Is it time?

[Dantés]

There isn't much to argue against that, especially knowing where we are sitting right now. I'd disagree that it's Rodgers causing the dysfunction in the offense. He shoulders some blame, like everyone, but I think the lack of continuity at the OLine position, injuries, youth and inexperience at playmaking positions, a drop in play from year prior, high draft pick not able to stay at practice or on the field etc all played a much bigger role, but that's how I see it. There were many times we couldn't run block, we couldn't pass block, we couldn't hit an early route or protect for a later breaking route. Couldn't gain more than 2 yards once every 4 runs. How do you run an offense? I don't care what you call.

With hindsight, yes trading last year looks like the best time. But he was also coming off an MVP year, we were a game away, we had everyone coming back other than Adams basically but adding 3 all pros who were injured the prior season. All signs didn't point to drop off. many looked like, add a piece or 2 and we're over the top.

It's also important to remember, we could have moved on and flopped and that flop just leads to more flopping. Not every team just turns it around.

Rodgers was far from the sole cause of the dysfunction on offense.

Injuries to the offensive line, play along the offensive line, young receivers finding their way, drops, etc. They all factored.

But, Rodgers' contribution to the problem is unique in at least two ways:

1) He's getting paid to be elite. Anything less than elite, and he's a net negative to the team. You can't sign a deal with an AAV equal to 24% of the cap and then not be great. Josh Myers was disappointing at times too. But his AAV accounts for %0.7 of the total cap. And you and I both know that there were plenty of instances last year where Rodgers was just plain wretched and it was no one else's fault (e.g. @DET).

2) Rodgers' contribution to the problem was partly on purpose. The offensive linemen weren't trying to get hurt. The receivers weren't trying to drop the ball. But Rodgers was trying to move the scheme back in a direction that is not functional. So it was entirely avoidable, which makes it more heinous in my mind. I'm not saying he sabotaged anything on purpose; he genuinely thinks the way he used to play is better for him and the offense. But it just isn't. The evidence to that effect is incontrovertible.

People might reply "you don't know that-- you're assuming." That's true. But one of two things must be true: Either Lafleur, an offensive mind who uses motion, condensed sets, and PA as staples, decided to go away from all of it at once for stretches of the season, OR Rodgers, who traditionally wants to be in static spread, instigated the drift. Which is more reasonable to assume?

As for the comment on hindsight-- it's hindsight for some, but not for others. I'm not thumping my chest, because I do understand the rationale for running it back with him. But I did say a year ago that they should trade him. The most frustrating part of this season for me was not the play on the field, but seeing the directions of Seattle and Denver and wishing that it had been Green Bay with the gumption to make that sort of move.

As to your last comment-- of course we could have flopped with Love. There is no avenue or direction that guarantees success. But the end is night for Rodgers no matter what we do. You move on now, or you move on in the very near future. My argument is that you make success more likely when you move on a little early and accrue a bunch of assets to help you rebuild.

 

[Dantés]

I really don't see the Packers getting a 1st round pick at all for Rodgers. I see them getting a conditional draft pick much like they got for Brett Favre. He will be 40 next year with a gigantic contract. I just don't see anything more than a 3rd. I've been wrong a lot though.

I don't see us getting the #13 for Rodgers. I totally agree with moving on from some older guys though. Of our free agents, I would like to keep Amos, but I think he is gone due to salary demands.

I don't think this is a bad plan and I overall agree with most of what you said. Sadly, I just don't see any GM in the NFL giving up a fools gold trade for Rodgers.

I can't imagine a scenario in which the Seahawks get two 1sts, two 2nds, another 1st round pick player on a rookie deal (Fant), a 5th, Shelby Harris, and Drew Lock, and the Packers get... a 3rd.

Whether you jive with it or not, the market has been set. Discount it some because Rodgers is older and the Broncos' season makes teams a little less aggressive? Sure. But you're talking about a 99% drop in value. That just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Mondio]

Rodgers was far from the sole cause of the dysfunction on offense.

Injuries to the offensive line, play along the offensive line, young receivers finding their way, drops, etc. They all factored.

But, Rodgers' contribution to the problem is unique in at least two ways:

1) He's getting paid to be elite. Anything less than elite, and he's a net negative to the team. You can't sign a deal with an AAV equal to 24% of the cap and then not be great. Josh Myers was disappointing at times too. But his AAV accounts for %0.7 of the total cap. And you and I both know that there were plenty of instances last year where Rodgers was just plain wretched and it was no one else's fault (e.g. @DET).

