Packers Huddle

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 00:41

Option 1
Keep Rodgers in 2022
Cut a lot of other guys
Probably still sneak into the playoffs

Option 2
Trade Rodgers
Keep some other guys
Very probably no playoffs

Am I wrong to think the end result is the same with either scenario?

PickensIII wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 10:49

Hi everyone. I’m a long time lurker on this board and have always found it very informative and entertaining. Thanks for all the info and insights over the years.

I wanted to pop in with a thought on the Rodgers topic. I can’t help but see the parallels between last night’s game and the Kansas City game earlier this year. The KC game has been used time and again as “Exhibit A” to show why Love is not ready and that having Rodgers in a game like that would certainly have led to a win instead of a loss (“Yeah, special teams cost us points, but with Rodgers we would have scored more and won the game,” etc.). Last night, with Rodgers in a very similar game, we didn’t score more and we didn’t win. That has me thinking—maybe (a) Love isn’t as bad as he gets credit for, (b) the impact of not having Rodgers on the overall Packers record wouldn’t be as drastic as is often assumed (I’ve read here that we’re a 4-win team if you swap Love for Rodgers, everything else remaining the same), or (c) possibly both.

I love watching Rodgers and always have, and I don’t think he is in any way “expendable” in a vacuum. I also don’t have delusions that we can just swap Love in for Rodgers next year and make a run (I’m aware we’re going to lose good players as a result of the salary cap situation). I suppose I just have hope that if the front office is able to use resources from a Rodgers trade this off-season to build around Love in as effective a manner as they have used resources over the past few years to build around Rodgers (maybe use a teensy but more on special teams…), we have a chance to come out on the other side as a competitive organization. Said differently, maybe the sky isn’t destined to fall (at least long term, maybe it falls a little next year) if we do, in fact, move on this off-season.

(Sorry, have wanted to do that for years)

dsr wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 10:58

Who would we say are the two greatest QBs over the past 20 years or so? Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers. Who has more MVP awards? Probably Rodgers 4-3, assuming this year's award is as expected. Who has more Superbowl rings? Vrady, 7-1.

Why? Brady has that total intangible - he can do what it takes to win. For example, Patriots have scored over 30 in each of their 5 playoff games with Brady at QB. Has he ever laid an egg like last night? When it push comes to shove, when the breaks are beating the boys, name any clich you like - Brady finds a way to win as often as not. Rodgers doesn't.

Given a straight choice between Rodgers and AN Other, of course I'd pick Rodgers, because we have no idea whether AN Other would have the intangible that Rodgers lacks. But given the choice of Rodgers but we lose a load of defensive stars, or Or no Rodgers, keep the stars, gain some first round draft picks - it's goodbye. We have a year to see how far Love progresses (because the Detroit game certainly does not represent the best he can possibly be, he is bound to get better as long as he has the right work ethic) and we can draft another QB perhaps with the traded pick in 2023. (Or, if Love is as bad as some people fear, with our own, early first round pick!).

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 10:52

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 00:41

Option 1
Keep Rodgers in 2022
Cut a lot of other guys
Probably still sneak into the playoffs

Option 2
Trade Rodgers
Keep some other guys
Very probably no playoffs

Am I wrong to think the end result is the same with either scenario?

Option 2 gives a higher pick and thus more ammo to move up and get the next QB.

Pugger wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 11:19

I believe Brady would tell you he laid an egg at Lambeau last January but his team still won.

dsr wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 11:25

Pugger wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 11:19

I believe Brady would tell you he laid an egg at Lambeau last January but his team still won.

But he still scored points. You have a better chance of victory with 3 TDs and 4 Ints than you do with 1 TD and 58 yards total offence in the second half. We could have picked a couple of dozen QBs who could have done better than what Rodgers did after the Mercilus fumble, which was only 10 minutes into the match. We could have picked hundreds who could have matched his second half performance.

Pugger wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 11:36

dsr wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 11:25

Pugger wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 11:19

I believe Brady would tell you he laid an egg at Lambeau last January but his team still won.

