The Aaron Rodgers performance thread

[Mondio]

Just like the vikings took the L, twice and were barely in either game in terms of play on the field yet in the hypothetical they get the W LOL. Maybe this year in the virtual season you can make GB as bad as you want to

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Just like the vikings took the L, twice and were barely in either game in terms of play on the field yet in the hypothetical they get the W LOL. Maybe this year in the virtual season you can make GB as bad as you want to

We don't need it to be virtual, you can just replay Mostert waltzing into the endzone over and over.

To be clear, I despise the Vikings. I just think they would have beaten us at full strength in the playoffs. I also think that the Saints would have destroyed us, as stated.

 

[Mondio]

I suppose if you could give the Vikings the 49ers offensive line and Kittle you might have a point. Brees would have had more pressure in his face from GB and tossed 4 picks before he pulled an old man Favre in the cold and withered away.

I think we would have done very well against the Saints, especially at Lambeau. The Vikings abarely belonged in the same field with GB last year in 2 games. A 3rd wasn’t going to make a difference. They didn’t rest and take a break in their 2nd meeting. If you want to see what a team taking a break you have to fast foreword a week to when they say half their offensive lime, their staring QB, a couple RBs and on and on. THAT was a team with nothing to play for. The one the week before was playing for a division title and got their butts handed to them

 

[Do7]

I suppose if you could give the Vikings the 49ers offensive line and Kittle you might have a point. Brees would have had more pressure in his face from GB and tossed 4 picks before he pulled an old man Favre in the cold and withered away.

I think we would have done very well against the Saints, especially at Lambeau. The Vikings abarely belonged in the same field with GB last year in 2 games. A 3rd wasn’t going to make a difference. They didn’t rest and take a break in their 2nd meeting. If you want to see what a team taking a break you have to fast foreword a week to when they say half their offensive lime, their staring QB, a couple RBs and on and on. THAT was a team with nothing to play for. The one the week before was playing for a division title and got their butts handed to them

From the sounds of it, it would appear that @GreenNGold_81 pretty much thinks anyone would've beaten us in the playoffs, especially had they been 100%. According to him we would've lost to Seattle, Minnesota, and New Orleans, (We lost to San Fran obviously). Might as well throw in Philadelphia in the mix to have a complete set.


Sounds like a hot take if you ask me. That's something I'd expect Cowherd to say tbh.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I suppose if you could give the Vikings the 49ers offensive line and Kittle you might have a point. Brees would have had more pressure in his face from GB and tossed 4 picks before he pulled an old man Favre in the cold and withered away.

I think we would have done very well against the Saints, especially at Lambeau. The Vikings abarely belonged in the same field with GB last year in 2 games. A 3rd wasn’t going to make a difference. They didn’t rest and take a break in their 2nd meeting. If you want to see what a team taking a break you have to fast foreword a week to when they say half their offensive lime, their staring QB, a couple RBs and on and on. THAT was a team with nothing to play for. The one the week before was playing for a division title and got their butts handed to them

I think the Saints would have been close. Kamara would have been REALLY hard for the Packers to stop. I think the Packers win because of homefield and the cold though. Either way, 49ers demolish Packers no matter what.

 

[Mondio]

I think the Saints would have been close. Kamara would have been REALLY hard for the Packers to stop. I think the Packers win because of homefield and the cold though. Either way, 49ers demolish Packers no matter what.

probably put 60/40 on whoever is the home team. and I wasn't terribly worried about Kamara. The Saints are exactly the type of team we could have went lighter on the field and take both our LB'ers off and i'm not concerned too much. Play with extra DB's and Hybrid LB and I think we would have been just fine. I'd have been more worried if Mark Ingram was still there and it was a year or 2 ago. But not last year. I think GB had a very good chance to beat the Saints.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

probably put 60/40 on whoever is the home team. and I wasn't terribly worried about Kamara. The Saints are exactly the type of team we could have went lighter on the field and take both our LB'ers off and i'm not concerned too much. Play with extra DB's and Hybrid LB and I think we would have been just fine. I'd have been more worried if Mark Ingram was still there and it was a year or 2 ago. But not last year. I think GB had a very good chance to beat the Saints.

That's a pretty bold take considering that the Saints had a top 5 offense and put up over 40 on the 9ers, and averaged close to 40 pts a game the last quarter of the season. Michael Thomas had a record breaking season and they had a top 5 rb (talent wise) with a legitimate backup. Their problem was they ran into Dalvin Cook and a team that took the last two games off to enter the playoffs healthy. The Vikes sure as hell put up more of a fight against the 9ers than we did...

Who exactly did we beat last year to give you guys such confidence? A hapless Dallas team? A Seattle team that had no Rbs? We literally had a cupcake schedule and still nearly lost to a Detroit team playing their 3rd string QB.

