The Aaron Rodgers performance thread

[longtimefan]

Maybe he was locked out as well? I know I had a buddy to try to register on here in order to notify you guys in regards to me not receiving receive a verification code to my email in order to access this place, and he had the same problem in regards to the verification code not going to his email. So it wasn't just me.

Nope.

There are some guys that just don't post for ever..then wham..they post like crazy..

some don't post until packers losing.... ahem @Packer96
So they can say they were right

 

[Do7]

some don't post until packers losing.... ahem @Packer96
So they can say they were right

So I imagine if we lose at any point in the playoffs we'll be hearing from them, specifically blaming Rodgers for the loss, be it fair or not. Oh joy...

Here's hoping we win it all. On a side note, should Rodgers win his second title, where does that place him?

 

[PackAttack12]

but it is fact. the current O is not what MLF had in mind. it's been customized to fit rodgers desires. that's indisputable. ignoring that fact is silly.

where is it as fact?

Show us.

Cite?
I do know the running game was modified to take advantage of the OLs method of blocking. Fewer outside stretch runs I believe replaced by imore inside runs.

That doesn't mean that Rodgers isn't running MLF's offense by any means though. You should double check the meaning of the word fact.

Three highly respected forum members would love to know where your proof of "fact" is @gbgary

Don't make assertions that you cannot back up.

If you wonder why you have zero credibility on here, this is a prime example.

While the offense should have definitely played better vs. the lowly Lions you have to realise that the Packers have faced nine top 12 scoring defenses this season, more than during any other season with Rodgers as their starter.

Incase anyone is curious about the true meaning of the word "fact", the bolded portion of this post is a textbook example.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But I can say for certain this statement will get picked apart by saying he Carson faced less then superior teams.

But...Detroit was ranked 31st? in pass defense? So why didn't rodgers have a field day.

It's actually pretty easy, Rodgers had a bad game vs. the Lions. Nobody is denying that.

 

[XPack]

There is nothing wrong in hating Rodgers and It's not really mandatory for everyone to like him. Rather than trying to corner Gary, just put in in perspective when reading his posts and move on. It's just another opinion, which everyone is entitled to without being vilified.

 

[PackAttack12]

There is nothing wrong in hating Rodgers and It's not really mandatory for everyone to like him. Rather than trying to corner Gary, just put in in perspective when reading his posts and move on. It's just another opinion, which everyone is entitled to without being vilified.

When you try to represent opinions as facts, you cross the line.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There is nothing wrong in hating Rodgers and It's not really mandatory for everyone to like him. Rather than trying to corner Gary, just put in in perspective when reading his posts and move on. It's just another opinion, which everyone is entitled to without being vilified.

In my opinion there's a lot wrong with hating someone you haven't met once in your lifetime.

 

[Do7]

There is nothing wrong in hating Rodgers and It's not really mandatory for everyone to like him. Rather than trying to corner Gary, just put in in perspective when reading his posts and move on. It's just another opinion, which everyone is entitled to without being vilified.

Which is why I called him a critic rather than a hater. Nothing wrong with that, Everybody is one as the saying goes.

 

[Mondio]

nothing wrong with opinion. Stating you think it's because of lack of receiver talent, lack of accuracy from injuries, hesitant because he's not comfortable with receivers or even isn't comfortable in running new offense, or old habits die hard, or any combination of the above or others etc is one thing.

Repeatedly taking digs that Rodgers will not run MLF's offense, repeatedly stating as fact that Rodgers doesn't hold the same offensive value as the coach, repeatedly saying such drivel like Rodgers is undermining the coach to run his own offense and posting and holding it as fact is garbage, and I will call out it if I feel like it. As should you.

 

[gbgary]

where is it as fact?

Show us.

the Packers have showed you all season. this offense doesn't look like SF's or LAR's. MLF and rodgers both have admitted it's been changed to suit rodgers desires. there's too much spread, too much shotgun. it's a mishmash of old and new. you see it every week. MLF even made reference to too much spread after one of the games. the MLF/rodgers statements that got the whole audible thing going was the first sign. when asked about rodgers saying it would be foolish not to use his vast experience and let him audible out of a play...MLF says in the new offense 'every play has answers for every defensive formation. there's no reason to audible out of a play.' it didn't take him long to backtrack from that. watch those early pressers. MLF swallowing hard when asked about rodgers resistance then tip toeing with his answers and being careful not to call out rodgers. heck his pressers are still that way. watch the last post game, and the ones since, this week.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't care to comment about his leadership or lack thereof because none of us have any idea about it.