But he still scored points. You have a better chance of victory with 3 TDs and 4 Ints than you do with 1 TD and 58 yards total offence in the second half. We could have picked a couple of dozen QBs who could have done better than what Rodgers did after the Mercilus fumble, which was only 10 minutes into the match. We could have picked hundreds who could have matched his second half performance.

With the way our D played last night we didn't need 3 TDs. Mercilus didn't fumble. That was a killer but I'd love to know why Lewis' was and why the zebras said a similar play by the SF WR in the very next series wasn't?

PickensIII wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 10:49

Hi everyone. I’m a long time lurker on this board and have always found it very informative and entertaining. Thanks for all the info and insights over the years.

I wanted to pop in with a thought on the Rodgers topic. I can’t help but see the parallels between last night’s game and the Kansas City game earlier this year. The KC game has been used time and again as “Exhibit A” to show why Love is not ready and that having Rodgers in a game like that would certainly have led to a win instead of a loss (“Yeah, special teams cost us points, but with Rodgers we would have scored more and won the game,” etc.). Last night, with Rodgers in a very similar game, we didn’t score more and we didn’t win. That has me thinking—maybe (a) Love isn’t as bad as he gets credit for, (b) the impact of not having Rodgers on the overall Packers record wouldn’t be as drastic as is often assumed (I’ve read here that we’re a 4-win team if you swap Love for Rodgers, everything else remaining the same), or (c) possibly both.

I love watching Rodgers and always have, and I don’t think he is in any way “expendable” in a vacuum. I also don’t have delusions that we can just swap Love in for Rodgers next year and make a run (I’m aware we’re going to lose good players as a result of the salary cap situation). I suppose I just have hope that if the front office is able to use resources from a Rodgers trade this off-season to build around Love in as effective a manner as they have used resources over the past few years to build around Rodgers (maybe use a teensy but more on special teams…), we have a chance to come out on the other side as a competitive organization. Said differently, maybe the sky isn’t destined to fall (at least long term, maybe it falls a little next year) if we do, in fact, move on this off-season.

(Sorry, have wanted to do that for years)

TheGreenMan wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2022 23:48

Labrev wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2022 23:44

I probably can't think entirely straight right now, but I'm pretty sure the answer is a No from me. It's become like those Favre INTs at this point. Last season was our year, but we pissed it away. This season we had to try to steal one, and we slept on our first playoff opponent.

Besides, the era of the elite QB is over. Rodgers and Brady are the last. One of those was just bested by a team that's just solid, but not amazing.

Let MLF go back to the drawing board with his scheme/playbook, no longer restricted by what Rodgers likes or not, and get a full offseason to work on making Jordan Love successful. If he busts, you can draft a new QB with the high draft you end up with.

I'm not sure what feels worse at this point, those Favre INTs or these Green Bay teams of recent. Were we ever truly favored in a number of those with Favre? To go all the way? I don't think so. So, I just kinda expected that Favre INT to seal it. Every recent year we are top dog all year, to get pounced.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 10:40

Rodgers is basically Peyton Manning with the Colts. Lots of amazing regular season offenses, often stymied in the playoffs. One ring. Lots of playoff disappointment. Manning got a lot of the same deserved slander Rodgers is getting now. We will see if Rodgers can cement his legacy, like Manning did, by going somewhere else and getting a ring.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 10:40

Rodgers is basically Peyton Manning with the Colts. Lots of amazing regular season offenses, often stymied in the playoffs. One ring. Lots of playoff disappointment. Manning got a lot of the same deserved slander Rodgers is getting now. We will see if Rodgers can cement his legacy, like Manning did, by going somewhere else and getting a ring.

Raptorman wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 13:22

Drj820 wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 10:40

Rodgers is basically Peyton Manning with the Colts. Lots of amazing regular season offenses, often stymied in the playoffs. One ring. Lots of playoff disappointment. Manning got a lot of the same deserved slander Rodgers is getting now. We will see if Rodgers can cement his legacy, like Manning did, by going somewhere else and getting a ring.

