The Aaron Rodgers performance thread

[Deleted member 6794]

What it really means when people say they were a sub-par 13-3 team is that the team is probably going to regress next year, which is kind of easy to predict considering the holes on this team. Just that anyone expecting 13 wins next year is putting too much stock into a win total last year that consisted mainly of one-score wins and some pretty lopsided losses; Packers won 8 games by one score while their 3 losses were by 7, 15, and 29 points..

As I've mentioned in another thread some time ago it's unrealistic to expect any team to repeat a 13 win season as only 10 out of 74 have been able to accomplish thst feat since the league adopted a 16 game schedule.

come on. i highly doubt you haven't heard the term winning ugly. the passing game was very ugly last season.

The term winning being the only important one in that context though.

I agree the passing offense struggled last season. But for the umpteenth time Rodgers wasn't the main factor for it.

That's a load of hot garbage. Cook is an elite talent, see his performance against the Saints (on the road) who had a better run defense than us. Even if they somehow managed to contain him at the LOS, he would have been found in the passing game. He likely would have put up 200 all-purpose yards against us again, there is no doubt in my mind. Our run defense was brutal last year.

Cook averaged only 3.36 yards per carry vs. the Saints in the playoffs and had three receptions. He wouldn't have made a difference in week 16.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

As I've mentioned in another thread some time ago it's unrealistic to expect any team to repeat a 13 win season as only 10 out of 74 have been able to accomplish thst feat since the league adopted a 16 game schedule.

I completely agree. That doesn't stop some people though from having unrealistic expectations.

 

[PackAttack12]

As I've mentioned in another thread some time ago it's unrealistic to expect any team to repeat a 13 win season as only 10 out of 74 have been able to accomplish thst feat since the league adopted a 16 game schedule.

Exactly. But as sure as I'm typing this response, if the Packers win less than 13 games, some on this forum will lose their minds and say "see...I told you they weren't really a 13 win team".

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Am I the only one confused that 1/3 of the voters in this thread think that Aaron Rodgers "decline in form" is a bigger issue than MVS and Allen Lazard being the #2 WR on the roster while also starting a TE worthy of being #3 on most other teams?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Can never watch too many highlight reels of #12

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Do7]

Am I the only one confused that 1/3 of the voters in this thread think that Aaron Rodgers "decline in form" is a bigger issue than MVS and Allen Lazard being the #2 WR on the roster while also starting a TE worthy of being #3 on most other teams?

And yet people disregard this and say Rodgers had a worse year, despite that lack of talent, and being in a new system.

 

[HardRightEdge]

come on. i highly doubt you haven't heard the term winning ugly. the passing game was very ugly last season.

Red zone performance, on offense as well as defense, along with turnover differential, adds up to 13-3.

Superficial stats, fantasy points, the volume of big play highligh clips, and the occasional gouging with 45 points are not requirements for winning. Rodgers had a very good season precisely because, as he stated, he did not care about these stats. Slinging it around the ballyard is a solution to nothing.

The biggest problem in these parts over the last decade is historically bad playoff defensive performances in shockingly unique ways.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Red zone performance, on offense as well as defense, along with turnover differential, adds up to 13-3.

Superficial stats, fantasy points, the volume of big play highligh clips, and the occasional gouging with 45 points are not requirements for winning. Rodgers had a very good season precisely because, as he stated, he did not care about these stats. Slinging it around the ballyard is a solution to nothing.

The biggest problem in these parts over the last decade is historically bad playoff defensive performances in shockingly unique ways.

Winning a bunch of 1-score games, getting blown out in losses, not winning many games by big margins, and the defense giving up more yards per play than the offense gains are not things that add up to 13-3, historically. Either way, it's kind of a pointless discussion. Another 13-3 team beat the ever loving pants off the Packers twice last year so I think it's fair to say that record isn't going to help close the gap with a team that is substantially better than the Packers right now.

 

[HardRightEdge]

what the heck is a favre dead-ender?

