Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:21

Acrobat wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:09

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:07

seriously how could they possibly know that, 50% are basically busts, and of the other 50% only about 10% are above average starters.

Same logic is that we don't know how much longer Rodgers is going to be elite. History proves that QB's generally hit a wall around 40, with Brady being the one exception. So you gotta play your cards accordingly.

OK, but Rodgers in no way appeared to be slowing down last year or really the year before in MLF's new offense, and prior the whole offense was a complete mess.

I think this has to do with a culmination of events, first the big contract given by Murphy, and then a year later Guty up and drafting Love with out even a heads up to Rodgers, instead of a month or so prior to the draft telling Rodgers we may take a QB if the draft falls a certain way as so many other GMs have reportedly done, out of the blue he trades a 4th to move up 4 spots to take Love.

obviously we scout all positions, QB included, so Guty new long before the draft who Love was, there has been a ton of defense concerning taking Love, but he was not needed, and according to Rodgers play wouldn't be for years barring a season ender injury, it wasn't so much the drafting of a back up to groom, it was the manure I think it was done that boiled Rodgers.

But my point is that neither did Peyton Manning or Drew Brees, and then suddenly neither could throw the ball further than 15 yards. You can't assume that Rodgers is immune to ageing. So if 39 is the year where Rodgers sees the decline, then Love was drafted at the exact correct time because you don't want to be chasing a replacement when it's too late. And again, if Rodgers never sees the decline and plays awesome for 4-5 more years, then I'm totally cool with that. I would just like him to show up for work.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:07

seriously how could they possibly know that, 50% are basically busts, and of the other 50% only about 10% are above average starters.

So should we never attempt to get anybody because they might not be good?

Extreme, but a silly thing to say, IMO. QB is king, Rodgers getting older, you have a chance to get a guy you think is a legit top 10 talent, I get it.


Disclaimer, I didn't like the pick, feel like I need to repeat that to you so you don't just accuse me of hating Rodgers and just siding with management and being okay with ignoring ILB's for a decade.

But I do try to think objectively about it and try to focus more on the future than on the past.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:21

Acrobat wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:09

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:07

seriously how could they possibly know that, 50% are basically busts, and of the other 50% only about 10% are above average starters.

Same logic is that we don't know how much longer Rodgers is going to be elite. History proves that QB's generally hit a wall around 40, with Brady being the one exception. So you gotta play your cards accordingly.

OK, but Rodgers in no way appeared to be slowing down last year or really the year before in MLF's new offense, and prior the whole offense was a complete mess.

I think this has to do with a culmination of events, first the big contract given by Murphy, and then a year later Guty up and drafting Love with out even a heads up to Rodgers, instead of a month or so prior to the draft telling Rodgers we may take a QB if the draft falls a certain way as so many other GMs have reportedly done, out of the blue he trades a 4th to move up 4 spots to take Love.

obviously we scout all positions, QB included, so Guty new long before the draft who Love was, there has been a ton of defense concerning taking Love, but he was not needed, and according to Rodgers play wouldn't be for years barring a season ender injury, it wasn't so much the drafting of a back up to groom, it was the manure I think it was done that boiled Rodgers.

He let the rest of the world know... Rodgers included.



It still should have been addressed DIRECTLY with Rodgers AFTER the pick was made. I think that is what Gute is guilty of not doing.

I guess the biggest take away I have from this whole Rodgers mess is Aaron Rodgers does not have winning the Lombardi trophy as his top priority. Because if he did, he would be going about this a very different way.

In the end, Rodgers would be getting what he is now supposedly desiring to get either next year or 2023 if he just played the good teammate card and played in 21 and 22. I just don't see the justification or reasoning of why a player is demanding to be traded because he is afraid his team might trade him. I am a results guy and the result is going to be the exact same thing for Rodgers.

And the excuse of "Rodgers doesn't want to get traded to a terrible team" is such a low thought-out and poor excuse. Rodgers has a LOT of leverage to whomever he gets traded. The Jets aren't going to offer to trade for a player if Rodgers says, "I won't play for the Jets."

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:03

NCF wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 08:32

Second, I have only really seen @Waldo come to a similar stance, but I DO NOT believe the Packers bet against Aaron Rodgers. They covered their bases and drafted a QB in the 1st-round. Traditional sense says that guy HAS to play. Does he? Why? If Rodgers keeps the job and Jordan Love never plays a snap that is a wasted 1st-round pick. So what? Then Love is Datone Jones. He's Dumbarious Randall. He's Harrell. He's Sherrod. You can find good players throughout The Draft, but no position is more difficult than QB. When you have a chance and have the conviction, you have to pull the trigger and live with the consequences. Again, so what?