2) Rodgers' contribution to the problem was partly on purpose. The offensive linemen weren't trying to get hurt. The receivers weren't trying to drop the ball. But Rodgers was trying to move the scheme back in a direction that is not functional. So it was entirely avoidable, which makes it more heinous in my mind. I'm not saying he sabotaged anything on purpose; he genuinely thinks the way he used to play is better for him and the offense. But it just isn't. The evidence to that effect is incontrovertible.

People might reply "you don't know that-- you're assuming." That's true. But one of two things must be true: Either Lafleur, an offensive mind who uses motion, condensed sets, and PA as staples, decided to go away from all of it at once for stretches of the season, OR Rodgers, who traditionally wants to be in static spread, instigated the drift. Which is more reasonable to assume?

As for the comment on hindsight-- it's hindsight for some, but not for others. I'm not thumping my chest, because I do understand the rationale for running it back with him. But I did say a year ago that they should trade him. The most frustrating part of this season for me was not the play on the field, but seeing the directions of Seattle and Denver and wishing that it had been Green Bay with the gumption to make that sort of move.

As to your last comment-- of course we could have flopped with Love. There is no avenue or direction that guarantees success. But the end is night for Rodgers no matter what we do. You move on now, or you move on in the very near future. My argument is that you make success more likely when you move on a little early and accrue a bunch of assets to help you rebuild.

I don't think it was an all Rodgers or MLF thing though. I think the flux at both WR and OLine for much of the year limited this offense in all sorts of ways including the way an offensive game planner and HC plan and call it.

and in the past, the QB has ran it, and ran it well. He has his quirks, but he's not stupid or blind. He knows what's going on. I'm sure he has his preferences like anyone, I also think if the coach were saying this is what we're doing, he would have been.

a lot of what they call depends on somewhat effective run game too. WHen it seemed they were doing the "MLF offense" it was also when they were running well, getting 1st downs and running a string of plays. It's hard to know exactly what the offense was supposed to be when for much of it, down and distance and lack of sustaining drives at times didn't allow for much of a flow.

I don't think it was Rodgers pulling audibles all the time.

 

[Krabs]

I can't imagine a scenario in which the Seahawks get two 1sts, two 2nds, another 1st round pick player on a rookie deal (Fant), a 5th, Shelby Harris, and Drew Lock, and the Packers get... a 3rd.

Whether you jive with it or not, the market has been set. Discount it some because Rodgers is older and the Broncos' season makes teams a little less aggressive? Sure. But you're talking about a 99% drop in value. That just doesn't make any sense.

The Broncos laid an egg on that one. Just because one team does that does not set any sort of market. Each team will evaluate their needs and adjust accordingly. Like I said, I agree with most of what you said. I just don't agree that they will get any sort of significant value for Rodgers. One big difference is that with Wilson the contract he was carrying was lower. They went into it and gave him a new contract. Rodgers already has a gigantic contract for multiple seasons yet. It's hard to marry that up. I get it too that they could renegotiate once he in theory would be traded. With Wilson the Broncos were looking long term. With Rodgers teams know he has a year or two left. It's not long term and they are not going to give that sort of value for him. We are just not going to see eye to eye on this one. The most I see is a 2nd rounder and maybe a middling TE or something. It's all speculation anyway. All I know is if I were sitting in a GM's chair I wouldn't give a lot for him.

 

[Firethorn1001]

I could definitely see the Jets doing 2 1sts even for 2 seasons. Zach Wilson was just that bad. Rodgers on that team, they probably make the playoffs with another 3-4 wins.

 

[OldSchool101]

In hindsight, this should have been the year that we were sitting in the 1st round either looking to get the QB of the future or heavily stacked with 1st round picks to improve the team around Love. If Rodgers was traded in 2022 to Denver, I would have also traded Adams and, in addition, probably would have tried to trade Alexander also and tried to trade back in hopes of getting 1 more 1st rounder in 2023 given the expected QB heavy draft in 2023. That would have left the Packers with 3 1st rounders.

Love flames out, offseason talks centers around which QB to take. Love does good, they are stacked in round 1 to take a WR, DL, OL and have about $40M in cap space with no Alexander/Rodgers and a Jones restructure.

Missed opportunity.

Oh absolutely. I think many of us crossed that question years ago in this forum. Interestingly enough several years ago (approx 2018?) we were in a thread all guessing when we should draft Rodgers successor.