Spot on. This is the case with so many things having to do with the Packers. We can all make our best educated guesses from what we observe, read and hear, but at the end of the day much of that is second hand or filtered knowledge, do we actually have all the facts?

With the question of Rodgers and leadership, I think some posters want to believe that because it works with their narrative, but are they really sure that its a fact or just the way they would like to see and interrupt things?

 

[Mondio]

the Packers have showed you all season. this offense doesn't look like SF's or LAR's. MLF and rodgers both have admitted it's been changed to suit rodgers desires. there's too much spread, too much shotgun. it's a mishmash of old and new. you see it every week. MLF even made reference to too much spread after one of the games. the MLF/rodgers statements that got the whole audible thing going was the first sign. when asked about rodgers saying it would be foolish not to use his vast experience and let him audible out of a play...MLF says in the new offense 'every play has answers for every defensive formation. there's no reason to audible out of a play.' it didn't take him long to backtrack from that. watch those early pressers. MLF swallowing hard when asked about rodgers resistance then tip toeing with his answers and being careful not to call out rodgers. heck his pressers are still that way. watch the last post game, and the ones since, this week.

This is like those old 3d movies, be sure to wear your Gary Glasses everyone you too can see what he does LOL

 

[Pugger]

what's so hard to understand about what i'm saying (and have said since early on). rodgers (as i feared) didn't want to run MLF's O as designed and hasn't. that's a fact. he wanted to run the old O for the most part, with a tweak or two, giving us what he and MLF have called the "work in progress" O. that O has sucked most of the time. i've said that rodgers, although still good, has regressed (due to age and injuries) and needs to adapt to his not so new reality, but has yet to do so. your ears and eyes know this to be true. the stats and film breakdown back this up. better talent around him can counter some of this but he's got to make a fundamental change in his attitude, and game, to take advantage. whether he's willing/capable of doing it remains to be seen but he's shown flashes that he can. people kid themselves that he's still the cockey rodgers of 2011, with the skills to back it up, but he's miles from that guy.
again...i'm not a rodgers hater. i'm a rodgers fan. i want him to succeed because i'm a Packers first and foremost. you already know i was not in favor of extending him so soon, and for so much, without seeing how he played after the right collarbone injury. i think i've turned out to be on the right side of that considering how he's played. now if he gets us another super bowl win i'll gladly admit i was wrong on that. lol

I suppose after playing a certain way all these years it is hard to change your ways. The other top QBs like Brady, Brees and Wilson are still basically operating in the same offense (am I right?) that they have been running since they began as starters. Now Rodgers is being asked to run a different offensive scheme with not the best WR group in the league and we expect him to be Godgers again? AR is pretty sharp so I expect him to be even better next year with a full season of this offense under his belt.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Ryan says throws were bad and primary function of qb is hitting throws..

The primary function of the QB is to win football games.

If some of those are a timing type play? It Could be any number of reasons why incomplete?? For me those can be easily understood why..

Maybe that's why no real push back on him? For most of the year he was really good and was neck and neck with Lamar as mvp.


But wide open such as mvs was (and that wasn't the play MLF singled out) or the 2 wheel routes to Jones, where one would have been a td, are what I and others have issues with..

Ryan wood

https://1057fmthefan.radio.com/media/audio-channel/wood-the-packers-wrs-need-to-be-better

6 min 20 sec mark? Butler literally says exact what I have said..missing so wide open.

Ryan says throws were bad and primary function of qb is hitting throws..

All exact things I have said..EXACT

Everyone should listen

1) Wilson is one of the most accurate deep passes every season. Perhaps somebody should do an analysis of his career throws from 12 yards in. Perhaps he does struggle in the short field. In any case, that SF game performance was pretty ugly for whatever reason, some of which beyond his control. Are the internets littered with stories about Wilson sucking?

2) I don't care who the chattering class says is the MVP 4, 6, 8 games into the season. Since the object is to win a Super Bowl, I wouldn't pick one until the last of the ink is dry. Little possums walk early, big possums walk late. We don't know yet who the big possum will be this season.

3) I don't need Ryan Wood or Leroy Butler or anybody else to tell me how a QB performs in a game I've watched. It's pretty obvious Rodgers missed quite a few throws. In fact, even if you didn't watch the game, the completion percentage would give you a strong indictation.

4) As for missing Jones on touch passes, this relates to one the points I've made repeatedly over the years. Rodgers goes through long stretches where he sucks on those touch throws. In the past, it was ignored. It's a question of what you choose to focus on.