I, too, am in this camp; not quite as strongly as @Waldo, but still definitely there.

The Patriots drafted Jimmy G in the second round and Tom Brady bristled, played well, won some Super Bowls, and Jimmy G wound up getting traded. That was EASILY as likely an outcome as Rodgers being traded right up until Rodgers threw this hissy fit.

The notion that drafting Love set off an immovable, pre-determined path of QB succession is nonsense. It set off a possible succession plan, but left all options on the table. And there is nothing egregious about it.

Also, the idea that they traded up for a first-round QB under the idea that "anyone could play QB" for this team is absolutely foolish. If that were the case they'd have waited on Jacob Eason in the 3rd.

The Patriots and Jimmy G situation keep getting brought up, but I would like to point out some ways that it is not the same.

1) Tom Brady has not had the same desires as Rodgers in terms of contracts for quite some time. Brady, as well as the Patriots..valued his own personal flexibility. When the Patriots drafted Jimmy, Tom was only on a 3 year deal. After that time, he never signed more than a 2 year deal. Brady wanted the ability to jump ship if needed, and because that was an option..the Pats had to draft a QB. There was no guarantee Brady wouldnt just walk away in 2 seasons after Jimmy was selected. It wasnt like he was under contract for 6 more years.

2) Brady knew he had the iron clad support of the owner Bob Kraft. Bill wanted Brady gone. He wanted to move to Jimmy G. That was probably unforgivable in Toms eyes and thats why at the end of the deal, he left. He wasnt going to hold out and sling mud after Kraft had supported him and overruled Bill on Jimmy.

3) If the Packers had an owner, the owner would know the value 12 brings to the team and he would overrule a Murphy or a Gutey in this situation and Rodgers may come back and play because the Owner has treated him well. Shown him some respect. Currently in GB, there is no one to properly mediate this situation like there was in NE.

4) The Jimmy G, Brady situation very well could have blown up without the presence of Kraft, the loyalty of Kraft, and the relationship between Kraft and Brady...but he helped keep everyones eye on the prize. The two year contracts Brady signed allowed him to dip in a more friendly way.


-----------

Side Note: I wonder if Rodgers refuses to go the year to year route because unlike Brady, he doesnt trust his own body. I think the threat of Rodgers walking away year after year could put tremendous pressure on the Packers to surround him with talent and keep him happy. Yet for some reason, Rodgers wants to be tied somewhere for years to come..I think it must be due to his injury history and being unsure of his own body.

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:13

NCF wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:05

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:03

That was EASILY as likely an outcome as Rodgers being traded right up until Rodgers threw this hissy fit.

The notion that drafting Love set off an immovable, pre-determined path of QB succession is nonsense.

And that is why the timing of this makes no sense to me. If this was all about Aaron being pissed that the Packers drafted Jordan Love, wouldn't this hissy fit have come last year?

He didn't have the leverage last year because the last time he played awesome was the 2nd half in Week 1 2018 and before that one good game vs Dallas in 2017 and before that the 2016 Run the Table.

Rodgers legitimately only had a 4 game stretch in 2015, a 6 game stretch in 2016 and a good playoff game vs Seattle in 2020.

He just didn't have the leverage to do anything until after the 2020 season. And honestly I do applaud him for being self aware enough to recognize that.

But I still find this whole spat one year too early and don't understand why he is poisoning a really, really good shot at getting a Lombardi trophy this year.

well then if he was so bad and it wasn't scheme or lack of offensive impact players why did Murphy make him the richest player in the league versus drafting his replacement back then? I'll tell ya why, he's not a fool, he new the problems where not of Rodgers making, he new the schemes and lack of quality players was, and gave Rodgers shut up money, his problem I think was that so many issues needed addressing, we needed a new GM, new DC, and hoped McCarthy and Rodgers could right a offense that actually needed retooling, didn't work, Rodgers revolted and he had to fire McCarthy, now everyone wants to blame Rodgers for the problems Murphy created by not doing a total house cleaning versus a piece meal approach of firing one position a season, which in a way was successful even though it proloned the inevitible.