 

[Mondio]

That's a pretty bold take considering that the Saints had a top 5 offense and put up over 40 on the 9ers, and averaged close to 40 pts a game the last quarter of the season. Michael Thomas had a record breaking season and they had a top 5 rb (talent wise) with a legitimate backup. Their problem was they ran into Dalvin Cook and a team that took the last two games off to enter the playoffs healthy. The Vikes sure as hell put up more of a fight against the 9ers than we did...

Who exactly did we beat last year to give you guys such confidence? A hapless Dallas team? A Seattle team that had no Rbs? We literally had a cupcake schedule and still nearly lost to a Detroit team playing their 3rd string QB.

You with the “taking the last 2 games off” stuff again. Compare the last 2 games they are obvious contradictions. 1 was with a division title on the line and 1 player inactive with a shoulder injury that saw him leave the game a week earlier. The other had 2 handfuls of backups named starters and a good number of offensive and defensive starts inactive. They took 1 week off and it’s obvious which one it is.

I don’t care how many they put up on the 49ers. How many did they put up on MN? We handled MN twice. I wasn’t worried. We matched up just fine with them, especially at Lambeau.

oh, and we beat a more complete Seattle team than the 49ers did ( and almost lost to) just a couple weeks earlier.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

You with the “taking the last 2 games off” stuff again. Compare the last 2 games they are obvious contradictions. 1 was with a division title on the line and 1 player inactive with a shoulder injury that saw him leave the game a week earlier. The other had 2 handfuls of backups named starters and a good number of offensive and defensive starts inactive. They took 1 week off and it’s obvious which one it is.

I don’t care how many they put up on the 49ers. How many did they put up on MN? We handled MN twice. I wasn’t worried. We matched up just fine with them, especially at Lambeau.

oh, and we beat a more complete Seattle team than the 49ers did ( and almost lost to) just a couple weeks earlier.

Seattle beat the 9ers with a heroic effort from Clowney their first go around. Their run offense was also healthy and Wilson knows how to play against that tough 9er defense. Their defense tightened up on stopping the run near the end of the season so they matched up well with the 9ers. Those teams generally play each other hard. At this point in their respective careers I'd take Wilson over Rodgers. That's a separate argument though. Seattle with Penny or Carson healthy beats us in Lambeau.

 

[Mondio]

of Course they do lol. Yet they didn’t, and weren’t even in much of the game being down by double digits for almost all of it.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Look, obviously some people firmly believe the Packers are clearly the second best team in the NFC and some don't. I'm in the "top-5 but not top-2" camp personally. However, there is going to be zero evidence that anyone can present to sway anyone's opinion on this, but it's still fun to argue!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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!

With the game on the line in the fourth quarter and overtime Cook had a total of seven yards on nine rushes and a single reception for six yards. As I've mentioned before he didn't have a huge impact on the game.

They won the game because their defense played exceptionally well.

We don't need it to be virtual, you can just replay Mostert waltzing into the endzone over and over.

You might have to realize that the difference was that Niners run blocking unit dominated the LOS while the Vikings struggled to open holes against the Packers.

Their problem was they ran into Dalvin Cook and a team that took the last two games off to enter the playoffs healthy. The Vikes sure as hell put up more of a fight against the 9ers than we did...

The Vikings were able to keep the game close vs. the Niners in the first half but in the end lost by the same margin as the Packers.

BTW Cook was awesome in that game, gaining a whopping 26 yards on 15 touches

Who exactly did we beat last year to give you guys such confidence?

The Vikings, twice.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

With the game on the line in the fourth quarter and overtime Cook had a total of seven yards on nine rushes and a single reception for six yards. As I've mentioned before he didn't have a huge impact on the game.

They won the game because their defense played exceptionally well.



You might have to realize that the difference was that Niners run blocking unit dominated the LOS while the Vikings struggled to open holes against the Packers.



The Vikings were able to keep the game close vs. the Niners in the first half but in the end lost by the same margin as the Packers.

BTW Cook was awesome in that game, gaining a whopping 26 yards on 15 touches



The Vikings, twice.

You can go take a nap and retire from this conversation now. You lose all credibility when you say that Cook didn't have a huge impact on the game against the Saints. It's clear you didn't watch the match.

 

[Do7]

You can go take a nap and retire from this conversation now. You lose all credibility when you say that Cook didn't have a huge impact on the game against the Saints. It's clear you didn't watch the match.

One could say the same with you and your hot takes. You probably may have been using those special goggles that gary uses that someone mentioned earlier. XD

 

[GreenNGold_81]

One could say the same with you and your hot takes. You probably may have been using those special goggles that gary uses that someone mentioned earlier. XD

Gotta tell it like I see it. Followed this team my whole life and I saw plenty of warts with last year's team.

