The Aaron Rodgers performance thread

[Pokerbrat2000]

Notice also that Mahomes isn't there. His rookie deal is allowing KC to buy other players just as Seattle did with Wilson with similar results.

Is there a rule in the NFL about how much of a pay cut a guy take (in the very unlikely event of a major home town discount to help fill holes in a roster)?

I don't think there is any rule, I am guessing a guy could play for free if he wanted to?

Also, he can't play for "$1 and considerations", well he could, but the NFL would want to know what those "considerations" were and apply them fully in some way to the teams cap. Also, any past guaranteed money can't be magically waived by the player.

As far as Brady goes, his contract with Tampa Bay I believe is a two-year deal worth $50 million, and the entirety of the contract is guaranteed. On top of that, Brady could earn an additional $9 million in incentives if certain marks are hit over the next two seasons. Not really chump change either.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Listened to it, and the clip they played from the Super Bowl. Basically he said Rodgers does not take the open throw, because he doesn't trust some of the receivers, and that is frustrating to LeFleur.

There is no question Rodgers has always had this element to his game, and at times he should get it out quicker to the slot guy more. But as to him not fully trusting the receivers, well I could attribute that to a few things like:

- you'd have guys like MVS who got open but not where they were supposed to on the route. In this league you gotta anticipate as a QB, if the receiver doesn't go where anticipated, doesn't do much good.

- you had others who couldn't get much yardage after the catch, or in the case of GMo were a huge fumble liability.

Is that an excuse for Rodgers? No, he shouldn't ignore those guys. But if I knew that throwing to a certain guy meant a huge chance of him putting a ball on the ground, I'd probably have some trust issues too.

 

[rmontro]

Is that an excuse for Rodgers? No, he shouldn't ignore those guys. But if I knew that throwing to a certain guy meant a huge chance of him putting a ball on the ground, I'd probably have some trust issues too.

The media take is more that Rodgers won't throw to certain receivers because they might tip the ball and get the ball intercepted. Of course, throwing an interception isn't a good thing. But they like to present it that Rodgers is only interested in protecting his stats.

If a guy is a big fumble risk, why is he on the team?

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

The media take is more that Rodgers won't throw to certain receivers because they might tip the ball and get the ball intercepted. Of course, throwing an interception isn't a good thing. But they like to present it that Rodgers is only interested in protecting his stats.

If a guy is a big fumble risk, why is he on the team?

Well, he's not anymore (GMO), but I think we all thought he would make it here long term because he did have a lot of upside.

I mean, he did at times show some range when he caught balls in the end zone, and he did once make the big catch in OT a few years ago against the Bengals I believe it was. So I'd say he was showing signs he could be a big playmaker.

But often his weakness was running in the open field and not securing the ball well when defenders caught him from behind. It didn't always result in a turnover, but it was enough to drive you crazy as a fan. Hence why I think we moved on from him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Can't help but notice Tom Brady isn't on that list.

Brady will be 43 years old at the start of the 2020 season and showed signs of significant decline last season. He shouldn't be earning enough to come anywhere close to making that list.

I don't think there is any rule, I am guessing a guy could play for free if he wanted to?

No, there's a minimum salary for each player based on their accrued seasons in the league. For example $510K for a rookie as well as $1.03 million for a 10+ year veteran this season.

But as to him not fully trusting the receivers, well I could attribute that to a few things like:

- you'd have guys like MVS who got open but not where they were supposed to on the route. In this league you gotta anticipate as a QB, if the receiver doesn't go where anticipated, doesn't do much good.

- you had others who couldn't get much yardage after the catch, or in the case of GMo were a huge fumble liability.

Is that an excuse for Rodgers? No, he shouldn't ignore those guys. But if I knew that throwing to a certain guy meant a huge chance of him putting a ball on the ground, I'd probably have some trust issues too.

Actually Rodgers shouldn't target those receivers because the chances of it resulting in a negative play are significantly higher than having a positive impact compared to the ones who have earned his trust.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

No, there's a minimum salary for each player based on their accrued seasons in the league. For example $510K for a rookie as well as $1.03 million for a 10+ year veteran this season.

Thanks, forgot about that minimum salary rule.

Needless to say, to answer the other posters comment about taking a lot less, yes they can.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Actually Rodgers shouldn't target those receivers because the chances of it resulting in a negative play are significantly higher than having a positive impact compared to the ones who have earned his trust.

Well we try to explain this to the Rodgers haters here but they're too delusional to get it.

 

[rmontro]

Actually Rodgers shouldn't target those receivers because the chances of it resulting in a negative play are significantly higher than having a positive impact compared to the ones who have earned his trust.

No doubt the better receivers will have more likelihood of producing a more positive result. But here's where the question comes in.

