Packers Huddle

Pugger wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2021 23:04

Raptorman wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2021 22:25

Drj820 wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2021 21:08

They have an offensive player of the year award for the best player on offense.

But its not most valuable player on a winning team...its just most valuable player...because value is measured in wins..so they go hand in hand. For instance, if you took Rodgers off the Packers...they might win 8 games (throwing out random number), but with Rodgers they can win a SB. Thats value.

A great offensive player on a bad team can be removed from that team and what changes? the team is still bad! That is not an example of value. Because nothing changed for the team.

So being a winning team is sort of implied when discussing how much value someone brings to their team. Because if a team is a 4 win team with or without them, they arent valuable in securing a win.

Again, thank you for making my point. So you have a good player on a team and that team goes 8-9. Without that player maybe they go 2-15. But because the team as a whole isn't a winning team, his value is diminished by the play of the team around him. But, Rodgers brings his team up from 10-7 to 14-3 and the playoffs and he has more value for 4 games than the other player has for 6 games. Based on the wins of the team, not the value of the player.

So then what attributes do you believe makes someone the most valuable player? The goal of every team in this league is to win it all. Rodgers makes the Packers a SB contender every year. Most of us here would say the Packers are most likely a .500 team if he wasn't on the roster. If that doesn't make him valuable then I don't know what does.

Raptorman wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 00:26

Pugger wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2021 23:04

Raptorman wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2021 22:25

Again, thank you for making my point. So you have a good player on a team and that team goes 8-9. Without that player maybe they go 2-15. But because the team as a whole isn't a winning team, his value is diminished by the play of the team around him. But, Rodgers brings his team up from 10-7 to 14-3 and the playoffs and he has more value for 4 games than the other player has for 6 games. Based on the wins of the team, not the value of the player.

So then what attributes do you believe makes someone the most valuable player? The goal of every team in this league is to win it all. Rodgers makes the Packers a SB contender every year. Most of us here would say the Packers are most likely a .500 team if he wasn't on the roster. If that doesn't make him valuable then I don't know what does.

Rodgers has what, one more TD than Cousins? And after this week 2 fewer Interceptions. So exactly what has Rodgers brought to the Packers that Cousins hasn't brought to Vikings? The Vikings have scored more points than the Packers so far this year. So that makes Rodgers better why? Oh, yeah, the wins. The Packers have 11 wins the Vikings have only 7. Um, I wonder how that is considering the QB are about equal in stats and touchdowns. I wonder if there might not be another factor in those 11 wins. See, Rodgers gets credit for the team wins as a player. Because as a team, the Packer's offense isn't doing any better score-wise than the Vikings. But he's the difference.

Like Brady in New England. When he left everyone thought the Pats were done. Now That they are on the verge of another 12 win season one has to ask, was it really Brady? Is Jones as good as Brady? Or maybe, just maybe it's something else. I could make a case for Jones being MVP if the Pats go 12-5 much more than I can if the Packers go 13-4. After all, the Pats were 7-9 last year. Which QB made the bigger difference for his team?

Raptorman wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2021 22:25

Drj820 wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2021 21:08

Raptorman wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2021 20:51

And that's exactly the point. A player only has value if the team is winning. So it's not the "Most valuable player" award. It's the "Most valuable player on a winning team" award. Thank you for proving my point. One player does not win the games. No matter what you think. Put Tom Brady on the Lions and he will have a losing record.

They have an offensive player of the year award for the best player on offense.

But its not most valuable player on a winning team...its just most valuable player...because value is measured in wins..so they go hand in hand. For instance, if you took Rodgers off the Packers...they might win 8 games (throwing out random number), but with Rodgers they can win a SB. Thats value.

A great offensive player on a bad team can be removed from that team and what changes? the team is still bad! That is not an example of value. Because nothing changed for the team.

So being a winning team is sort of implied when discussing how much value someone brings to their team. Because if a team is a 4 win team with or without them, they arent valuable in securing a win.