I came across this reading the other day, fits this well

almost anything you do is insignificant, but it is very important that you do it, Mohandas Gandhi

the FO acted as though they could do whatever they want, cut players with no heads up prior, and not inform players they intended to make decisions that would have a affect on them such as this Rodgers situation was bound to eventually blow up in there face.

these people need to stop thinking and acting out as though what Lombardi did in Jim Ringo's situation many years ago is how the FO should deal with Players in this era.

I will not vote on this because we don't know a lot of the facts and both sides are to blame for letting things get to this point. I don't feel that Rodgers is handling this situation like an adult. He is acting very much like a petulant child. However, the front office needs to learn how to deal with the people they work with and be up front with the players. There is a lot more to running a front office than picking players and the Packer's FO has failed miserably in this respect.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:34

The Patriots and Jimmy G situation keep getting brought up, but I would like to point out some ways that it is not the same.

1) Tom Brady has not had the same desires as Rodgers in terms of contracts for quite some time. Brady, as well as the Patriots..valued his own personal flexibility. When the Patriots drafted Jimmy, Tom was only on a 3 year deal. After that time, he never signed more than a 2 year deal. Brady wanted the ability to jump ship if needed, and because that was an option..the Pats had to draft a QB. There was no guarantee Brady wouldnt just walk away in 2 seasons after Jimmy was selected. It wasnt like he was under contract for 6 more years.

2) Brady knew he had the iron clad support of the owner Bob Kraft. Bill wanted Brady gone. He wanted to move to Jimmy G. That was probably unforgivable in Toms eyes and thats why at the end of the deal, he left. He wasnt going to hold out and sling mud after Kraft had supported him and overruled Bill on Jimmy.

3) If the Packers had an owner, the owner would know the value 12 brings to the team and he would overrule a Murphy or a Gutey in this situation and Rodgers may come back and play because the Owner has treated him well. Shown him some respect. Currently in GB, there is no one to properly mediate this situation like there was in NE.

4) The Jimmy G, Brady situation very well could have blown up without the presence of Kraft, the loyalty of Kraft, and the relationship between Kraft and Brady...but he helped keep everyones eye on the prize. The two year contracts Brady signed allowed him to dip in a more friendly way.

Fair to an extent, but then we better not bring up the Brady to the Bucs situation to explain what Rodgers may want, either. Obviously, no two scenarios are exactly the same. But in this one, Brady chose to let his play do most of the talking and he won Super Bowls and Rodgers, because he "wants different things," which I don't disagree with, chose to maximize his leverage to pout.

The primary difference here, though, is not an owner or not. It's the response from the player. Like you said, they want different things, which is a problem with Rodgers, not the team. Rodgers seems to actually want the Brees treatment, which led to salary cap hell and no additional Super Bowls. Brady wanted Super Bowls and glory.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:04

I think maybe i wasnt clear. I think RIGHT NOW Rodgers wants to win an MVP in '21 or '22 for another team and not Murphy. However, if he was to come back and put on our uniform then I think he would have lost his battle and it would be time try to not waste a year, not tarnish his legacy, and go try to win. I dont think he wants to win anything that the FO can take credit for right now, but if he comes back I do not expect him to sand bag or intentionally sabotage the team.

Shefty reporting basically exactly this today: that Rodgers does not want to make certain "other people look good" by playing well for the Packers.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:37

well then if he was so bad and it wasn't scheme or lack of offensive impact players why did Murphy make him the richest player in the league versus drafting his replacement back then?

Primarily it's because of lack of information. You have to remember when this deal was signed. It was signed before the 2018 season so this is what we knew about Rodgers at that time.

He and MM got figured out in 2015.
He had an amazing "run the table" stretch in 2016 where he literally took the Packers on his back
He started the 2017 season 4-1 though it didn't always look great...but we were still 4-1
He got injured and the Packers showed they had a ways to go in terms of building the roster.

That's what we knew and the viewpoint on Rodgers at that time was still pretty high and his downfalls were easily explainable. It could be blamed on scheme. It could be blamed on poor Packers talent, such as poor run game and poor defense.

But then you have 2018 and he gets a major injury and the Packers stink. You then role in 2019 where his accuracy, mobility and decision making are clearly not where it should be and it looks like you may have a QB who is on decline.