I can’t remember which thread though but if a moderator or someone in here remembers? It would be fun to look at our guesses

That said, if our FO thought it would fly gently under the radar drafting a Day 1 QB in 2020? They obviously are poor in evaluating human nature in general and specifically WAY out of touch with A. Rodgers. It was almost so bold that it was like saying #12 GO Kick Rocks! That one is on Brian and showed on full display a novice GM feel. Just imo, but his arrogance cost us dearly in both Fiscal and Personnel fallout. I still believe #17 would’ve been here today, but Davante was smart enough to separate himself from that naïveté.

 

[Dantés]

The Broncos laid an egg on that one. Just because one team does that does not set any sort of market. Each team will evaluate their needs and adjust accordingly. Like I said, I agree with most of what you said. I just don't agree that they will get any sort of significant value for Rodgers. One big difference is that with Wilson the contract he was carrying was lower. They went into it and gave him a new contract. Rodgers already has a gigantic contract for multiple seasons yet. It's hard to marry that up. I get it too that they could renegotiate once he in theory would be traded. With Wilson the Broncos were looking long term. With Rodgers teams know he has a year or two left. It's not long term and they are not going to give that sort of value for him. We are just not going to see eye to eye on this one. The most I see is a 2nd rounder and maybe a middling TE or something. It's all speculation anyway. All I know is if I were sitting in a GM's chair I wouldn't give a lot for him.

No, it literally does do that. It literally sets the market. That’s how this works. A team trades assets for a certain type of player and that becomes the comparable deal for the next comparable transaction.

That doesn’t mean that all/any teams must pursue Rodgers. Some just won’t want to. But for those that do, there is a recent deal for comparison.

The contractual stuff is negligible. There’s no deterring difference for the acquiring between trading for a guy on a big deal and trading for a guy and then immediately giving him a big deal.

 

[OldSchool101]

The contractual stuff is negligible. There’s no deterring difference for the acquiring between trading for a guy on a big deal and trading for a guy and then immediately giving him a big deal.

Nice. I like that analogy

 

[Schultz]

The Broncos laid an egg on that one. Just because one team does that does not set any sort of market. Each team will evaluate their needs and adjust accordingly. Like I said, I agree with most of what you said. I just don't agree that they will get any sort of significant value for Rodgers. One big difference is that with Wilson the contract he was carrying was lower. They went into it and gave him a new contract. Rodgers already has a gigantic contract for multiple seasons yet. It's hard to marry that up. I get it too that they could renegotiate once he in theory would be traded. With Wilson the Broncos were looking long term. With Rodgers teams know he has a year or two left. It's not long term and they are not going to give that sort of value for him. We are just not going to see eye to eye on this one. The most I see is a 2nd rounder and maybe a middling TE or something. It's all speculation anyway. All I know is if I were sitting in a GM's chair I wouldn't give a lot for him.

Then you are a GM who won't be acquiring Rodgers. IMO.

 

[PackerRyche]

Jets just hired Hackett. Interesting.

Jets hire Nathaniel Hackett, fired by Broncos last season, as new offensive coordinator

The Jets made a curious, but familiar, hire as their new offensive coordinator.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[Firethorn1001]

Then you are a GM who won't be acquiring Rodgers. IMO.

I know Krabs laughed at my 2 1sts from the Jets, but GMs report to owners. Not what I would do as an owner, but what I could see someone else doing.

Owners that are billionaires, 75 years old, owned a team since 2000 that hasn't done anything and looking at their own mortality. In a vacuum, is Rodgers probably only a 2nd? Can argue that. People can do odd things out of emotion. Owner wants it done because they think it's the piece to get them to the Super Bowl, it's getting done. So yes, I could see an overpay.

I can also envision a scenario that the Packers just want to desperately move on and just get a 3rd round pick in 2024 wrapped in contingencies.