Again, thank you for making my point. So you have a good player on a team and that team goes 8-9. Without that player maybe they go 2-15. But because the team as a whole isn't a winning team, his value is diminished by the play of the team around him. But, Rodgers brings his team up from 10-7 to 14-3 and the playoffs and he has more value for 4 games than the other player has for 6 games. Based on the wins of the team, not the value of the player.

Raptorman wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 00:26

Rodgers has what, one more TD than Cousins? And after this week 2 fewer Interceptions. So exactly what has Rodgers brought to the Packers that Cousins hasn't brought to Vikings? The Vikings have scored more points than the Packers so far this year. So that makes Rodgers better why? Oh, yeah, the wins. The Packers have 11 wins the Vikings have only 7. Um, I wonder how that is considering the QB are about equal in stats and touchdowns. I wonder if there might not be another factor in those 11 wins. See, Rodgers gets credit for the team wins as a player. Because as a team, the Packer's offense isn't doing any better score-wise than the Vikings. But he's the difference.

Raptorman wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 07:10

And here's the ultimate question. If the Viking's defense hadn't given up points in the last 2 minutes of the game and the Vikings were 11-3 like the Packers would Cousin's even be in consideration? My bet, no.

Is Herbert? Stafford? Allen? No. But you have Mahomes, Brady and Rodgers in the talk.

What's more impressive, a QB whose defense is giving up 26 ppg that is keeping his team in the playoff hunt or one whose defense is giving up 20 ppg keeping his team in the playoff hunt?

Raptorman wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 07:10

And here's the ultimate question. If the Viking's defense hadn't given up points in the last 2 minutes of the game and the Vikings were 11-3 like the Packers would Cousin's even be in consideration? My bet, no.

Is Herbert? Stafford? Allen? No. But you have Mahomes, Brady and Rodgers in the talk.

What's more impressive, a QB whose defense is giving up 26 ppg that is keeping his team in the playoff hunt or one whose defense is giving up 20 ppg keeping his team in the playoff hunt?

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 09:31

Raptorman wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2021 22:25

Drj820 wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2021 21:08

They have an offensive player of the year award for the best player on offense.

But its not most valuable player on a winning team...its just most valuable player...because value is measured in wins..so they go hand in hand. For instance, if you took Rodgers off the Packers...they might win 8 games (throwing out random number), but with Rodgers they can win a SB. Thats value.

A great offensive player on a bad team can be removed from that team and what changes? the team is still bad! That is not an example of value. Because nothing changed for the team.

So being a winning team is sort of implied when discussing how much value someone brings to their team. Because if a team is a 4 win team with or without them, they arent valuable in securing a win.

Again, thank you for making my point. So you have a good player on a team and that team goes 8-9. Without that player maybe they go 2-15. But because the team as a whole isn't a winning team, his value is diminished by the play of the team around him. But, Rodgers brings his team up from 10-7 to 14-3 and the playoffs and he has more value for 4 games than the other player has for 6 games. Based on the wins of the team, not the value of the player.

I don’t think the packers are a 10 win team without Rodgers haha. Chiefs game is my best example.

go pak go wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 10:00

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 09:31

Raptorman wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2021 22:25

Again, thank you for making my point. So you have a good player on a team and that team goes 8-9. Without that player maybe they go 2-15. But because the team as a whole isn't a winning team, his value is diminished by the play of the team around him. But, Rodgers brings his team up from 10-7 to 14-3 and the playoffs and he has more value for 4 games than the other player has for 6 games. Based on the wins of the team, not the value of the player.

I don’t think the packers are a 10 win team without Rodgers haha. Chiefs game is my best example.

Man you and I differ on this a lot.

I view the Chiefs game as a prime example of why the Packers are a 10+ win team. They went to loud Arrowhead without their starting QB against Mahommes and the #1 Seed Chiefs and honestly only lost because of a dropped INT, and special teams blunders.