5) Ryan Wood says the primary function of a QB is hitting throws? On a superficial level, that qualfies as a flair for the obvious. Perhaps less obvious is the primary function of the QB, as the most important player on the field, is to win football games, not put up statistics.

You know, Garoppolo went 2-0 in relief of Brady on suspension. That should have said something. He went to SF and took a team that was 1-23 over their previous 24 games and ran off a 5 game winning streak. Was that a fluke? After 1-2 and serious injury in 2018, he's 13-3 this season. You can talk about the defense until you're blue in the face, but that 21-5 career record cannot be written off as a fluke. Wilson's never looked dominant when he didn't have a dominant defense despite what the stats might tell you.

The point being, there's something more important that stats, and that's winning football games. Garoppolo is nowhere in the MVP discussion because he does not have the fantasy stats. I'd put him in there, then wait to see who the big possum turns out to be.

You know, it's not like this Packer defense is a 13-3 defense statisically. You might want to think harder about how this is happening that the statistics don't show.

Sometimes it just comes down to leading a 95 yard drive when you really need it, turning the momentum, or getting the ball in the end zone on 1st. and 10 at the opponent's 12 yard line--or not.

 

[Pugger]

I think Brady has benefited from a lot of things, but I have to give it to him he is the Greatest. For the longest I was reserving that to Montana, and while I think there is a lot less controversy with Montana, after that win against Atlanta, I had to give it to him in spite of all the defeats.

At least with Montana he proved he could be successful with a different team (KC). It would be interesting to see if Brady could do the same should he leave NE next season.

 

[Pugger]

There's truth in this, but Bart Starr was in a similar situation, he was on the best team with the best coach. You still have to put in the work and execute. The main difference between Brady and Starr is that Starr's character was unquestionable.

If you consider what Starr did back when QB weren't as "protected" as they are today it is incredible what Bart did. I find it shameful he wasn't included in the top 100 players. IMO Starr is the best QB in our franchise's history - better than Favre was who was included in that list.

 

[rmontro]

IMO Starr is the best QB in our franchise's history - better than Favre was who was included in that list.

Agreed, Starr was like the Brady or Montana of his day. But that happened too long ago, nobody cares (or not enough people care), they think it's ancient history, back when the pyramids were being built.

Favre piled up numbers no one had ever seen before, so he deserves his spot too. He was part of ushering in the current pass happy era.

 

[XPack]

If you consider what Starr did back when QB weren't as "protected" as they are today it is incredible what Bart did. I find it shameful he wasn't included in the top 100 players. IMO Starr is the best QB in our franchise's history - better than Favre was who was included in that list.

Not discounting what Starr did...but our game was based on the run. Hornung and Taylor were the stars of the offence along with McGee. Plus he had Lombardi scheming for him. Even during his peak, Unitas, Tittle etc were considered better than him and had better yards and TDs.

He's definitely a legend, but I'd rate Favre and AR over him.

 

[HardRightEdge]

what's so hard to understand about what i'm saying (and have said since early on). rodgers (as i feared) didn't want to run MLF's O as designed and hasn't. that's a fact.

It's not a fact. The fact is that's a weakly supported opinon.

Go ahead and describe what a LaFluer offense is supposed to look like and how this one is not that. He has one year as a play caller prior to this and the key characteristics of that one season were 1) run the ball a lot and 2) throw deep off play action. Since being here, he's asserted these emphases. He's got a lot better QB in this outfit than the last one, so you'd expect him to tweek things a bit.

So, the Packers do run the ball quite a bit when the score is close. And Rodgers is chucking it downfield quite a bit. You can't expect as much running when playing catch-up. LaFluer said it was he himself that went away from the run too early on at least one occasion. That's not the QB.

I'm seeing pretty much what I expected from a LaFluer offense on the limited sample of one season prior to this.

Besides, if you could tightly define what an offense looks like that means the opponent can as well. I expect a good deal of flexibility relative to opponent tendencies and match-ups in order to be successful. It's a rare collection of talent where you can say, "We'll do what we do and let the other guys just try to stop us." This is not that.

 

[rmontro]

He's definitely a legend, but I'd rate Favre and AR over him.

It's such a different game now, I'm not even sure how you can compare them. That's why I always say you can't compare players from different eras.

 

[XPack]

It's such a different game now, I'm not even sure how you can compare them. That's why I always say you can't compare players from different eras.

I'm not comparing them against each other. Just what they did in their respective eras.

Starr was a QB in a team where passing was our 3rd biggest strength. Under Lombardi Defence was our strength and Offence was based on run (sweep). Starr's job was to keep mixing things so opponents don't stack the box against the run.