Do you know what Peyton didn't have in Indy? A good defense. All those years in Indy he only had a top 10 defense in points per game twice. Sound familiar? Rodgers has had 3. But don't let that distract from a HOF career.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 13:23

Raptorman wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 13:22

Drj820 wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 10:40

Rodgers is basically Peyton Manning with the Colts. Lots of amazing regular season offenses, often stymied in the playoffs. One ring. Lots of playoff disappointment. Manning got a lot of the same deserved slander Rodgers is getting now. We will see if Rodgers can cement his legacy, like Manning did, by going somewhere else and getting a ring.

Do you know what Peyton didn't have in Indy? A good defense. All those years in Indy he only had a top 10 defense in points per game twice. Sound familiar? Rodgers has had 3. But don't let that distract from a HOF career.

I think you are agreeing with me? Ha

Raptorman wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 14:23

Drj820 wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 13:23

Raptorman wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 13:22

Do you know what Peyton didn't have in Indy? A good defense. All those years in Indy he only had a top 10 defense in points per game twice. Sound familiar? Rodgers has had 3. But don't let that distract from a HOF career.

I think you are agreeing with me? Ha

Brady has had 16, including this year. But I have been told that doesn't matter in the long run. I was told that the QB makes the defense better. But I have to wonder, why does it only pertain to Brady, Montana, and Young? And oh yeah, in SF during Montana/Young years, 15 out of 18 years.

go pak go wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 14:43

Raptorman wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 14:23

Drj820 wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 13:23

I think you are agreeing with me? Ha

Brady has had 16, including this year. But I have been told that doesn't matter in the long run. I was told that the QB makes the defense better. But I have to wonder, why does it only pertain to Brady, Montana, and Young? And oh yeah, in SF during Montana/Young years, 15 out of 18 years.

Even with Brady's 16, his conversion rate is still better. He has won the SB 7 out of 16 times and been there 10 out of 16 times.

For all intents and purposes, Rodgers enjoyed a top 10 level defense (keep in mind you can meausure that in a variety of ways) in 2009, 2010, 2014, 2019, 2020, 2021. And outside of 2010, he has never won more than 1 playoff game in any of those seasons.

Rodgers and his offense has failed to put up 24 or more points in 2010 (Chicago), 2011 (NYG), 2013 (SF), 2014 (SEA), 2015 (AZ), 2016 (ATL), 2019 (SF), and now 2021 (SF).

That's just not winning football. When your brand is a high powered offense, you need to be that offense in the important games. And the Packers offense just simply failed to do that every single year.

Raptorman wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 15:01

go pak go wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 14:43

Raptorman wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022 14:23

Brady has had 16, including this year. But I have been told that doesn't matter in the long run. I was told that the QB makes the defense better. But I have to wonder, why does it only pertain to Brady, Montana, and Young? And oh yeah, in SF during Montana/Young years, 15 out of 18 years.

Even with Brady's 16, his conversion rate is still better. He has won the SB 7 out of 16 times and been there 10 out of 16 times.

For all intents and purposes, Rodgers enjoyed a top 10 level defense (keep in mind you can meausure that in a variety of ways) in 2009, 2010, 2014, 2019, 2020, 2021. And outside of 2010, he has never won more than 1 playoff game in any of those seasons.

Rodgers and his offense has failed to put up 24 or more points in 2010 (Chicago), 2011 (NYG), 2013 (SF), 2014 (SEA), 2015 (AZ), 2016 (ATL), 2019 (SF), and now 2021 (SF).

That's just not winning football. When your brand is a high powered offense, you need to be that offense in the important games. And the Packers offense just simply failed to do that every single year.

Well, I measure it by the simplest means possible. PPG. That in the long run is what really matters, how many points are scored. So measure it any way you want, the fact is if you measure Brady's D's the same way as Rodger's, I'm sure you will find out that he still has had better D's than Rodgers or any other QB during that time frame.