 

[AKCheese]

I think Wilson serves as more of a cautionary tale than a market setter. If GB were able to get HALF that for Rodgers I’d be suprised (and elated). Again - look at Rodgers TOTAL production in the 4th quarter of the last 2 NFCCGs and the Detroit loss (all games at Lambeau BTW). 10 completions…. 83 total yards - Total - in 3 critical quarters of football ZERO touchdowns - none - zip - nadda one interception. Those are STUNNING numbers. Those are the big stage big moment numbers a GM should back the truck up for? I hope somebody backs up a coaster wagon LOL

 

[OldSchool101]

I think Wilson serves as more of a cautionary tale than a market setter. If GB were able to get HALF that for Rodgers I’d be suprised (and elated). Again - look at Rodgers TOTAL production in the 4th quarter of the last 2 NFCCGs and the Detroit loss (all games at Lambeau BTW). 10 completions…. 83 total yards - Total - in 3 critical quarters of football ZERO touchdowns - none - zip - nadda one interception. Those are STUNNING numbers. Those are the big stage big moment numbers a GM should back the truck up for? I hope somebody backs up a coaster wagon LOL

Stymied is the word comes to mind.

Although Rodgers and GB did score 13 points in the 4th Quarter against @SF49ers in the NFC Championship He had a 4th Qtr drive with a 7 Play 92 yarder and capped with an 8 yard TD pass to Sternberger. So he did Pass for a TD and put up 92 passing on just 1 drive. Actually looking back Rodgers really scored TWICE in the 4th qtr. Its just that it was finished with a 1 yard TD run by #33 and failed 2pt attempt. Rodgers passed for 86 yards on that drive also. That’s 178 yards passing in back to back drives with TD pass and 1 TD run

That last NFC game had a 13 play 68 yard drive capped with a TD with just :24 sec before the 4th quarter.
Then in quarter 4 we did punt twice but Rodgers had 49 yards passing on the last drive and we kicked a FG from the Tampa 8 to get within 5 points.

That Lions game wasn’t exactly great weather. It was 26 degrees and windy with a 15 wind chill and 10MPH wind. 90% of the league would’ve had trouble. In 61 total attempts both QBs had 6.4 yards per pass with a 39.75 combined average QB rating. The wind gave Both QBs problems imo.

 

[AKCheese]

Stymied is the word comes to mind.

Although Rodgers and GB did score 13 points in the 4th Quarter against @SF49ers in the NFC Championship He had a 4th Qtr drive with a 7 Play 92 yarder and capped with an 8 yard TD pass to Sternberger. So he did Pass for a TD and put up 92 passing on just 1 drive. Actually looking back Rodgers really scored TWICE in the 4th qtr. Its just that it was finished with a 1 yard TD run by #33 and failed 2pt attempt. Rodgers passed for 86 yards on that drive also. That’s 178 yards passing in the 4th Quarter alone in back to back drives.

The last NFC game @ Lambeau was like 9 degrees and breezy and both teams struggled Offensively. Even Kittle dropped a bread basket ball. Neither Offense moved the chains very good

That was the 2020 NFCCG. Mr Rodgers threw those 2 scores up in garbage time when the game was over (Packers down 27 to start the 4th quarter). Compare and contrast to his performance in must win/winnable situations in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Three critical quarters of football. At home. 10 of 23(?) - 83 yards - zero touchdowns - one interception. Not a one time deal - three consecutive. Maybe Mr Rodgers should have/should take(n) a good hard look in the mirror after each of those failures instead of deflecting and finger pointing. 10-23 for 83 yards zero TDs one interception.
Those numbers are STUNNING. Maybe somebody can double check them. 10-23 83 yards zero tds one int.

 

[longtimefan]

What I don’t get is this team probably won’t get any real wr threat in fa , maybe the draft?? and defense won’t get any better.

Do people truly believe the 2023 team will be capable to be competitive vs the 49ers ?

I don’t so why not get what we can for him

 

[tynimiller]

What I don’t get is this team probably won’t get any real wr threat in fa , maybe the draft?? and defense won’t get any better.

Do people truly believe the 2023 team will be capable to be competitive vs the 49ers ?

I don’t so why not get what we can for him

So defensively we face losing only one IMO first level starter (Amos) and two support level starters (Reed and Lowry).

I would love to see us add Reed back cheap but fear Amos isn’t gonna be back. That said I do believe this team is quite capable of increasing defensively due to very little change and numerous growths most likely to occur.

Stokes and Gary will be back at some point, Enagabare and Quay showed a ton of good in elevated roles and Wyatt closed the year VERY GOOD.

I am hoping draft adds at minimum a solid edge snap supporter or starting safety…another TJ Slaton type drafting would be awesome too along the front.

