Page 28 of 47
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 19:51
by Acrobat
I actually disagree with Brandt for the reason being that the Packers don’t have to release any statements at all because Rodgers hasn’t publicly demanded a trade. There aren’t even reports that Rodgers is asking for a trade.
If the Packers suddenly released a statement that they weren’t trading him, I’d actually be alarmed that the relationship is not as stable as it seems right now.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 20:20
by wallyuwl
Acrobat wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022 19:51
I actually disagree with Brandt for the reason being that the Packers don’t have to release any statements at all because Rodgers hasn’t publicly demanded a trade. There aren’t even reports that Rodgers is asking for a trade.
If the Packers suddenly released a statement that they weren’t trading him, I’d actually be alarmed that the relationship is not as stable as it seems right now.
Brandt doesn't have a lot of insight on this stuff anymore. Too far/long removed. That tweet just seems like one designed to get clicks.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 20:25
by Labrev
Yeah, haven't watched the video yet (will when I get a sec), but when I've heard Brandt weigh-in on this topic, he seems to take it as a given that Love will definitely play because we invested a 1st-round pick into him and that ~'you draft someone in the 1st to play.'
I dunno, I don't think Love not ever getting the nod to be QB1 with us is as out-of-the-question as he seems to think. The cap may give us a reason to do it, but that does not seem to be part of Brandt's stance, just the idea that it's just how FO's operate.
Sure, it would be unusual for a highly-drafted QB to never get a long look, but unusual things do happen sometimes, the circumstances here are pretty unusual anyway, and coaches usually know what they have in guys well before playing them.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 20:31
by Drj820
if Love never plays a down for the Packers, and the Packers only win divisions and no super bowls until Rodgers retires, I wonder if it will be recognized as a blemish on Guteys resume or if everyone will pretend the wasting of a first round pick and drama it caused never happened.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 20:34
by wallyuwl
Drj820 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022 20:31
if Love never plays a down for the Packers, and the Packers only win divisions and no super bowls until Rodgers retires, I wonder if it will be recognized as a blemish on Guteys resume or if everyone will pretend the wasting of a first round pick and drama it caused never happened.
It is already looked at a mistake (drafting Love) by most.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 22:09
by Pugger
Drj820 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022 20:31
if Love never plays a down for the Packers, and the Packers only win divisions and no super bowls until Rodgers retires, I wonder if it will be recognized as a blemish on Guteys resume or if everyone will pretend the wasting of a first round pick and drama it caused never happened.
If Love never pans out - and that is still up for debate - he won't be the first first round pick to flame out. It wasn't until his 3rd year before MM and company felt Rodgers was ready so I'm not ready to write Love's football obit yet.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 22:51
by texas
go pak go wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022 18:59
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.
Yeah, and that's why I guess my choice is to keep Rodgers but find a way to take it out of his hands in the playoffs when it matters, like we discussed a couple of weeks ago.
With him, we pretty much know we're getting there, despite whatever we have on offense. Pettine's D was good enough, and Barry's D is downright good.
But once we're there, he always $%@# up. So I guess my perfect plan would be:
1) Re-sign him
2) Get rid of Davante
3) Re-sign as much of last year's defense as possible, but we can let go of Z if we need to do so because he didn't play anyway (would rather keep him if possible)
4) Double down on another RB built like Dillon. Build our RB like Shanahan does in SF.
5) Somehow convince Rodgers to accept some QB run plays or RPOs.
I don't see Rodgers buying into #2 or #5, but this is my dream scenario.
Frankly in the playoffs, Davante is a net negative. For one, he tends not to be as elite as he is in the regular season. Also, we can use that salary cap room elsewhere. But the big reason is that he greatly contributes to Rodgers' tunnel vision. Rodgers always seems to do better throughout his career when he spreads it around more.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 18 Feb 2022 06:12
by Scott4Pack
If Guty rides the Rodgers' train until the guy retires or declines, nobody should suggest that he made a bad call on this.
If the Packers take Aaron for as long as he plays elite football, that is always 100% a good decision. And I think that is what Guty and MLF think. As much as I'd prefer to move on (about 60%/40%) with life after Rodgers, I can't fault the Packers if Aaron stays for 1, 2, or 3 more years of excellent football throughout December (not January).
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 18 Feb 2022 07:00
by RingoCStarrQB
Treat him as Big Ben was treated. Keep #12 in Green Bay until he retires, regardless how much he degrades, under performs and loses Lambeau Field playoff games, challenges the front office, creates unnecessary drama, etc. Otherwise maybe, just maybe, we'll be stuck in a long painful rut later. Oh..too bad the "G" isn't still on the jersey sleeves, but then again no need for the number on the pants.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 18 Feb 2022 07:24
by Scott4Pack
Jerry Tagge, Scott Hunter, Jim Del Gazo, etc. It was all junk since the John Hadl fiasco (or was it a debacle?). It took forever to land good managers for the team who would draft and acquire good talent, let alone an elite QB.
