is a coach simply sitting on his hands thing.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022 17:41

We played in the easiest division in the NFC. Even easier than the god awful NFC East. We did get up and play well against many quality opponents, but we basically had several bye weeks built in too.

This is common though for most teams other than probably members of the battle tested NFC West.

However, knowing we were only competing for seeding and enjoying a cake walk in terms of the division race allowed us think "We were all good" or "good enough to get by" in areas that would prove to be fatal flaws. Most obviously I am speaking of STs. Then I would say the WR position. This is because EVERY year the O looks good and is statistically very good through the regular season, then we play Very Good to Great defenses who lock down Davante and we havent practiced the O without forcing him the ball because its fun and we can.

Further, the STs cost us a win in the playoffs, in a tougher division it could have cost us a chance to host a playoff game...which may have forced the problem to be fixed earlier in the season instead of feeling false security that it was ever possible to win a SB with STs in that state.

Will be interesting to see if the 2022 opponents fixes or exacerbates the problem. Without yet knowing which free agents move where or which trades occur ...... first blush aims toward a 14-3 or better record and another home playoff game.

HOME
Chicago
Detroit
Minnesota
Dallas
New York Giants
New England
New York Jets
Tennessee
Los Angeles Rams

AWAY
Chicago
Detroit
Minnesota
Philadelphia
Washington
Buffalo
Miami
Tampa Bay

go pak go wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022 18:02

If Rodgers, Adams and MLF haven't figured out that playoff football is different by now, then that is on them. Which is why I want to move on because they had their shot. The whole STs thing...our STs cost us at least 2 wins as it was. That's not a division being bad thing...that is a coach simply sitting on his hands thing.

Now that's the spirit!

go pak go wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022 18:02

Yeah I don't buy it. This whole, "blaming our division" has been brought up before.

This is all bar talk at this point.

I read for years on this forum that Brady has so many rings because he was in the AFC East which guaranteed him a top 2 seed because of playing in such a bad division and then all needed to do was win two games (one of them always being at home) and he is in the SB.

Now because the Packers have an easy division it's because they weren't "battle tested" enough. All this stuff is just straw grasping to explain January happenings.

The Packers drew the NFC West, and played the top 2 teams in the AFC on the road. Our schedule was plenty tough. We played all four Conference Championship teams. We also played two other playoff teams as well as the conference's 8 seed. We were definitely battle tested enough in the season.

If Rodgers, Adams and MLF haven't figured out that playoff football is different by now, then that is on them. Which is why I want to move on because they had their shot. The whole STs thing...our STs cost us at least 2 wins as it was. That's not a division being bad thing...that is a coach simply sitting on his hands thing.

im not saying we didnt play quality opponents throughout the year. And I do agree the Pats did it right..and better than the Packers. The Pats knew they had the division wrapped up in week one and had their eye on ONE prize the entire year...which was the super bowl. How many times did the Pats start slow and then no one wanted to play them by the end of the year. Each week they would work to get better and better and improve themselves.

The Packers didnt do that. The Packers didnt have a singular focus. The Packers had a QB that wanted to win an MVP so they would throw the ball on the one yard line instead of just handing the ball off to Dillon or Jones. Brady would throw to any and everyone, Rodgers wanted to throw to Tonyan in 2020 to help get him paid, and Adams in 2021 to help get him paid. I feel the Packers would win and feel good about themselves. I didnt see an offense that started at level one in the first quarter of the season and then evolved to a whole new world of complexity by the end of the season. I didnt see an urgency to deal with STs, because the record reflected everything was all good.

I agree an easy division is awesome if you can keep your eye on one prize and critique yourself every week even in a win...that wasnt the Packers though. I wonder if for their case a few more losses that made them evaluate who they were and forced them to address issues would have served them better in the playoffs.

The Packers dont win anymore super bowls with Rodgers because Rodgers isnt singularly focused on winning Super Bowls.
and
Lafleur doesnt have the respect his record would indicate he should have because he 1) has Rodgers as his QB and 2) has come up small in the postseason...where legacies are altered and defined.

Yeah I felt like the Packers had the eye on the prize all year. They wanted that #1 seed and chased it hard. Rodgers talked about how January and February is life changing. They played starters in Detroit to "stay focused" and got pounded for it in the media by some for doing so. They were aggressive on pushing players back from injury.

I remember in 2015 the opposite was said that the Packers just looked too much for January and didn't worry enough about November, etc.

You just can't win when you are a loser. Everything you do will be turned against you and that is exactly what is happening here.

I don't think there is any philosophical reason to explain us losing beyond the fact that Rodgers gets tunnel vision and plays tight in big games when pressure is in his face. He has many moments, mostly regular season but some postseason moments of insane play when the pressure is on but largely his playoff performance outside of 2015 and 2016 playoffs when the pressure is on is just really bad.

And I can relate. I too am not good under pressure.

But it's absolutley disappointing. These last two years we got everything we wanted. 3 turnovers forced by the defense in 2020. Defense playing great in 2021. Games are at Lambeau and your two biggest stars, (Adams dropping a TD and Rodgers not throwing to wide open players on critical plays) let the opportunity they wanted so badly slip.

Rams ended up 10th (.483) in easiest SOS, Packers were 8th (.479).

Packers played 4 games against teams that won 6 or less games. The Rams played 4 games against teams that won 6 or less games.

This entire line of thinking that the Packers lost focus because they had more "cake walk" games or that their schedule wasn't as hard is way off base as an excuse to why they lost in January.