 

[Dantés]

I don't think it was an all Rodgers or MLF thing though. I think the flux at both WR and OLine for much of the year limited this offense in all sorts of ways including the way an offensive game planner and HC plan and call it.

and in the past, the QB has ran it, and ran it well. He has his quirks, but he's not stupid or blind. He knows what's going on. I'm sure he has his preferences like anyone, I also think if the coach were saying this is what we're doing, he would have been.

a lot of what they call depends on somewhat effective run game too. WHen it seemed they were doing the "MLF offense" it was also when they were running well, getting 1st downs and running a string of plays. It's hard to know exactly what the offense was supposed to be when for much of it, down and distance and lack of sustaining drives at times didn't allow for much of a flow.

I don't think it was Rodgers pulling audibles all the time.

Well for sure, I don't think this is about Rodgers changing plays at the LOS. That's an important part of the offense. He's very good at reading defenses pre-snap. There's nothing wrong with any of that.

What I'm talking about is influencing the design of the offense and gameplan leading up to the actual games. There were stretches of the season and individual games in which the hallmarks of LaFleur's system disappeared, and the old patterns and habits of Rodgers from 2015-19 re-appeared. It actually reminded me a lot of 2019, where you'd see LaFleur's offense in fits and starts, but you'd also see Rodgers' exerting his influence or leaning back into bad habits that don't work.

And to be clear, I don't think that Rodgers is malicious nor stupid. Like any team with an established, veteran QB, the offensive approach is a group effort that includes the QB's input. It just happens to be the case that Rodgers' input and inclinations are bad for the offense. But he's not making the offense worse on purpose! Which leads me to the question of whether Rodgers is just dumb. Clearly not! His football IQ is off the charts. But so is his confidence (or, if you like, arrogance). I don't think Russell Wilson is stupid either. But I do think that when you've been elite for a long time, it's easy to believe you can still do things that you can't do.

Rodgers burned through the league like wildfire using static 11 personnel, second reaction plays, scramble drills, and option routes. He held the ball, he used his athleticism, and he made amazing plays. But that was a long time ago. 2014 was the last time he was truly elite in that way. He's not that player any more and the league has changed too. Hence, once he hit about 32 years old, he went from being absolutely elite to somewhere just north of average. And he didn't regain elite status again until he leaned into LaFleur's offense in 2020. He needed the support structure of that system, which allowed him to take full advantage of the exceptional talent that he still possesses AND which was better designed to attack modern defenses.

My point is that in 2022, you saw him slide back into his old ways, which contributed significantly to the overall ineptitude of the offense. As an aside, I think we will see him backslide really hard if he goes to New York. Hackett will likely be a doormat, Rodgers will do whatever he wants, it will largely be ineffective. That's one reason why I'm crossing my fingers that the Packers can pull that deal off.

 

[OldSchool101]

That was the 2020 NFCCG. Mr Rodgers threw those 2 scores up in garbage time when the game was over (Packers down 27 to start the 4th quarter). Compare and contrast to his performance in must win/winnable situations in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Three critical quarters of football. At home. 10 of 23(?) - 83 yards - zero touchdowns - one interception. Not a one time deal - three consecutive. Maybe Mr Rodgers should have/should take(n) a good hard look in the mirror after each of those failures instead of deflecting and finger pointing. 10-23 for 83 yards zero TDs one interception.
Those numbers are STUNNING. Maybe somebody can double check them. 10-23 83 yards zero tds one int.

Oh yeah you’re right that was 2020 my bad. It does go to show you why great Defenses are important. The 2020-2021 Tampa postseason D unit was kinda peaking into playoffs. Rodgers wasn’t the only one either. I seem to recall Pat Mahomes running for his life 20 yards behind LOS. I remember an interview several days after that SB where Pat said his body had never been punished as much as that game.

Last years 49ers were no joke either. They held postseason opponents to 15.7 points per game.

I still can’t believe we lost that 2021 Divisional against 49ers when our Defense allowed 7 points! When is the last time a Rodgers led Offense scored less than 7 points at Lambeau? It’s never happened in any season. But our Defense allowed 7 points and we still lost.
Thank You ST!

 

[Dantés]

What I don’t get is this team probably won’t get any real wr threat in fa , maybe the draft?? and defense won’t get any better.

Do people truly believe the 2023 team will be capable to be competitive vs the 49ers ?

I don’t so why not get what we can for him

That's exactly right. It's not just that the Packers don't have space to sign a big WR; it's that there literally aren't any hitting FA to sign. They would have to rely on the draft and internal development of Watson and Doubs. I like their futures, but that's still a dubious proposition.