It's not outrageous for someone to view Aaron Rodgers prior to week 1 2018 (where you primary memory is a great 2017 Dallas game and the 2016 run the table stretch) and Aaron Rodgers in spring of 2020 in different lights (where your primary memories are the great Seahawks game sandwhiched in between a bad 49ers game and likely the worst game of his career at Detroit Week 17)

Rodgers play didn't regress any more then any other player on this team, you people just make stuff up to support your viewpoints

See page 1 for proof that his play did regress and it was all because of the talent around him or the new scheme. Not made up.

Rodgers in no way appeared to be slowing down last year or really the year before in MLF's new offense

He absolutely did. 2018 is explainable, 2019 isn't if one doesn't put a large portion of the onus on Rodgers.

It was a prudent move to draft Love. What wasn't prudent was signing Rodgers a year earlier in conjunction with drafting him. That is another fault of the front office along with lack of communication after the pick.

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:51

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:37

well then if he was so bad and it wasn't scheme or lack of offensive impact players why did Murphy make him the richest player in the league versus drafting his replacement back then?

Primarily it's because of lack of information. You have to remember when this deal was signed. It was signed before the 2018 season so this is what we knew about Rodgers at that time.

He and MM got figured out in 2015.
He had an amazing "run the table" stretch in 2016 where he literally took the Packers on his back
He started the 2017 season 4-1 though it didn't always look great...but we were still 4-1
He got injured and the Packers showed they had a ways to go in terms of building the roster.

That's what we knew and the viewpoint on Rodgers at that time was still pretty high and his downfalls were easily explainable. It could be blamed on scheme. It could be blamed on poor Packers talent, such as poor run game and poor defense.

But then you have 2018 and he gets a major injury and the Packers stink. You then role in 2019 where his accuracy, mobility and decision making are clearly not where it should be and it looks like you may have a QB who is on decline.

It's not outrageous for someone to view Aaron Rodgers prior to week 1 2018 (where you primary memory is a great 2017 Dallas game and the 2016 run the table stretch) and Aaron Rodgers in spring of 2020 in different lights (where your primary memories are the great Seahawks game sandwhiched in between a bad 49ers game and likely the worst game of his career at Detroit Week 17)

the problems in 2019 was that he had to go back to extending plays to often because receivers where not where the play called for them to be, even so he and the offense kept a stead increase of getting better right till we ran into the best defense in the league, in 016 or 17, team decline led to Rodgers decline, again, Rodgers wasn't the catalist that led to those issues, when he was injured you saw how quickly this team tented, sorry I can't agree, his injury's where never thought of as diminishing his career types of injury's, Collar bone injury's happen to plenty of QB's and it didn't end playing football for them.

NCF wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:27

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:21

Acrobat wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:09

Same logic is that we don't know how much longer Rodgers is going to be elite. History proves that QB's generally hit a wall around 40, with Brady being the one exception. So you gotta play your cards accordingly.

OK, but Rodgers in no way appeared to be slowing down last year or really the year before in MLF's new offense, and prior the whole offense was a complete mess.

I think this has to do with a culmination of events, first the big contract given by Murphy, and then a year later Guty up and drafting Love with out even a heads up to Rodgers, instead of a month or so prior to the draft telling Rodgers we may take a QB if the draft falls a certain way as so many other GMs have reportedly done, out of the blue he trades a 4th to move up 4 spots to take Love.

obviously we scout all positions, QB included, so Guty new long before the draft who Love was, there has been a ton of defense concerning taking Love, but he was not needed, and according to Rodgers play wouldn't be for years barring a season ender injury, it wasn't so much the drafting of a back up to groom, it was the manure I think it was done that boiled Rodgers.

He let the rest of the world know... Rodgers included.



It still should have been addressed DIRECTLY with Rodgers AFTER the pick was made. I think that is what Gute is guilty of not doing.

If the Packers "LOVE" Jordan Love, then they should have no problem trotting him out this year and competing for the division. If they loved the wrong guy, they should be accountable.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:56

Rodgers play didn't regress any more then any other player on this team, you people just make stuff up to support your viewpoints

See page 1 for proof that his play did regress and it was all because of the talent around him or the new scheme. Not made up.

Rodgers in no way appeared to be slowing down last year or really the year before in MLF's new offense

He absolutely did. 2018 is explainable, 2019 isn't if one doesn't put a large portion of the onus on Rodgers.

It was a prudent move to draft Love. What wasn't prudent was signing Rodgers a year earlier in conjunction with drafting him. That is another fault of the front office along with lack of communication after the pick.