And that's with extremely poor production from the passing game.

I absolutely think the Packers, especially when healthy, are a playoff team without MVP level play from QB1.

You put a 15th to 20th ranked QB on the 2021 Packers and the team still has a great chance at a double digit winning season. The top 5 QB play simply brings the Packers from a 10/11 win team to a 13+ win team.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 09:34

Raptorman wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 07:10

And here's the ultimate question. If the Viking's defense hadn't given up points in the last 2 minutes of the game and the Vikings were 11-3 like the Packers would Cousin's even be in consideration? My bet, no.

Is Herbert? Stafford? Allen? No. But you have Mahomes, Brady and Rodgers in the talk.

What's more impressive, a QB whose defense is giving up 26 ppg that is keeping his team in the playoff hunt or one whose defense is giving up 20 ppg keeping his team in the playoff hunt?

Herbert has a great roster around him, fighting for a WC spot. Allen has a great roster around him, fighting for a wc spot, Stafford threw three pick sixes 3 games in a row.

All of those teams have quality rosters enough to win it all and be a 1 seed.

The packers are actually the one seed because they have a qb playing like an MVP.

APB wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 09:32

Raptorman wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 00:26

Rodgers has what, one more TD than Cousins? And after this week 2 fewer Interceptions. So exactly what has Rodgers brought to the Packers that Cousins hasn't brought to Vikings? The Vikings have scored more points than the Packers so far this year. So that makes Rodgers better why? Oh, yeah, the wins. The Packers have 11 wins the Vikings have only 7. Um, I wonder how that is considering the QB are about equal in stats and touchdowns. I wonder if there might not be another factor in those 11 wins. See, Rodgers gets credit for the team wins as a player. Because as a team, the Packer's offense isn't doing any better score-wise than the Vikings. But he's the difference.

I wouldn't rank Cousins as the Vikings MVP, let alone the NFL MVP.

Could you say the same for Rodgers and the Packers?

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 11:24

It's not a slight on Rodgers or an insult to Rodgers to acknowledge the accomplishments and merits of other players, and the roster as a whole, but for too long around here, it feels like people take it as such.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 11:24

These sorts of debates are so weird and interesting because obviously, there is no empirical, ironclad, factual way to create a model of how 53 players interact with each other within and across units and positions. But to see how different people perceive things is always just so wild. Like our human brains are capable of interpreting the same information in so many different ways.

When I see, for instance, bud fox, defend Rodgers, I can see where the difference in our thinking lies. He sees team accomplishments as Rodgers' accomplishments and therefore enhances the credit that goes to Rodgers. For instance, he frequently mentions winning the Cardinals game with no top WRs as something Rodgers did; and he credits the ability of the OLine to protect and block despite injuries as something Rodgers is enabling. There are clear elements of truth to this because everything on a football team is interrelated. Interpreted this way, these acts are proof that Rodgers is carrying more weight than even his statistics show.

However, people like myself and for instance, go pack go, see the Cardinals game as evidence that the team can win without a strong contribution from the passing game. And the OLine squeaking by despite injuries as a credit to the depth, position coaches for preparing them, and offensive coaches for scheming around those deficiencies. Interpreted this way, it is proof that the team has many elements that can produce wins outside of Rodgers. Obviously, there are elements of truth to this, also.

Similarly, the Chiefs game. We're 11-2 with Rodgers and 0-1 without him. The offense was stymied almost all day without Rodgers. And the backup QB looked pretty rough. Interpreted as how badly we need Rodgers by Dr J. But holding the healthy AFC's top seed to 14 points despite missing Jaire and Stokes being a last minute scratch, losing by only 6, and suffering perhaps the worst special teams performance of the season on a bad special teams unit to begin with... well to some that can look like "ok, wow, we hung in with the best team despite missing Rodgers; we really are a deep, good team."

What gets me, though, are comments like that last one. "Imagine all the special teams blunders we’d see with an offense that isn’t as productive because we have the 20th best QB. They’d lose 10 games for us alone."

