Packers Huddle

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:49

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

you, and others like you, really a hoot to hear you guys complain every time he isn't perfect, to now act as though you never made the remarks.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:43

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

Way too much dissecting of one game in a much larger conversation.

Let me break it down:

- Rodgers is awesome, one of the best ever.
- But some feel that he hasn't always risen above when it matters most.
- Yes there are definitely factors in play other than Rodgers that have resulted in NFCCG losses.
- No, no one is saying that those losses are all Rodgers' fault.

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

Yoop wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:41

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.

So no one, thanks.

And Mike, per usual, I'm not even quite sure who you are replying to, because you certainly didn't address my question, and definitely not in the context it was being discussed.

Yoop wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:52

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:49

bud fox wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 06:54

The people who make arguments against him

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

you, and others like you, really a hoot to hear you guys complain every time he isn't perfect, to now act as though you never made the remarks.

No, no we don't. We don't complain every time he isn't perfect. No acting required, we never made those remarks.

BF004 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:53

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

Yoop wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:41

BF004 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 06:02

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.

So no one, thanks.

And Mike, per usual, I'm not even quite sure who you are replying to, because you certainly didn't address my question, and definitely not in the context it was being discussed.

the people that no matter what other players do always come back to Rodgers should have done this, should have done that, know who they are, for Christ sakes even after Bosticks blunder Rodgers was blamed because he couldn't somehow win that game, don't ask me to name names, those people will just deny it.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:09

Yoop wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:52

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:49

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

you, and others like you, really a hoot to hear you guys complain every time he isn't perfect, to now act as though you never made the remarks.

No, no we don't. We don't complain every time he isn't perfect. No acting required, we never made those remarks.

bs, you rag on Rodgers every chance you get, been doing it for a decade.

So no one, thanks.

When this was said "It is obvious there are people on this forum that believe Rodgers impact has not been great".

I asked who, and no one can give a name or a quote or a post.

Got it.

You'd think for as long as this community has existed, "naming names" wouldn't be that hard and that we'd be past general passive aggressive statements.

BF004 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:19

So no one, thanks.

When this was said "It is obvious there are people on this forum that believe Rodgers impact has not been great".

I asked who, and no one can give a name or a quote or a post.

Got it.

come on now, you know thats true, some posters here have been overly critical of Rodgers for a long time, when he is about as perfect as a player can be they reap accolades on him, as though there being fare, other players will bone it so bad it would take a miracle from Rodgers to win, yet Rodgers is who they blame for the loss, happens regularly, I'am not about to name names, I already have to tip toe in this place just to get along with people, or be suspended as has happened so often already.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:26

You'd think for as long as this community has existed, "naming names" wouldn't be that hard and that we'd be past general passive aggressive statements.

who are you to know so much about this forum yet only been a member for a couple months?

Yoop wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:31

Acrobat wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:26

You'd think for as long as this community has existed, "naming names" wouldn't be that hard and that we'd be past general passive aggressive statements.

who are you to know so much about this forum yet only been a member for a couple months?

Is that in dog months?

Will be moving all the AR convo from Packers news thread here.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:33

Yoop wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:31

Acrobat wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:26

You'd think for as long as this community has existed, "naming names" wouldn't be that hard and that we'd be past general passive aggressive statements.

who are you to know so much about this forum yet only been a member for a couple months?

Is that in dog months?

I knew I shouldn't have asked the question, because your reply right now is what I expected, have a good day.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:33

Will be moving all the AR convo from Packers news thread here.

You're either a glutton for punishment or extremely bored...

On a side note, those who continue to restate your opinions in post-after-post, thread-after-thread can now re-post those same opinions in this thread just in case you feel like your thoughts weren't conveyed with your previous 937 iterations.

Yoop wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:35

Acrobat wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:33

Yoop wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:31

who are you to know so much about this forum yet only been a member for a couple months?

Is that in dog months?

I knew I shouldn't have asked the question, because your reply right now is what I expected, have a good day.

Well yeah of course my response was snarky. I've been a member of this community since the 2007 season.

I am quite sure Acrobat was a member of this community before I was.

Yoop wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:17

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:09

Yoop wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:52

you, and others like you, really a hoot to hear you guys complain every time he isn't perfect, to now act as though you never made the remarks.

No, no we don't. We don't complain every time he isn't perfect. No acting required, we never made those remarks.

bs, you rag on Rodgers every chance you get, been doing it for a decade.

No, I have pointed out that he is not infallible, just as I have with every other player.

There is not a poster on here that believe Rodgers' impact on the Packers has not been great.

The problem right now is you are arguing things that are not being argued. Typical.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:53

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:43

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

Way too much dissecting of one game in a much larger conversation.

Let me break it down:

- Rodgers is awesome, one of the best ever.
- But some feel that he hasn't always risen above when it matters most.
- Yes there are definitely factors in play other than Rodgers that have resulted in NFCCG losses.
- No, no one is saying that those losses are all Rodgers' fault.

Add:
- Nobody thinks the team does not owe its relative success to Rodgers's play at QB.
- That Rodgers's play at QB will be easily replaceable (willingness to accept the risk =/= inability to appreciate the risk).

I am just going to call this for what it is: Rodgers Defense Force cannot fathom people having a nuanced position on Rodgers, so they're convinced that people who are critical of him are as rigid/black-and-white in their thinking as Rodgers Defense Force themselves are in their adulation of him.

It's projection, plain and simple.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:39

Yoop wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:35

Acrobat wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:33

Is that in dog months?

I knew I shouldn't have asked the question, because your reply right now is what I expected, have a good day.

Well yeah of course my response was snarky. I've been a member of this community since the 2007 season.

why the name change, who where you prior, I have no idea who I'am talking to except a bran new member?

Labrev wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 08:45

Acrobat wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:53

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2021 07:43

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

Way too much dissecting of one game in a much larger conversation.

Let me break it down:

- Rodgers is awesome, one of the best ever.
- But some feel that he hasn't always risen above when it matters most.
- Yes there are definitely factors in play other than Rodgers that have resulted in NFCCG losses.
- No, no one is saying that those losses are all Rodgers' fault.

Add:
- Nobody thinks the team does not owe its relative success to Rodgers's play at QB.
- That Rodgers's play at QB will be easily replaceable (willingness to accept the risk =/= inability to appreciate the risk).

I am just going to call this for what it is: Rodgers Defense Force cannot fathom people having a nuanced position on Rodgers, so they're convinced that people who are critical of him are as rigid/black-and-white in their thinking as Rodgers Defense Force themselves are in their adulation of him.

It's projection, plain and simple.

Yep, and a lot of my "It's Jordan Love Time" feelings are more about the fact that the current recipe has almost made it many times, and hell, if Rodgers comes back next year, we might win the Super Bowl! But....the other part of me thinks that if we had a top 10 QB playing for less money and had the cap to just absolutely stack a defense, like a historically good defense, that having a good QB, great RB's, great O-line. and great D could also bring a Championship. Knowing that Rodgers' days are numbered, I'm just ready to jump on that ship, especially if his attitude would become a locker room distraction.