We fired the last coach for a reason. Hardly any team goes from firing a coach to the NFCCG in one season. Yet, Rodgers was the QB for the team that did this. Everyone on the O was in a new system, yet people insist Rodgers had some horrible year. New coach, new system...95% of other QBs in the league probably struggle to lead the team to the playoffs. Rodgers may not have had the stats to show it in year one, but he did a great job in 2019.Its silly to hold 2019 against the guy in a year where he had Adams, Aaron Jones, no TE, and no other WRs worth anything.

He got to the NFCCG and went 13-3, you would hate to see the transition year without him.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 10:06

the problems in 2019 was that he had to go back to extending plays to often because receivers where not where the play called for them to be, even so he and the offense kept a stead increase of getting better right till we ran into the best defense in the league,

It would be a good explanation now with the benefit of hindsight which is irrelevant because we now know how 2020 went. But even more importantly, this is not even close to true. It's just false and wrong.

The offense peaked in October and then steadily declined until having its last great hurrah vs Seattle in the playoffs. But Week 16 at MN and Week 17 at Detroit were horrible, horrible games for the passing offense in particular.

I mean David Blough was outplaying Rodgers for the first 3 quarters in that Lions game.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 10:06

in 016 or 17, team decline led to Rodgers decline, again, Rodgers wasn't the catalist that led to those issues, when he was injured you saw how quickly this team tented, sorry I can't agree, his injury's where never thought of as diminishing his career types of injury's, Collar bone injury's happen to plenty of QB's and it didn't end playing football for them.

And if you would just read my post you would see I said the same thing here. I don't get why you don't read posts before picking fights in responses. You are more interested in responding to "disagree" than you are in having a conversation. It's honestly disrespectful. I literally said the viewpoint of Rodgers was strong prior to Week 1 2018 because of the carrying the team on his back in 2016 and 2017 injury giving incomplete information to show that Rodgers is still a top QB in the league as the team collapsed after his injury.

Again, these arguments over WHY Rodgers' play wasn't good are fairly irrelevant.

Let's look at it this way: 2017 and 2018 we saw Rodgers' play decline due to injury, scheme, and personnel deficiencies.

2019, Rodgers' statistics were similar to his below-average 2018 (and that's below-average NFL stats, not below average "for Rodgers"), but he was learning a new scheme and looked to have made some positive adjustments. He also was healthy again

2020, Rodgers was again all-world.

So what changed from 2018 through 2020? Well, we brought in a new coach and different players. Who brought in the new coach and new players? Well, Mark Murphy and Brian Gutenkunst did. Who is Rodgers mad at?

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 10:24

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 10:06

the problems in 2019 was that he had to go back to extending plays to often because receivers where not where the play called for them to be, even so he and the offense kept a stead increase of getting better right till we ran into the best defense in the league,

It would be a good explanation now with the benefit of hindsight which is irrelevant because we now know how 2020 went. But even more importantly, this is not even close to true. It's just false and wrong.

The offense peaked in October and then steadily declined until having its last great hurrah vs Seattle in the playoffs. But Week 16 at MN and Week 17 at Detroit were horrible, horrible games for the passing offense in particular.

I mean David Blough was outplaying Rodgers for the first 3 quarters in that Lions game.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 10:06

in 016 or 17, team decline led to Rodgers decline, again, Rodgers wasn't the catalist that led to those issues, when he was injured you saw how quickly this team tented, sorry I can't agree, his injury's where never thought of as diminishing his career types of injury's, Collar bone injury's happen to plenty of QB's and it didn't end playing football for them.

And if you would just read my post you would see I said the same thing here. I don't get why you don't read posts before picking fights in responses. You are more interested in responding to "disagree" than you are in having a conversation. It's honestly disrespectful. I literally said the viewpoint of Rodgers was strong prior to Week 1 2018 because of the carrying the team on his back in 2016 and 2017 injury giving incomplete information to show that Rodgers is still a top QB in the league as the team collapsed after his injury.

cause you flop your opinion with every post, in one you say Rodgers sucked in 16 and 17 defending your view that we still had great receivers, when the receiver we had showed to be in decline and should have been replaced, now your saying the opposite

look you expect me to have blue print recall such as a young person like you, and I don't, no way I intended to disrepect anyone, you just called me out about Rodgers extending plays in 18 and 19 when I watched him flushed from the pocket and forced to do so, yes he may have missed a open check down receiver, but who doesn't, every QB in the league is guilty of that, again as I said, put any other QB into those situations and hte results would probably be much worse, and thats why Murphy gave him that contract

Drj820 wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 10:21

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:56

Rodgers play didn't regress any more then any other player on this team, you people just make stuff up to support your viewpoints

See page 1 for proof that his play did regress and it was all because of the talent around him or the new scheme. Not made up.