To me, this takes the interrelatedness a step too far. We're crediting the QB with improving our ST by hiding them. And I get it. To a degree, everything works together. But at a point, you have to let some units' performances, good and bad--or some players' performances, good and bad, stand for themselves.

We're also completely overlooking in most of these debates the fact that if we didn't have an elite QB, we would play a different style of football and build a different style of team. The fact of the matter is that 27 teams in the league don't have a top-5 QB and still, every year, 14 teams make the playoffs. Teams win Super Bowls occasionally with Nick Foles filling in for Carson Wentz or Eli Manning or Joe Flacco hitting a hot streak.... and routinely make it TO the Super Bowl with guys like Jared Goff or Colin Kaepernick or Matt Ryan--fine players, but nothing special or elite. And they do it by building their team with the KNOWLEDGE that they can't rely on the QB to cover things up the same way, and they coach accordingly.

I think if you go unit by unit, across the league, you'll find that the Packers roster, completely disregarding the QB position, holds up against the best rosters in the league. We have elite talent, role players, and depth at most levels of the field. If we didn't have an elite QB, we'd likely run more, but we'd also likely invest in more dynamic offensive weapons that can make plays on their own while the QB becomes more distributor and manager rather than centerpiece. And we certainly have the roster in place and the coaching in place to make those adjustments if needed. I just don't see why it has to be so polarized. Rodgers obviously allows us to do things, both on the field and in the front office, differently. But without him, we'd do different things and have different strengths and weaknesses and we still would have a good team.

To claim that the elite talent we have at other positions doesn't matter and we're a 10-loss team but for our QB just feels dismissive of everything else aside from Rodgers. While claiming that Rodgers receives help from the rest of the units and coaching and front office is just admitting that football takes 53+. It's not a slight on Rodgers or an insult to Rodgers to acknowledge the accomplishments and merits of other players, and the roster as a whole, but for too long around here, it feels like people take it as such.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 11:45

Put another way: would MLF be 37-9 without Aaron Rodgers? Heck no!

But would Aaron Rodgers be 37-8 without MLF? We actually have fairly extensive evidence, based on 11 years as a starting QB without MLF that the answer is ALSO heck no! The most Rodgers has won in any 3-season stretch of his starting career is 35 games (35-11 twice).

So the variable that explains the increased win percentage for the Packers is not Rodgers. Rodgers is worth a lot of wins, but clearly things OTHER than Rodgers have an impact, or else we would not be witnessing the team's best 3-year stretch of winning football in Rodgers' career. And while Rodgers' numbers in this time have improved, they aren't better now than they were in 2011 or 2014 or any stretch from 2009 to 2014; and yet, absent the Super Bowl accomplishment that occurred in that time, which absolutely matters and I am not dismissing, the team success, in terms of wins and losses and playoff advancement, are as good or better. We just have to win a Super Bowl this year to complete the list.

But the FACT is that the team is accomplishing more with Rodgers than they have previously accomplished with Rodgers, and so there MUST be improving contributions from elsewhere on the team. And we MUST be a good team to be able to maintain this success, as Rodgers has, indeed, had mediocre W/L seasons and losing seasons prior to this.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 11:24

What gets me, though, are comments like that last one. "Imagine all the special teams blunders we’d see with an offense that isn’t as productive because we have the 20th best QB. They’d lose 10 games for us alone."

To me, this takes the interrelatedness a step too far. We're crediting the QB with improving our ST by hiding them. And I get it. To a degree, everything works together. But at a point, you have to let some units' performances, good and bad--or some players' performances, good and bad, stand for themselves.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021 12:10

Also, you say if we didnt have Rodgers we would be built differently...how so? We already are designed on paper to pound the ball with resources put into big dog, keeping tonyan, drafting OLmen, resigning Jones, drafting dillon. The roster as is currently built is designed to make any QBs life easier.