I've used that phrase numerours times over the years and you're actually the first to ask. I though it was self-explanatory, but for your benefit:

• Favre had an engaging personality. Rodgers is reserved
• Favre was a devil-may-care kind of guy. Rodgers is cerbral and detailed.
• The above point translated to the field, gunslinger vs. ball protector and "making things too complicated".
• Favre got along with everybody. Rodgers' ex-receivers have had their various complaint, Driver, Finley, Jennings, justified or not a matter of past discussions. I think we can say Rodgers tends toward being a harsh critic in matters of "do your job".
• Farve had his teary moments contemplating retirement and being late for work. Rodgers has always been on time and never said anything other wanting to play into his 40's.
• As an aside, the most noteable things they have in common are the predispositions to look deep and extend plays.

You probaly won't find two more contrasting personalities and approaches to the game.

What makes for a Favre dead-ender, if not obvious by now, is:

• Complaints about Rodgers which imply he should be more like Favre, which really isn't possible, let alone preferable.
• Wanting something that cannot be had, nor should be wanted, that's now 14 years in the rearview mirror.

I didn't say you were a Favre dead-ender, only that you were sounding like one.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Winning a bunch of 1-score games, getting blown out in losses, not winning many games by big margins, and the defense giving up more yards per play than the offense gains are not things that add up to 13-3, historically.

Historically? Teams get there, or close to it, in a variety of ways. Some just outscore 'em; others ground, pound, and play defense. I guess I have to repeat it again. Red zone and turnover supremecy is yet another way to get it done, neither of which are accidental.

Getting blown out in those losses, particularly the second one that mattered most, was obviously a function of the defense, Pettine getting outcoached in particular.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Historically? Teams get there, or close to it, in a variety of ways. Some just outscore 'em; others ground, pound, and play defense. I guess I have to repeat it again. Red zone and turnover supremecy is yet another way to get it done, neither of which are accidental.

Getting blown out in those losses, particularly the second one that mattered most, was obviously a function of the defense, Pettine getting outcoached in particular.

Really? Cause I didn't see the offense doing a whole lot out there. Either way though, even if it was only the defense, it's a BIG gap between the two teams as of right now (obviously things can change though).

 

[HardRightEdge]

Really? Cause I didn't see the offense doing a whole lot out there. Either way though, even if it was only the defense, it's a BIG gap between the two teams as of right now (obviously things can change though).

Well, when a guy who's bounced around on a half dozen practice squads or whatever the exact count runs 140 yards before contact, that will throw everything, including your offense, off kilter.

Since we're digressing, I'll say teams rise, teams fall, we won't know what these two teams will end up looking like at the end of this season, if there is one. One thing is for sure, a point on which I am in complete agreement with Gutekunst: you don't build a roster targeting one team because you may find their wheels are coming off (see LA Rams, 2020) and somebody else with a different style is the one to worry about.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Well, when a guy who's bounced around on a half dozen practice squads or whatever the exact count runs 140 yards before contact, that will throw everything, including your offense, off kilter.

Since we're digressing, I'll say teams rise, teams fall, we won't know what these two teams will end up looking like at the end of this season, if there is one. One thing is for sure, a point on which I am in complete agreement with Gutekunst: you don't build a roster targeting one team because you may find their wheels are coming off (see LA Rams, 2020) and somebody else with a different style is the one to worry about.

Oh, I agree, you shouldn't target a team. I'm not trying to imply that the Packers need to target the 49ers, they just need to get good enough to beat them.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

As I've mentioned in another thread some time ago it's unrealistic to expect any team to repeat a 13 win season as only 10 out of 74 have been able to accomplish thst feat since the league adopted a 16 game schedule.



The term winning being the only important one in that context though.

I agree the passing offense struggled last season. But for the umpteenth time Rodgers wasn't the main factor for it.



Cook averaged only 3.36 yards per carry vs. the Saints in the playoffs and had three receptions. He wouldn't have made a difference in week 16.