Also, bringing Barry back basically sealed the fate for the defense. "Above average" is probably their ceiling. If Love is the QB and it's a year of assessment and development, who cares? But if you're going all-in again to try and win a ring with Rodgers, that's a weight around your ankle that you just can't afford.

 

[Dantés]

I think Wilson serves as more of a cautionary tale than a market setter. If GB were able to get HALF that for Rodgers I’d be suprised (and elated). Again - look at Rodgers TOTAL production in the 4th quarter of the last 2 NFCCGs and the Detroit loss (all games at Lambeau BTW). 10 completions…. 83 total yards - Total - in 3 critical quarters of football ZERO touchdowns - none - zip - nadda one interception. Those are STUNNING numbers. Those are the big stage big moment numbers a GM should back the truck up for? I hope somebody backs up a coaster wagon LOL

Half would be a lot more reasonable.

What would half be?

Here's some rough math:

Average 1st round pick (this year): 1000 points
Average 1st round pick (a year out): 500 points
Average 2nd round pick (this year): 430 points
Average 2nd round pick (a year out): 215 points
Former 1st round player (Fant): Valued at a 2nd; 430 points
Veteran on reasonable contract (Harris): Valued at a 5th; 30 points
Rookie contract QB to compete to start: Valued at a 5th; 30 points

Total: 2635 in draft chart point value

That equates to the 2nd overall pick. Pick #13 is worth 1150, which leaves 1485 left over to account for. That pick next year is worth roughly 600, which leaves 885.

So two 1st round picks would actually be less than half of the package that the Seahawks got.

It also seems weird to me to imagine a scenario in which a team views Rodgers as the missing link in a Super Bowl run, but also doesn't value him enough to trade real capital. The only way I could envision that unfolding is if there was only one team interested and they didn't have to compete.

 

[OldSchool101]

That's exactly right. It's not just that the Packers don't have space to sign a big WR; it's that there literally aren't any hitting FA to sign. They would have to rely on the draft and internal development of Watson and Doubs. I like their futures, but that's still a dubious proposition.

Also, bringing Barry back basically sealed the fate for the defense. "Above average" is probably their ceiling. If Love is the QB and it's a year of assessment and development, who cares? But if you're going all-in again to try and win a ring with Rodgers, that's a weight around your ankle that you just can't afford.

I agree with most points here. However I’m not sure we can assume our Defense can’t crack at least top-10. Particularly if they add a piece with #15 overall. I’m expecting Wyatt or Walker or Enagbare to Improve off their 2022 Rookie seasons. We might get 3 of 3. Then we should conceivably get Stokes back and eventually Gary later in the season. It might be smart to grab another DT/Edge using that #47 in some capacity.

 

[Schultz]

So you just used the top 2 picks on defense. Others want Mayer and a WR. IMO they will not be able to draft those 4 guys with their 1st 2 picks. IMO.

 

[Dantés]

I agree with most points here. However I’m not sure we can assume our Defense can’t crack at least top-10. Particularly if they add a piece with #15 overall. I’m expecting Wyatt or Walker or Enagbare to Improve off their 2022 Rookie seasons. We might get 3 of 3. Then we should conceivably get Stokes back and eventually Gary later in the season. It might be smart to grab another DT/Edge using that #47 in some capacity.

But what is most reasonable to assume, given what we just watched?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I agree with most points here. However I’m not sure we can assume our Defense can’t crack at least top-10. Particularly if they add a piece with #15 overall. I’m expecting Wyatt or Walker or Enagbare to Improve off their 2022 Rookie seasons. We might get 3 of 3. Then we should conceivably get Stokes back and eventually Gary later in the season. It might be smart to grab another DT/Edge using that #47 in some capacity.

The Packers had the most snaps on defense of first and second round picks in the entire NFL for the first half of the season (until Gary went down) and they were awful. Why do people think that continuing to throw good money after bad is the solution? The offense has been decimated by focusing on the defense so heavily in the draft; I shudder to think of the situation that Love is going to be thrust into with this offense if significant improvements are not made to the offense in the off-season.

 

[rmontro]

The offense has been decimated by focusing on the defense so heavily in the draft; I shudder to think of the situation that Love is going to be thrust into with this offense if significant improvements are not made to the offense in the off-season.

Yeah, it wouldn't be so bad to focus on the defense if the defense was good, but it's only mediocre. And the Packers have been depending on Rodgers to make the offense elite, so what will happen if Love takes over? I really thought we'd have an excellent rushing attack this year, but again it was middle of the road.