Rodgers in no way appeared to be slowing down last year or really the year before in MLF's new offense

He absolutely did. 2018 is explainable, 2019 isn't if one doesn't put a large portion of the onus on Rodgers.

It was a prudent move to draft Love. What wasn't prudent was signing Rodgers a year earlier in conjunction with drafting him. That is another fault of the front office along with lack of communication after the pick.

We fired the last coach for a reason. Hardly any team goes from firing a coach to the NFCCG in one season. Yet, Rodgers was the QB for the team that did this. Everyone on the O was in a new system, yet people insist Rodgers had some horrible year. New coach, new system...95% of other QBs in the league probably struggle to lead the team to the playoffs. Rodgers may not have had the stats to show it in year one, but he did a great job in 2019.Its silly to hold 2019 against the guy in a year where he had Adams, Aaron Jones, no TE, and no other WRs worth anything.

He got to the NFCCG and went 13-3, you would hate to see the transition year without him.

Why is this team success only/mostly due to Rogders and not LaFleur? Why isn't it due to a defense that came to play all season, albeit not in the NFCCG? Why isn't it on Aaron Jones who had a far superior statistical year at RB than Rodgers' statistical year at QB?

Rodgers had a middling year by 2019 QB standards. So, more than just 5% of the other QBs in the league could have done what he did. You might love to see the transition year without him, but probably not 2020 without him.

There were 13 of the same offensive starters in 2020 as there were in 2019 and yet a FAR greater offensive performance in 2020. The change in scheme and supposed lack of talent can only explain so much. A good portion of the reason for Rodgers' middling/average play was due to Rodgers.

There are absolutely solid reasons to hold 2019 against him. To his credit, he came to play in 2020, more than he had in years. I don't fault the Front Office for drafting Love when they did and can get behind the reasoning. I do not like that they traded up and that they gave Rodgers the extension, plus poor communication after the fact.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 10:45

Drj820 wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 10:21

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 09:56

See page 1 for proof that his play did regress and it was all because of the talent around him or the new scheme. Not made up.


He absolutely did. 2018 is explainable, 2019 isn't if one doesn't put a large portion of the onus on Rodgers.

It was a prudent move to draft Love. What wasn't prudent was signing Rodgers a year earlier in conjunction with drafting him. That is another fault of the front office along with lack of communication after the pick.

We fired the last coach for a reason. Hardly any team goes from firing a coach to the NFCCG in one season. Yet, Rodgers was the QB for the team that did this. Everyone on the O was in a new system, yet people insist Rodgers had some horrible year. New coach, new system...95% of other QBs in the league probably struggle to lead the team to the playoffs. Rodgers may not have had the stats to show it in year one, but he did a great job in 2019.Its silly to hold 2019 against the guy in a year where he had Adams, Aaron Jones, no TE, and no other WRs worth anything.

He got to the NFCCG and went 13-3, you would hate to see the transition year without him.

Why is this team success only/mostly due to Rogders and not LaFleur? Why isn't it due to a defense that came to play all season, albeit not in the NFCCG? We isn't it on Aaron Jones who had a far superior statistical year at RB than Rodgers' statistical year at QB?

Rodgers had a middling year by 2019 QB standards. So, more than just 5% of the other QBs in the league could have done what he did. You might love to see the transition year without him.

There were 13 of the same offensive starters in 2020 as there were in 2019. The change in scheme and supposed lack of talent can only explain so much. A good portion of the reason for Rodgers' middling/average play was due to Rodgers.

There are absolutely solid reasons to hold 2019 against him. To his credit, he came to play in 2020, more than he had in years.

Just as Rodgers made a leap under the new scheme in year 2, so did his offensive teammates. Again, 13-3 for a first year coach after the last coach was fired doesnt happen without competent QB play. Rodgers provided that, and then made a leap like his teammates did in year 2.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 10:43

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 10:24

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 10:06

the problems in 2019 was that he had to go back to extending plays to often because receivers where not where the play called for them to be, even so he and the offense kept a stead increase of getting better right till we ran into the best defense in the league,

It would be a good explanation now with the benefit of hindsight which is irrelevant because we now know how 2020 went. But even more importantly, this is not even close to true. It's just false and wrong.

