The Aaron Rodgers performance thread

[gbgary]

Can we not be over dramatic in regards to this "going rogue" thing on McCarthy, especially when we've been questioning McCarthy's play calling? So Aaron changed the plays a few times, more times than not The Packers benefited from the play change. It'd be one thing if it didn't work, but from what we know, Rodgers was successful. And I seriously hope you're not implying Rodgers shouldn't have gotten all that money that he was rightly owed, especially considering how the organization failed to hold up their part of the deal by placing the parts around him to win another title.

i hope you're not saying the Packers owed him $33.5m/year. they owed him what his previous contract said they owed. he's not the best qb in the league any longer so paying him like he is was stupid to say the least. something between brees and brady, done now instead of last year, for two years instead of four, would have been more appropriate.

 

[rmontro]

I have a hard time understanding any Packers fan agreeing with Jennings opinion, that says a lot more about you than it does about Rodgers though.

The real gist of what Jennings is saying, from what I can see, is that Rodgers is jockeying to be in a position of a certain amount of power with his new coach. I don't find that hard to believe, and I know you yourself believe that a coach and his quarterback need to work from a partnership, as opposed to a coach simply being a dictator.

Rodgers obviously had a lot of power working with McCarthy, and I'm sure he doesn't want to give that all away when working with LeFleur.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The real gist of what Jennings is saying, from what I can see, is that Rodgers is jockeying to be in a position of a certain amount of power with his new coach. I don't find that hard to believe, and I know you yourself believe that a coach and his quarterback need to work from a partnership, as opposed to a coach simply being a dictator.

Rodgers obviously had a lot of power working with McCarthy, and I'm sure he doesn't want to give that all away when working with LeFleur.

While I respect your opinion....much more than Jennings actually, I still think both of you are extrapolating and projecting your opinions on a situation that hasn't even occurred yet.

I can't speak for you, but what I hear Greg Jennings saying is "Because Rodgers hasn't come out publicly and made a big deal of how much he supports his new HC, this automatically means Rodgers doesn't support him and is going to just do his own thing".

This would be similar to the Packers signing a top FA WR and Jennings saying "won't matter, Rodgers is just going to treat him like he did Janis".

Rodgers has had some good working relationships with many coaches, so assuming that because he and MM didn't see eye to eye at the end will happen again with the next coach, to me isn't looking at the big picture or recognizing all possibilities.

 

[OldSchool101]

While I respect your opinion....much more than Jennings actually, I still think both of you are extrapolating and projecting your opinions on a situation that hasn't even occurred yet.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Jennings can run his mouth all he wants about the past and particularly his own experience and that we can’t fully contest.
However, now Greg is raising it to a new level of saying his bad experience will be duplicated with every other person he comes into contact with?
taking a simple phrase of an entire topic like “it’s going to be hard at first” and spinning it as not authentic is getting absolutely ridiculous.
Once again, he’s shown his true colors and he’s one more “”Wolf Wolf! “ away from the classic fairytale of a boy who cries like a baby

 

[rmontro]

While I respect your opinion....much more than Jennings actually, I still think both of you are extrapolating and projecting your opinions on a situation that hasn't even occurred yet.

The only opinion I'm giving here is what I think Jennings is really saying. I do think it's clear he harbors some resentment against Rodgers, but having said that, I don't find what he's saying all that shocking or even all that bad really. He probably wants to rip into Rodgers harder, but has to temper what he says in order to appear more traditional. In the video above, he even says Rodgers IS great, so it's not all trashing him.

He seems to be saying that Rodgers is more of an egotist and a less friendly guy than Tom Brady. Y'all can deny that if you want, but I don't see that as being news. Nor do I personally care. None of these players are angels, and I don't expect them to be. But I don't think Rodgers wants LeFleur to fail as coach, because if LeFleur fails, the Packers will lose more games, and by extension Rodgers will be a failure as well. The idea that Rodgers is going to sabotage his new coach is ridiculous IMO.

That doesn't mean that he is going to give up his power though, and I don't think LeFleur is going to ask him to. But he needs to persuade him to buy into his offensive philosophy to a large extent.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

lol...rodgers undermined mccarthy publicly and went rogue on the field. in one sentence he says he wants to win but then says he did the Packers a favor signing for only $33.5/year. yes...i'm skeptical his ego will allow him to make the changes in his game, and thinking, to win.

I'm well aware that I won't be able to change your flawed opinion of Rodgers but please show me a link to a story that he said he did the Packers a favor by signing his current contract last year.