In contrary, Favre and Rodgers were the main drivers for our success during their eras. Favre's ridiculous yardage and AR's accuracy and clutch were the biggest causes for our success.

So as far as QB comparison goes, I chose the QBs who were the primary drivers vs a QB who was mostly a enabler rather than the driver himself.

Again I stress, above statements have boiled down the issue to very simplistic arguments and what Starr did was what we needed during those time. We didn't need a elite QB because our game plan didn't require it.

 

[Sky King]

...With the question of Rodgers and leadership, I think some posters want to believe that because it works with their narrative, but are they really sure that its a fact or just the way they would like to see and interrupt things?

Isn't it always that way with the comments directed at players, coaches, and front office personnel that emanate from forumites? Those comments strike nerves on all sides of an argument and they are probably intended to do just that.

What makes this situation unique are the negative comments regarding Rodgers' declining physical skills, including remarks about his leadership qualities. Such criticisms are a recent phenomenon, at least in their number. This "blasphemy" was practically unheard of going back only a few short years ago. Such previously unheard of criticisms being directed at their long-beloved two-time NFL MVP, SB MVP, oft mentioned GOAT, and an all-time passing leader in several major categories is a bitter pill for some to swallow. To a die-hard Rodgers fan, such criticism is shocking and unacceptable.

How successfully Rodgers deals with the dynamics of the inevitable (his aging) -- and the subsequent changes that will be required for him to remain successfully atop his trade -- is all that really counts. I ponder whether this offense may still be a work in progress. Yet the record at the moment is 13-3 despite some rather uneven performances along the way. Sometimes it just doesn't feel like 13-3. But that could also mean that the best is yet to come.

What goes on around here is an ugly dog contest. The posters are sometimes outrageous, thoughtful, funny, twisted, insightful, astute, and most are courteous and somewhat humble (except for a very small handful of chronically condescending know-it-alls.) It's that synergy that helps to make this forum enjoyable.

 

[gbgary]

I suppose after playing a certain way all these years it is hard to change your ways. The other top QBs like Brady, Brees and Wilson are still basically operating in the same offense (am I right?) that they have been running since they began as starters. Now Rodgers is being asked to run a different offensive scheme with not the best WR group in the league and we expect him to be Godgers again? AR is pretty sharp so I expect him to be even better next year with a full season of this offense under his belt.

which is very understandable...and so with rodgers being the dominant personality they left some of the MM/rodgers O in there and what do you know...it's looked just as bad as it did the last 3+ years. no one gets rodgers scramble drill but adams and allison...and allison's been bumped by better/faster guys so he doesn't play much.
yup...maybe next year.

 

[XPack]

The whole AR is uncoachable was created and propogated by the media.

Now that it's being proven false, some are trying to rewrite reality into AR bulldozing MLF nonsense.

A bunch of hot air is what it is.

 

[Sky King]

I'm not comparing them against each other. Just what they did in their respective eras.

Starr was a QB in a team where passing was our 3rd biggest strength. Under Lombardi Defence was our strength and Offence was based on run (sweep). Starr's job was to keep mixing things so opponents don't stack the box against the run.

In contrary, Favre and Rodgers were the main drivers for our success during their eras. Favre's ridiculous yardage and AR's accuracy and clutch were the biggest causes for our success.

So as far as QB comparison goes, I chose the QBs who were the primary drivers vs a QB who was mostly a enabler rather than the driver himself.

Again I stress, above statements have boiled down the issue to very simplistic arguments and what Starr did was what we needed during those time. We didn't need a elite QB because our game plan didn't require it.

With all due respects, I have had the privilege to watch all three of these men play in their primes. You would have to be close to 70 yrs. old or older to be qualified to say that. While I concede that Starr did not have the superior arm talent of either Favre or Rodgers, few have, he did have a very good arm until it got injured post-SB I&II and required surgical repair. It was never the same after that. He could (and did) make all the throws quite well in his prime.

What he instilled in his coaches, teammates, and fans was unshakeable confidence that he would lead the team to victory on the game's biggest stage. He delivered. To refer to him as an "enabler" is an assessment that I can only attribute to someone who must never have seen him play live. It trivializes his greatness. Personally, I have never had as much confidence in any QB delivering a victory than I had in Starr and that includes Brady. Favre and Rodgers could not match Starr in that regard. He was far, far more than an enabler.

Watch from the 48:00 mark to see a drive for the ages. Watch the whole video to see a championship game for the ages:

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