I too hope we find a way to keep him around. Yes, he's had his struggles in the postseason but we most likely don't make it there without him. Most teams with an elite QB try to keep them as long as they can. If you look around the league there aren't enough quality QBs to lead all 32 of these teams. Is Love ready? Are Gute and company comfortable going with him instead of 12? We will find out soon.
But do we really know what Gute's plan is? I suspect he saw an opportunity to get a promising QB prospect so he moved up 4 spots and took a chance. When you have a guy like Rodgers you can gamble here. TT got very lucky in 2005 in that so many teams either didn't need a QB or were leery of a Tedford QB so Rodgers dropped right into his lap.
I know there’s many variables. But we’re hypothetically trading talent for talent and assuming neither get injured or quit their team etc..
What if I told you brett didnt ask for that locker?
Already am asking this in another thread I started where you can see others answers if interested.
I'd rather keep him around a little too long than to turn the division over to the Bears and Vikings for the next 5-20 years.
Wow, I haven't heard that term "Tedford QB" in a long time. But yeah, that was a frequent criticism from those who didn't like the Rodgers move. Blast from the past.
What do the Bears and Vikes have that make you fear them if the Pack loses AR?
I just remember the '70s and '80s. No need to think things will be that dire, but for the last 30 years we've had a built in advantage over the other teams, we've always had the better quarterback. Take that advantage away, and who knows what the outcome will be? Maybe it would even be better, although that seems unlikely.
I think my point was or should have been more about the fact that we're going to be without that advantage in a couple of years anyhow, so the hand-wringing can start now, with potential help from a trade, or in a few years, with no help at all.
That was Denver's strength so our defense was not going to shut them out. But we had an offense that could roll up points and it was a year when Favre did not turn it over like later years. And when we forced the Davis fumble early in the 3rd we had a short field and only got 3. Like the Packers just several weeks ago you can win or lose games in the 4th quarter because of what you did in the first two.
The grim reality.That kind of response makes it pretty tough to argue.
I can certainly see the argument for that.That kind of response makes it pretty tough to argue.
Glad you didn't post a link. Then I wont be tempted to read a Bob McGinn article.
I picked up on that after the Bronco game. Jets should have won today.They have struggled to run the football this year. When your defense plays well you should win. Vikings are a very good team.
My thinking is Rodgers likes to call plays and Hacket gives him a lot of freedom to do that. Packer offense looks so much better, schematically, after Rodgers left.
Jets offense looks like an old MM one.
As a talking head pointed out, "If you are strongly considering retirement, you already are."
Magic Johnson, once upon a time?
Well the NY press seems to be blaming Rodgers