The real gist of what Jennings is saying, from what I can see, is that Rodgers is jockeying to be in a position of a certain amount of power with his new coach. I don't find that hard to believe, and I know you yourself believe that a coach and his quarterback need to work from a partnership, as opposed to a coach simply being a dictator.

Rodgers obviously had a lot of power working with McCarthy, and I'm sure he doesn't want to give that all away when working with LeFleur.

Rodgers will definitely still have a lot of power but he has to follow LaFleur's game plan for the offense to be successful.

 

[XPack]

That doesn't mean that he is going to give up his power though, and I don't think LeFleur is going to ask him to. But he needs to persuade him to buy into his offensive philosophy to a large extent.

Matt wasn't hired to impose his own "philosophy" in offence or rebuild the same to his own specifications. He was hired to innovate the existing offence and introduce some creativity and innovation and get rid of the staleness. He has the reputation of being a flexible coach and has worked with good offences and QBs with great success.

AR12 being deemed uncoachable is partly due to AR having lost faith in MM playcalling, which was crap anyway. It's a no win situation and no top QB will blindly follow a bad game plan. Imo, the question of "power" won't even be part of the equation as both have the same objective. Get the best of AR12 and the team to win.

 

[OldSchool101]

Matt LaFleur said in an interview on Sstellite radio NFL channel that he was going to build his team around its strengths.
That implied to me that he felt the previous coaching direction did not accomplish that.

While he didn’t specifically say “Rodgers” was that strength, I think we can ascertain that he is a major part of that plan. There’s no way Rodgers is trying to “derail” plans to improve. He himself has recently said on several occasions that the Offense needs to play better.
I don’t know where this projected “Rodgers vs LaFleur” animosity story started but it’s totally and completely unfounded. There’s a small group with an axe to grind that are trying to make Rodgers out to be a villain and it just happens to be nearly everyone who didn’t make the cut. What’s the chances

 

[gbgary]

I'm well aware that I won't be able to change your flawed opinion of Rodgers but please show me a link to a story that he said he did the Packers a favor by signing his current contract last year.

i'm paraphrasing obviously but go listen to what he said in the presser. it could have been more but he didn't want to affect the Packers ability to compete in free agency etc etc etc.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

i'm paraphrasing obviously but go listen to what he said in the presser. it could have been more but he didn't want to affect the Packers ability to compete in free agency etc etc etc.

Once again, I ask you to provide a link.

 

[gbgary]

Once again, I ask you to provide a link.

i went to packers.com but they don't have that presser video available any longer. maybe you'll have better luck finding it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

i went to packers.com but they don't have that presser video available any longer. maybe you'll have better luck finding it.

I'm not interested in searching for it as you were the one claiming Rodgers make that comments. In the meantime I prefer not to trust you being correct about it.

 

[rmontro]

i went to packers.com but they don't have that presser video available any longer. maybe you'll have better luck finding it.

This is an article and not a press conference video, but has some quotes in it that seem to fit what you're talking about. Is this basically what you're thinking of?

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...extension-im-not-trying-to-screw-the-packers/

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This is an article and not a press conference video, but has some quotes in it that seem to fit what you're talking about. Is this basically what you're thinking of?

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...extension-im-not-trying-to-screw-the-packers/

How in the world does Rodgers saying that he doesn't want to screw the Packers before signing the contract equal to gbgary mentioning he did the team a favor signing for only $33.5 million a year???

 

[gbgary]

This is an article and not a press conference video, but has some quotes in it that seem to fit what you're talking about. Is this basically what you're thinking of?

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...extension-im-not-trying-to-screw-the-packers/

nah...that's before he signed anything.

 

[rmontro]

How in the world does Rodgers saying that he doesn't want to screw the Packers before signing the contract equal to gbgary mentioning he did the team a favor signing for only $33.5 million a year???

Well, he said he had a history of helping the team manage the cap, and that his deals help them do that while still paying him a lot of money. He said his deals are mutually advantageous, so they can still sign guys and be competitive. That implies he has the team in mind when he (or his agent, rather) negotiates his contracts. Even if he did say this before he signed. That's pretty much what y'all were talking about.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well, he said he had a history of helping the team manage the cap, and that his deals help them do that while still paying him a lot of money. He said his deals are mutually advantageous, so they can still sign guys and be competitive. That implies he has the team in mind when he (or his agent, rather) negotiates his contracts. Even if he did say this before he signed. That's pretty much what y'all were talking about.