The 80s and early 90s were so bad, it was tempting to become a Vikings fan.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 18 Feb 2022 07:46
by APB
RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑18 Feb 2022 07:00
Treat him as Big Ben was treated. Keep #12 in Green Bay until he retires, regardless how much he degrades, under performs and loses Lambeau Field playoff games, challenges the front office, creates unnecessary drama, etc. Otherwise maybe, just maybe, we'll be stuck in a long painful rut later. Oh..too bad the "G" isn't still on the jersey sleeves, but then again no need for the number on the pants.
Today on "
Random Thoughts with Ringo"...
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 18 Feb 2022 08:33
by Acrobat
RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑18 Feb 2022 07:00
Treat him as Big Ben was treated. Keep #12 in Green Bay until he retires, regardless how much he degrades, under performs and loses Lambeau Field playoff games, challenges the front office, creates unnecessary drama, etc. Otherwise maybe, just maybe, we'll be stuck in a long painful rut later. Oh..too bad the "G" isn't still on the jersey sleeves, but then again no need for the number on the pants.
Numbers on the pants are useful when you think about it. If you lose your pants, it's easier to find them.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 18 Feb 2022 08:35
by Pckfn23
Acrobat wrote: ↑18 Feb 2022 08:33
Numbers on the pants are useful when you think about it. If you lose your pants, it's easier to find them.
Do you often lose your pants?
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 18 Feb 2022 08:39
by Acrobat
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑18 Feb 2022 08:35
Acrobat wrote: ↑18 Feb 2022 08:33
Numbers on the pants are useful when you think about it. If you lose your pants, it's easier to find them.
Do you often lose your pants?
It is an ongoing issue for sure.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 18 Feb 2022 08:54
by Yoop
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑18 Feb 2022 07:24
Jerry Tagge, Scott Hunter, Jim Del Gazo, etc. It was all junk since the John Hadl fiasco (or was it a debacle?). It took forever to land good managers for the team who would draft and acquire good talent, let alone an elite QB.
The 80s and early 90s were so bad, it was tempting to become a Vikings fan.
plenty of blame to go around for the 70's and 80's debacle, you might like what Christy has to say about it, one bad decision after another, till Harlan brought in a outsider in Ron Wolf, interesting that Harlan received the most heated Packer fan responces after the trade for Favre and the drafting of Rodgers, I imagine the drafting of Love caused plenty of negative emails, some good questions and answers from Christy.
https://www.packers.com/news/the-tumult ... s-20476856
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 18 Feb 2022 08:56
by Drj820
I like [mention]RingoCStarrQB[/mention] stories and historical posts. Sometimes some of the most interesting posts you may find all day on here. Offseason especially.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 18 Feb 2022 09:22
by paco
Acrobat wrote: ↑18 Feb 2022 08:39
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑18 Feb 2022 08:35
Acrobat wrote: ↑18 Feb 2022 08:33
Numbers on the pants are useful when you think about it. If you lose your pants, it's easier to find them.
Do you often lose your pants?
It is an ongoing issue for sure.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 18 Feb 2022 14:49
by RingoCStarrQB
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑18 Feb 2022 07:24
Jerry Tagge, Scott Hunter, Jim Del Gazo, etc. It was all junk since the John Hadl fiasco (or was it a debacle?). It took forever to land good managers for the team who would draft and acquire good talent, let alone an elite QB.
The 80s and early 90s were so bad, it was tempting to become a Vikings fan.
This #12 jersey along with JJ #83, Lofton #80 and Coffman #82 in 1983 was a rare 1980s bright spot from an offensive perspective.
1989 with Majik and Sharpe is worth noting as well.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 18 Feb 2022 18:48
by Labrev
RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑18 Feb 2022 07:00
Treat him as Big Ben was treated.
We may not have a choice if Love does not make a jump in Year 3
But I gotta say, I don't find being Pittsburgh (during the latter half of Ben's career) a very appealing proposition.
I don't see a meaningful difference between a mediocre team that rarely makes the playoffs versus a good team that often does but never goes the distance. At most, a good team that makes the playoffs a lot is more entertaining to watch during the regular season. But to me, that alone does not justify a model that produces 0 trophies. You might as well just be the mediocre team that rarely makes it.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 18 Feb 2022 18:54
by go pak go
Labrev wrote: ↑18 Feb 2022 18:48
RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑18 Feb 2022 07:00
Treat him as Big Ben was treated.
We may not have a choice if Love does not make a jump in Year 3
But I gotta say, I don't find being Pittsburgh (during the latter half of Ben's career) a very appealing proposition.
I don't see a meaningful difference between a mediocre team that rarely makes the playoffs versus a good team that often does but never goes the distance. At most, a good team that makes the playoffs a lot is more entertaining to watch during the regular season. But to me, that alone does not justify a model that produces 0 trophies. You might as well just be the mediocre team that rarely makes it.
Yeah. I have to say 2015, even though we made the Divisional Round, had to be my least favorite seasons watching the Packers.
It was just so boring. At least 2005 and 2018 provided a new hope at the end of the year. 2015 was just so blah.
I really don't want to go back to the world of 10-7 and sneaking in with an exit either at WC or Divisional Round to a clearly superior opponent.