If a play is designed for the QB to go through his reads, there's maybe a #1 option, and a #2 option, and a #3. If #1 and #2 are not open, do you throw it to #3? Coach says throw it to #3, that's how the play is designed. But uh oh, what if I don't trust the receiver who is the third option? Maybe I skip him and go back to #1, but oops he's still covered. Should I run around the backfield a little until someone else hopefully comes open? I guess if you're Brett Favre fire it in there whether the guy is double covered or not (hey, it's just a joke - sort of). But no one comes open so it ends up I get sacked or throw it away.

Coach says "Why didn't you throw it to #3? He was open." Well, I don't trust him. Besides, I excel at improvising plays. Well, maybe not this time, but usually.

Okay, if the QB doesn't trust the guy, why is he on the field as the third option? Maybe the guy ahead of him got injured, not much you can do about that. Do you go with the scheme or go with who you trust?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If a play is designed for the QB to go through his reads, there's maybe a #1 option, and a #2 option, and a #3. If #1 and #2 are not open, do you throw it to #3? Coach says throw it to #3, that's how the play is designed. But uh oh, what if I don't trust the receiver who is the third option? Maybe I skip him and go back to #1, but oops he's still covered. Should I run around the backfield a little until someone else hopefully comes open? I guess if you're Brett Favre fire it in there whether the guy is double covered or not (hey, it's just a joke - sort of). But no one comes open so it ends up I get sacked or throw it away.

Coach says "Why didn't you throw it to #3? He was open." Well, I don't trust him. Besides, I excel at improvising plays. Well, maybe not this time, but usually.

Okay, if the QB doesn't trust the guy, why is he on the field as the third option? Maybe the guy ahead of him got injured, not much you can do about that. Do you go with the scheme or go with who you trust?

I don't think that's the way it works. If a specific play calls for Rodgers to progess through a third option and the wide receiver is open at the spot he's expected to be the quarterback will throw his way.

It seems that some WRs currently on the roster don't end up being in the correct spot too often resulting in Rodgers rightfully not trusting them.

Fans should either criticize the front office for not providing enough talent to make it work or the coaching staff for not getting the players up to speed.

Unfortunately it seems a lot of fans have decided Rodgers is the one to shoulder the lion's share for not risking negative plays while targeting those guys.

 

[gopkrs]

I don't care if the 3rd option is exactly where he is supposed to be. If he is the first player you have seen open; throw it to him.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

I don't care if the 3rd option is exactly where he is supposed to be. If he is the first player you have seen open; throw it to him.

Yeah but is it Rodgers who is seeing a guy open? Or a fan watching from his television set at a sideline angle who thinks he knows where all the open men or defenders are on every play? Sure seems like the latter is often more true.

Now Rodgers isn't exempt from all blame. Sometimes his nerves will get the better of him where he'll just suddenly release without setting up for the throw and sail it way over the man's head or way under target. For those yes he deserves criticism.

But I sometimes see these ridiculous claims about receivers always being open every play and I gotta say I don't buy them.

 

[gopkrs]

Yeah but is it Rodgers who is seeing a guy open? Or a fan watching from his television set at a sideline angle who thinks he knows where all the open men or defenders are on every play? Sure seems like the latter is often more true.

Now Rodgers isn't exempt from all blame. Sometimes his nerves will get the better of him where he'll just suddenly release without setting up for the throw and sail it way over the man's head or way under target. For those yes he deserves criticism.

But I sometimes see these ridiculous claims about receivers always being open every play and I gotta say I don't buy them.

Yes. I was not really talking about Rodgers in particular. I'm just saying if a guy is open; you throw it to him. Doesn't really matter when you see him or even if he was in your progression. Receivers need to be ready all the time. Maybe sometimes when Rodgers looks disgusted (btw I don't like the look), it is because the receiver isn't looking at him. Could be.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yes. I was not really talking about Rodgers in particular. I'm just saying if a guy is open; you throw it to him. Doesn't really matter when you see him or even if he was in your progression. Receivers need to be ready all the time. Maybe sometimes when Rodgers looks disgusted (btw I don't like the look), it is because the receiver isn't looking at him. Could be.

You still have to remember that a lot of what they are doing are timing routes. This isn't "run down the field and if I see you open, I will hit you." Even when they do break off their route, both the WR and the QB can't constantly be looking at each other. So you the TV viewer may see a receiver streaking across the field, seemingly wide open, but does the QB see him or does the WR have his head turned to even see the ball coming? The reason Rodgers throws few picks are because of this, he just doesn't throw the ball anywhere at anytime. I realize this drives many Packer fans nuts, but it is how he plays the game, like it or not.

 

[gopkrs]

Well, if a receiver breaks off a pattern and it wasn't in one of his route options; then I think he sure should be looking back at the QB. And I can definitely see that happening and I think the receiver should be able to take advantage of those situations. I mean, he and the QB know those times when it is totally a timing route and on those plays that is what he has to run.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well, if a receiver breaks off a pattern and it wasn't in one of his route options; then I think he sure should be looking back at the QB. And I can definitely see that happening and I think the receiver should be able to take advantage of those situations. I mean, he and the QB know those times when it is totally a timing route and on those plays that is what he has to run.