I haven't heard Rodgers say that about his new contract. Nor would I expect him to, because they gave him top dollar, no other way to slice that as being "team friendly". Now his old contract turned out to be a much better deal for the Packers than for Rodgers, so maybe that is what you are thinking about?

 

[rmontro]

I haven't heard Rodgers say that about his new contract. Nor would I expect him to, because they gave him top dollar, no other way to slice that as being "team friendly". Now his old contract turned out to be a much better deal for the Packers than for Rodgers, so maybe that is what you are thinking about?

In that article though (which is from last year), he's talking about his new contract (that they were still working on).
He's saying he intends the new contract to be mutually beneficial, both to himself and the team. True, he's saying it before the fact, but he's talking about his intentions.

Now you can say that the contract did not accomplish these intentions, but that's not what he was saying here.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well, he said he had a history of helping the team manage the cap, and that his deals help them do that while still paying him a lot of money. He said his deals are mutually advantageous, so they can still sign guys and be competitive. That implies he has the team in mind when he (or his agent, rather) negotiates his contracts. Even if he did say this before he signed. That's pretty much what y'all were talking about.

Actually what gbgary did was taking another shot at Rodgers because of what he apparently said after signing the contract. Of course he hasn't been able to back it up with any proof once again.

 

[rmontro]

Actually what gbgary did was taking another shot at Rodgers because of what he apparently said after signing the contract. Of course he hasn't been able to back it up with any proof once again.

He wants to place what Rodgers said in a bad context. But he admitted he was paraphrasing.
If Rodgers said his contract was helping the team, I take it that's what gbgary was referring to about him "doing them a favor".

Pokerbrat says there is no way to characterize Rodgers new contract as "team friendly".
So is Rodgers delusional, is he correct, or are you saying he doesn't think his contract is team friendly? Apparently he intended to sign a team friendly contract, so if he didn't, what changed?

Mind you, it's possible his contract is not team friendly, but Rodgers thinks it is. I suppose it depends to some extent what one thinks Rodgers value is. If he can stay healthy, that should definitely help his worth.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He wants to place what Rodgers said in a bad context. But he admitted he was paraphrasing.
If Rodgers said his contract was helping the team, I take it that's what gbgary was referring to about him "doing them a favor".

Pokerbrat says there is no way to characterize Rodgers new contract as "team friendly".
So is Rodgers delusional, is he correct, or are you saying he doesn't think his contract is team friendly? Apparently he intended to sign a team friendly contract, so if he didn't, what changed?

Mind you, it's possible his contract is not team friendly, but Rodgers thinks it is. I suppose it depends to some extent what one thinks Rodgers value is. If he can stay healthy, that should definitely help his worth.

Rodgers probably thinks he signed a deal in line with his market value. It's mind boggling how many fans criticize players for not taking a home discount to sign with the Packers based on the myth that Brady has mostly played for less money to help keep the Patriots competitive.

 

[rmontro]

It's mind boggling how many fans criticize players for not taking a home discount to sign with the Packers based on the myth that Brady has mostly played for less money to help keep the Patriots competitive.

I'm still not convinced that's a myth though...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm still not convinced that's a myth though...

 

[rmontro]

Roll your eyes if you must. You say it's a myth. But I've heard ex-NFL players say Brady has taken less. Who am I supposed to believe? I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, but I haven't seen any conclusive evidence. To some extent I suppose it's a judgement call. Like Rodgers, it depends to some extent what you think Brady's value is.

But this article says Brady agreed to below market deals in 2013 and 2016. There is no shortage of articles that say Brady has taken less. If it's a myth, it's a well perpetuated one:

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/8...t-2018-serious-bargain-blake-bortles-ahahahah

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Roll your eyes if you must. You say it's a myth. But I've heard ex-NFL players say Brady has taken less. Who am I supposed to believe? I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, but I haven't seen any conclusive evidence. To some extent I suppose it's a judgement call. Like Rodgers, it depends to some extent what you think Brady's value is.

But this article says Brady agreed to below market deals in 2013 and 2016. There is no shortage of articles that say Brady has taken less. If it's a myth, it's a well perpetuated one:

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/8...t-2018-serious-bargain-blake-bortles-ahahahah

Once again, over the past eight years Rodgers has accounted for an average of $1.2 million more than Brady has per season or less than a percent of the total cap while being six years younger.

That's peanuts and not in line with the media repeatedly mentioning Brady taking significantly less to allow the Patriots to field a more competitive team.