Cook controlled the tempo of that entire game vs. the Saints. He allowed the Vikings to control the clock and play with the lead for most of the game. It's pretty clear you need to watch that game if you want to continue this discussion and not look foolish. Also, keep in mind that Minnesota had already clinched a playoff spot by the time we had our rematch, so they didn't have much to play for. It's also hilarious you think our defense would have stood a chance against him anyway considering that #1. He had no trouble running on us the first time we played (in Lambeau) and #2. he had two touchdowns and 130 all-purpose yards against a better run defense AWAY during the playoffs.

 

[Mondio]

Nothing to play for lol

they were only a wildcard at that point. Winning would have clinched a playoff spot AND still kept them in the hunt for a division title.

they had everything to play for and where at home.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Winning a bunch of 1-score games, getting blown out in losses, not winning many games by big margins, and the defense giving up more yards per play than the offense gains are not things that add up to 13-3, historically. Either way, it's kind of a pointless discussion. Another 13-3 team beat the ever loving pants off the Packers twice last year so I think it's fair to say that record isn't going to help close the gap with a team that is substantially better than the Packers right now.

I looked up the Packers point differential compared to other teams that won 13 games in a 16 game season and was surprised to find out that last year's team had the worst of all those teams.

That doesn't change the fact that they were able to make enough plays to win that many games. Unfortunately they matched up terribly with the Niners though.

Cook controlled the tempo of that entire game vs. the Saints. He allowed the Vikings to control the clock and play with the lead for most of the game. It's pretty clear you need to watch that game if you want to continue this discussion and not look foolish.

Also, keep in mind that Minnesota had already clinched a playoff spot by the time we had our rematch, so they didn't have much to play for. It's also hilarious you think our defense would have stood a chance against him anyway considering that #1. He had no trouble running on us the first time we played (in Lambeau) and #2. he had two touchdowns and 130 all-purpose yards against a better run defense AWAY during the playoffs.

The Vikings still had a chance to win the division by beating the Packers, therefore you're the one looking like a fool when you mention they had nothing to play for.

While Cook had a 75-yard touchdown run in the first meeting against the Packers he wasn't much a factor the rest of the game and the Vikings ended up scoring only 16 points.

In addition you seem to ignore thwt he touched the ball 31 times vs. the Saints in the playoffs for an average of 4.2 yards per play, hardly impressive.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I looked up the Packers point differential compared to other teams that won 13 games in a 16 game season and was surprised to find out that last year's team had the worst of all those teams.

That doesn't change the fact that they were able to make enough plays to win that many games. Unfortunately they matched up terribly with the Niners though.



The Vikings still had a chance to win the division by beating the Packers, therefore you're the one looking like a fool when you mention they had nothing to play for.

While Cook had a 75-yard touchdown run in the first meeting against the Packers he wasn't much a factor the rest of the game and the Vikings ended up scoring only 16 points.

In addition you seem to ignore thwt he touched the ball 31 times vs. the Saints in the playoffs for an average of 4.2 yards per play, hardly impressive.

Please. The Vikings were well aware they were going to be a wild-card at that point. They needed GB to lose out and that included a loss to Detroit. That's why they rested Cook (who was documented as wanting to play). Their best bet to make a run was a healthy Cook. Again, you definitely need to watch that Saints/Vikings game, then come back and try to reiterate your points it's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Mondio]

"lose out" included a loss a Detroit and a Vikings win. That's it. The Vikings win, they need 1 divisional team to beat the packers and they're NFC North champs. Needing the Packers to "lose out" was HARDLY an insurmountable wish. Vikings fans, players and coaches were well aware of that.

If not, might I play a video of a 3-12 Cardinals team knocking the Vikings out of the playoffs in the last game of the Season and sending GB to the playoffs as the Divisional champs. These teams never take anything for granted. You're kidding yourself if you don't think MN was playing to win in week 17.

and besides, I watched GB beat them up twice last year. Good for Cook and his yards in game 1. They were losing by double digits for much of it and had a 2nd half score helped in large part by a GB turnover in their own territory. All those yards, no points. Makes it tough to win and they didn't. Twice.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

"lose out" included a loss a Detroit and a Vikings win. That's it. The Vikings win, they need 1 divisional team to beat the packers and they're NFC North champs. Needing the Packers to "lose out" was HARDLY an insurmountable wish. Vikings fans, players and coaches were well aware of that.