I still think fans over simplify this whole "wide open, should see each other" thing.

Remember a camera has an unobstructed view of the whole field and all 22 players and can be slowed down, frame by frame. Compare that to two eyes that are 6' off the ground, attached to a moving body and moving head, behind a face mask and bodies all around those viewing angles, tying to either find an open receiver and not get tackled (QB) or find an opening in the defense and figure out where the QB and the ball are (WR). Lots of moving parts.

 

[gopkrs]

I still think fans over simplify this whole "wide open, should see each other" thing.

Remember a camera has an unobstructed view of the whole field and all 22 players and can be slowed down, frame by frame. Compare that to two eyes that are 6' off the ground, attached to a moving body and moving head, behind a face mask and bodies all around those viewing angles, tying to either find an open receiver and not get tackled (QB) or find an opening in the defense and figure out where the QB and the ball are (WR). Lots of moving parts.

I am sure you are right about that. I don't disagree. I just don't see the point in a receiver running a route to completion (unless as I stated, the ball is gonna be coming and you better be there), if the route will obviously not be open. I am not talking about possible missed opportunities or shoulda, coulda, woulda. I am only saying what I said. You can't always see or find him but he knew he would not be open the other way so there is a chance. Not blaming Rodgers except for the juvenile faces he makes sometimes.

 

[rmontro]

Not blaming Rodgers except for the juvenile faces he makes sometimes.

Clearly MLF thought Rodgers should have thrown the ball at least one time this season, since they had an argument about it on field. So it's not all about Rodgers hating fans seeing what they want to see. Some fans will defend Rodgers to the point of blaming MLF, or vice versa. I like Rodgers. I like MLF (so far). I don't expect either one of them to be perfect. They're going to clash and have a difference of opinion now and then, and that's okay.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Yeah but is it Rodgers who is seeing a guy open? Or a fan watching from his television set at a sideline angle who thinks he knows where all the open men or defenders are on every play? Sure seems like the latter is often more true.

Now Rodgers isn't exempt from all blame. Sometimes his nerves will get the better of him where he'll just suddenly release without setting up for the throw and sail it way over the man's head or way under target. For those yes he deserves criticism.

But I sometimes see these ridiculous claims about receivers always being open every play and I gotta say I don't buy them.

Well said. Some people forget the time element. By the time a 3rd option is spotted it’s likely a DL, Edge rusher, or ILB are breathing down the QB’s back. That results in throwaways, which are better than pics. I don’t think Rodgers is as focused on his stats as he is focused on winning.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Clearly MLF thought Rodgers should have thrown the ball at least one time this season

Oh I am sure that there were many times that Rodgers hasn't agreed with his coach and vice versa. Fans and media write about that like its a big shocker and a big glaring problem. Ask any NFL QB if they have always agreed with the call by the coach and vice versa. Nobody seems to complain when Rodgers goes off script and makes big plays, but the second he and MM or **** were seen having a disagreement, big news.

Let's face it, Rodgers has a very strong personality, one that seems to bother some people. He isn't changing and I wouldn't expect him to.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Well said. Some people forget the time element. By the time a 3rd option is spotted it’s likely a DL, Edge rusher, or ILB are breathing down the QB’s back. That results in throwaways, which are better than pics. I don’t think Rodgers is as focused on his stats as he is focused on winning.

Plus it's not like Brees or Mahomes don't ever miss open guys in the field.

 

[rmontro]

Let's face it, Rodgers has a very strong personality, one that seems to bother some people. He isn't changing and I wouldn't expect him to.

Agree, he is what he is. And that's mostly to our good. Unfortunately, it does appear that it will go down in history that GB didn't give him the necessary support for him to reach his potential as a multi-ring champion. But we'll see.

I think Favre had better leadership qualities, but Rodgers does other things better than Favre.

 

[Pugger]

Agree, he is what he is. And that's mostly to our good. Unfortunately, it does appear that it will go down in history that GB didn't give him the necessary support for him to reach his potential as a multi-ring champion. But we'll see.

I think Favre had better leadership qualities, but Rodgers does other things better than Favre.

What makes you come to this conclusion? I really couldn't say one way or another because I was not in those locker rooms.

 

[rmontro]

What makes you come to this conclusion? I really couldn't say one way or another because I was not in those locker rooms.

None of us were in the locker rooms. It's not a conclusion, just an impression. I just get the impression guys were more likely to want to play for Favre compared to Rodgers, who is more aloof. As I said, Rodgers does other things better, so there's no need for anyone to get prickly.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

None of us were in the locker rooms. It's not a conclusion, just an impression. I just get the impression guys were more likely to want to play for Favre compared to Rodgers, who is more aloof. As I said, Rodgers does other things better, so there's no need for anyone to get prickly.

Favre threw his guys under the bus many times as well, and at one time even got his own private locker. If that ain't snobbish, nothing is.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

I think Favre had better leadership qualities, but Rodgers does other things better than Favre.

Well you would be wrong then