 

[Mondio]

Look, obviously some people firmly believe the Packers are clearly the second best team in the NFC and some don't. I'm in the "top-5 but not top-2" camp personally. However, there is going to be zero evidence that anyone can present to sway anyone's opinion on this, but it's still fun to argue!

I'd say most firmly believe GB earned what they got last year. Of all the teams in the NFC playoffs, the only team that truly worried me was San Fran. Not because of the first meeting, but just how we matched up. The rest gave me zero reason to believe we couldn't win. I think the Saints were a tad overrated in general because they scored lots of points in games. But i've been thru that with this team. Gets people excited, doesn't mean **** in the end. and I think we matched up pretty well with them, especially in Lambeau. I fully realize they were more than capable of beating us to.

I felt confident against the Vikings, we handled them twice and don't think the 3rd time would have been much different. Their Oline was NOTHING like the 49ers. Their defense wasn't going to stop us. They hadn't in 2 games outside of us playing conservative with a double digit lead. Wasn't worried about Seattle with or without RB's. It's funny to hear people disparage this GB team because of the circumstances surrounding their wins and give Seattle a pass LOL. and then imply others aren't really paying attention. kind of funny.

I fully realize the weaknesses this team has and what they need to do to have a better chance this year. The needs are many, probably more than I'd like from a team that was in the NFCCG the previous year, but it doesn't take away from the FACT they were in the NFCCG and deserved the right to be there no matter how much some want to convince us lesser teams "would have " beat us despite NOT beating us with every opportunity they had.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You can go take a nap and retire from this conversation now. You lose all credibility when you say that Cook didn't have a huge impact on the game against the Saints. It's clear you didn't watch the match.

PFF graded Cook as the second worst Vikings starter on offense in the game vs. the Saints.

With them being the only objective source available I tend to side with them over some random poster on a forum who was adamant about the Buccaneers passing offense being a top unit entering last season.

 

[Do7]

Gotta tell it like I see it. Followed this team my whole life and I saw plenty of warts with last year's team.

That's fine, but don't pretend that what you're preaching is the absolute truth either. Like you, I'm pretty confident most of us have been following the team for most of our lives, so what makes your opinion more valid? As for the wart thing regarding the team, of course there were, but then again every team has warts. That doesn't mean however that what you concluded in regards to us losing to said opponents is factual however.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

PFF graded Cook as the second worst Vikings starter on offense in the game vs. the Saints.

With them being the only objective source available I tend to side with them over some random poster on a forum who was adamant about the Buccaneers passing offense being a top unit entering last season.

Ya, I was totally wrong on that hot take too... Oh wait... they scored in the top 5 for points again last year. Oh, and this just in... did Tom Brady choose their team? They must have had a total dumpster fire offense for him to choose there in the twilight of his career...

Tampa's offense is one RB away from being the best in the league (or at least very close to KC) entering the season.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

That's fine, but don't pretend that what you're preaching is the absolute truth either. Like you, I'm pretty confident most of us have been following the team for most of our lives, so what makes your opinion more valid? As for the wart thing regarding the team, of course there were, but then again every team has warts. That doesn't mean however that what you concluded in regards to us losing to said opponents is factual however.

Obviously there's no way to prove my points, we go on boards like this to spout our opinions. I strongly believe that any starting RB, not a scrub like Boone or Lynch, would have gutted us in the playoffs. Kerryon Johnson against us week 17 averaged nearly 5 yards a carry. I do wonder had they continued to feed him the rock if we would have been the 3rd seed.

 

[rmontro]

Ya, I was totally wrong on that hot take too... Oh wait... they scored in the top 5 for points again last year.

TB led the league in points last year, and also passing yards.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

TB led the league in points last year, and also passing yards.

With a QB that doesnt turn over the ball now that offense is going to be unreal.

 

[XPack]

With a QB that doesnt turn over the ball now that offense is going to be unreal.

It doesn't work that way. Even ignoring last season last time TB threw for 5000+ yards was back in 2011. It's not like you get the best of Winston and best of Brady all in one suddenly. There will be increased accuracy, but I doubt the team will still lead in passing yards (not saying it's impossible, but just that it's unlikely).

 

[GreenNGold_81]

It doesn't work that way. Even ignoring last season last time TB threw for 5000+ yards was back in 2011. It's not like you get the best of Winston and best of Brady all in one suddenly. There will be increased accuracy, but I doubt the team will still lead in passing yards (not saying it's impossible, but just that it's unlikely).

This is the most talent at wr that Brady has had since he had Randy Moss. He probably won't put up as many yards as Winston as he'll likely not have to play from behind as often. That offense is still looking like it will put up a TON of points.

 

[rmontro]

That offense is still looking like it will put up a TON of points.

Unless Brady is washed up, of course. Which I doubt, but you never know. Especially if he has to wait until 2021 to play.