If not, might I play a video of a 3-12 Cardinals team knocking the Vikings out of the playoffs in the last game of the Season and sending GB to the playoffs as the Divisional champs. These teams never take anything for granted. You're kidding yourself if you don't think MN was playing to win in week 17.

and besides, I watched GB beat them up twice last year. Good for Cook and his yards in game 1. They were losing by double digits for much of it and had a 2nd half score helped in large part by a GB turnover in their own territory. All those yards, no points. Makes it tough to win and they didn't. Twice.

C'mon man. It's pretty obvious they let up. They had two home games to rest and avoid travel and they rested Cook for both. If they wanted to win, they'd have started their studs. Not only that, they strayed from their usual run-heavy offense. What we saw was a lukewarm version of the Vikings. They were then defeated the next week too by Chicago, only to upset the three seed the next week away in New Orleans. Their strategy to enter the playoffs healthy almost worked too, but they ran into a hot 49ers team. I contend that had we played the Vikings in the playoffs, we would have been defeated considering how poorly we played overall ending the season.

 

[gbgary]

Can never watch too many highlight reels of #12

a lot of great moments there. also a lot of randall cobb.

 

[Mondio]

C'mon man. It's pretty obvious they let up. They had two home games to rest and avoid travel and they rested Cook for both. If they wanted to win, they'd have started their studs. Not only that, they strayed from their usual run-heavy offense. What we saw was a lukewarm version of the Vikings. They were then defeated the next week too by Chicago, only to upset the three seed the next week away in New Orleans. Their strategy to enter the playoffs healthy almost worked too, but they ran into a hot 49ers team. I contend that had we played the Vikings in the playoffs, we would have been defeated considering how poorly we played overall ending the season.

I have no doubt you think we’d have lost lol


You’re right, they didn’t play to win against the Bears, they say all their starters lol

how many did they sit against GB? 1, their RB who was injured and left the game a week earlier. Against Da Bears how many did they sit? And you say it was the same strategy lol

talk about viewing history how you want it.

 

[gbgary]

I didn't say you were a Favre dead-ender, only that you were sounding like one.

yeah maybe in these late stages...and i don't want him to go fully favre by any means. just be a little more daring. not 50/50 jump ball prayers either. i mean fire it in there regardless of who's wearing that green and gold jersey even if they only have a yard on the guy. his prudence has kept some of the negative plays down but it can be argued it's kept some positive plays down as well. open is open. take advantage of it. they scored as many points as the previous season but that was due to the improved running game. the passing O looked a bit better the last third of the season. those ugly wins could very well have been ugly losses.

 

[rmontro]

I definitely think the Packers had the better team this past year, we did sweep them after all. Despite their supposed superior roster. I do recall thinking that the Vikings game plan that second time we played them was downright stupid and screwy. But hey, I wasn't going to lose any sleep over it. Had we played them a third time I liked our chances, but I'm realistic enough to know we also could have lost.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Again, you definitely need to watch that Saints/Vikings game, then come back and try to reiterate your points it's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about.

Cook had two short touchdown runs in the playoff game against the Saints but other than that he didn't have a huge impact on that game.

his prudence has kept some of the negative plays down but it can be argued it's kept some positive plays down as well.

True, wouldn't it be awesome if Rodgers took more risks to complete more highlight reel passes just to get intercepted on the next attempt???

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Cook had two short touchdown runs in the playoff game against the Saints but other than that he didn't have a huge impact on that game.



True, wouldn't it be awesome if Rodgers took more risks to complete more highlight reel passes just to get intercepted on the next attempt???

SMH. That's simply just wrong. It was a run-heavy game plan by the Vikings (~50 runs to ~30 passes) and Cook had the vast majority of those carries, scoring the majority of their TDs in the process. The player who has the MOST YARDS, MOST TD's and touches the ball THE MOST has the MOST impact in the game period!

Take the L, again.