The offense peaked in October and then steadily declined until having its last great hurrah vs Seattle in the playoffs. But Week 16 at MN and Week 17 at Detroit were horrible, horrible games for the passing offense in particular.

I mean David Blough was outplaying Rodgers for the first 3 quarters in that Lions game.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 10:06

in 016 or 17, team decline led to Rodgers decline, again, Rodgers wasn't the catalist that led to those issues, when he was injured you saw how quickly this team tented, sorry I can't agree, his injury's where never thought of as diminishing his career types of injury's, Collar bone injury's happen to plenty of QB's and it didn't end playing football for them.

And if you would just read my post you would see I said the same thing here. I don't get why you don't read posts before picking fights in responses. You are more interested in responding to "disagree" than you are in having a conversation. It's honestly disrespectful. I literally said the viewpoint of Rodgers was strong prior to Week 1 2018 because of the carrying the team on his back in 2016 and 2017 injury giving incomplete information to show that Rodgers is still a top QB in the league as the team collapsed after his injury.

cause you flop your opinion with every post, in one you say Rodgers sucked in 16 and 17 defending your view that we still had great receivers, when the receiver we had showed to be in decline and should have been replaced, now your saying the opposite

look you expect me to have blue print recall such as a young person like you, and I don't, no way I intended to disrepect anyone, you just called me out about Rodgers extending plays in 18 and 19 when I watched him flushed from the pocket and forced to do so, yes he may have missed a open check down receiver, but who doesn't, every QB in the league is guilty of that, again as I said, put any other QB into those situations and hte results would probably be much worse, and thats why Murphy gave him that contract

Dude I'm pretty consistent. I don't make up sh*t for narratives. I don't care about narratives. I just relay of what happened.

2016: Rodgers sucked from September - Thanksgiving. Especially Halloween to Thanksgiving....the Packers were so, so bad. Rodgers then got Jared Cook back vs Washington in 2016, I was at that game, and you could see the offense starting to come to life but Rodgers was still outplayed by Kirk Cousins on a very windy night. Rodgers then the following week played well vs Philly, eeked out a win vs Houston and then went on a tear until the Falcons game.

2017: Rodgers didn't look elite but was definitely a top end QB and we were still 4-1. We won games we had no business winning such as the Bengals comeback win. Rodgers also looked awesome vs Dallas which gave reason to believe he still had his magic. Then he got hurt and the team collapsed which gave good reason to believe that Rodgers himself was still worthy of a monster contract.

So when I talk about why Murphy gave him a huge deal, I am saying it was because of lack information. Prior to week 1 2018, you could easily give the benefit of the doubt that Rodgers deserved the deal. Then 2018 week 1 he has a major injury and didn't play well for 2 years. So when you are sitting in spring 2020, I don't blame people thinking, "Has Rodgers played his best ball and is he on the backside of his career?"

Then the 2020 season happened which has been the first time he put together a complete season at an elite level since 2014 making the conversation change but decisions were already made before 2020 based on information that was in place at that time.

And I literally NEVER mentioned Rodgers extending plays in 18 and 19 and flushing out pocket, etc. The only thing I mentioned was 2018 and 2019 his accuracy was down, his decision making was poor and his mobility was suffering - all of which was after a major injury. Not an egregious step to start connecting the two.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jun 2021 10:43

you just called me out about Rodgers extending plays in 18 and 19 when I watched him flushed from the pocket and forced to do so, yes he may have missed a open check down receiver, but who doesn't, every QB in the league is guilty of that, again as I said, put any other QB into those situations and hte results would probably be much worse, and thats why Murphy gave him that contract

And I don't get this either on these rants. What does 2018 and 2019 have to do with Murphy giving Rodgers a contract? The contract was already given. 2018 and 2019 have nothing to do with giving Aaron Rodgers a contract. He already got the contract. Murphy gave him a contract because of being MVP in 2014, being a miracle worker in 2015 with passes and going on the December 2016 run and limited information of 2017. Rodgers earned a lot of equity prior to his contract signing and he signed a deal he deserved to sign prior to the 2018 season.