5th Down Depreciation Thread

[mikemike778]

5 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

Rodgers has well over 500 yards and 6 TDs and 0 picks in the 2 halves of football in the Lions-Bears games where we were down big and he got the ball out quick and trusted his receivers. If you count those "halves' as a game we would've won 47-13.

Not sure where the disconnect is where he watches that film and sees the need to play a different way until we go down big. The receivers have made plays, the line gives him time, the ball moves down the field at will. Yet every week we come out and run a slow, methodical clunker of an offense every game.

It's like the Tootsie Pop commercial, "Who is effing up the Packers 1Q offense, Rodgers or McCarthy? The world may never know."

How often do you see the team getting heavily beaten, put up big numbers in the air late on in the game and make what looked like It was going to be a blowout end up much closer ?    When Rodgers was elite and we were destroying teams, you saw it happen a lot the other way.

Yeah Rodgers played well second half and his numbers look decent but he was rotten first half and we lost the game first half - its on him. Its time to stop making excuses, he was given a 130m deal, time to stop whining and start doing it when he counts and justify his money. His accuracy was bad and he wasn't finding the open man* - this is the NFL, you can't expect your receivers to be a mile open every play.

Yes, he is carrying an injury but the odds are, he will play most of the rest of his career with some sort of niggle. If he can't perform carrying this kind of injury then the contract we gave him was a mistake.

Enough of this trust garbage, time for him to earn our trust he can perform again. And learn that open man means any open receiver not Adams/Graham with anyone else as a last resort. If you are going to spend most of the time just looking for Adams then you are going to miss the others. 

 

 

 

[Packerraymond]

15 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

And you're not worth arguing with since you won't even admit that Rodgers brings a lot of it on himself.  If you honestly believe that players aren't open every single time Rodgers scrambles for something bigger and better, you're worse than you think I think you are. 

McCarthy isn't out there designing running backs running wide open for Rodgers to overlook them.  That's not in his gameplan.  You're just too busy slobbering over Rodgers to notice that.  It's only natural. 

"Every single time" is a bit ridiculous. Both of you are over the top. It's a two part problem. Mac can scheme up a play like the brilliant wheel that was wide open to Monty because Adams slant stepped in front of the LB running out in coverage. He also continues to scheme up duds of plays where guys run into each other or a two receivers end up so close that one goes for a ball meant for the other.

Meanwhile Rodgers on the bum knee has not been nearly as effective extending plays and should be taking his checkdowns far more often. Also done a terrible job feeling pressure chasing him.

Stop trying to stand up for one and blame the other and just point your finger at both.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Stop trying to stand up for one and blame the other and just point your finger at both.

I'm not saying McCarthy is without fault.  It just bothers me when people act like Rodgers is without blame. 

[KingOfTheNorth]

I understand that, but he has also he plenty of failures. These are also the QBs McCarthy has groomed to be his backups. If they are so awful doesn't that also fall on him for not developing them? He has always had glowing remarks about his backups so he obviously didn't think they were bad. If your going to sit here and tell me McCarthy is a successful  coach because he had success with bad QBs (Minimal success), then he is also a failure of a coach because he didn't develop them. These are all QBs that went through his QB school and had multiple years to learn under McCarthy.

 

Truth is McCarthy has only had success with 2 qbs, Favre and Rodgers. Based on wins and losses there is no disputing that fact.

[skibrett15]

One of the issues is that we haven't seen any evolution of the McCarthy-Rodgers synergy.

Rodgers would be great with almost any offense.  I don't think that's really disputable.  A lot of crappy reductive offenses were designed with great players in mind, and have their basis in teams who had great QBs.  Today's "innovative" amazing offenses don't require an amazing QB, but they WILL be even better with a great QB running them.  LAR, KC, Philly for example.

 

McCarthy's offense appears to "work" with less talent at QB, but I'm not sure that it works that much better with supreme talent at QB.  It's simply playing up to Rodgers' level because Rodgers is the QB. 

That's the disconnect right now.  The McCarthy offense is hamstringing Rodgers, and it's not a great fit for him.  Also, Rodgers doesn't run the offense to a T because some of his best plays are made outside the schedule of the offense.  So you have this inconsistency as a result because of some of that push/pull dynamic.

[mikemike778]

8 minutes ago, KingOfTheNorth said:

Has McCarthy won a few games with backups? Sure. But he has lost a lot more. 6-11-1 is his record since 2010 with backup QBs. The average QBR is 61.53 for those QBs as well. I know a lot don't hold any weight with he QBR stat but it still a stat that tells a story.

 

I do agree with you that Rodgers is missing open WR's, TE's, and RB's. But if its so apparent to you and I why isn't it changing? Maybe it falls back on McCarthy holding Rodgers accountable for the plays he is leaving out on the field. Rodgers seems to be getting a pass when it comes to plays he misses. Maybe this is a byproduct of the offense we have chosen to run with Rodgers. I don't have the exact answer I guess. But I do know that the Pack are not playing up to their skill level. I know Rodgers is on pace for fantastic numbers. But regardless of the stats he is producing, something is wrong with the offense and has been for a while. It is not producing like an offense lead by the once in a generation talent, that is Rodgers.

I just don't think its a particularly good offense any more.

The receivers are a combination of ageing players with late round development guys that could pan out. Adams is probably the only peak player in the WR/TE group. The Line has been regressing for a few years and is the usual Bulaga injury away from  being in a real mess. I just don't think Rodgers is elite any more - certainly not at the moment with his knee - he's still a very good QB even with the knee he is top 10 minimum but not the sort of player that automatically gives you a prolific offense.

With such a heavy draft commitment to the defense, if we are going to be good this year then the defense really should be leading the way. 

 

 

[Pugger]

1 hour ago, mikemike778 said:

I just don't think its a particularly good offense any more.

The receivers are a combination of ageing players with late round development guys that could pan out. Adams is probably the only peak player in the WR/TE group. The Line has been regressing for a few years and is the usual Bulaga injury away from  being in a real mess. I just don't think Rodgers is elite any more - certainly not at the moment with his knee - he's still a very good QB even with the knee he is top 10 minimum but not the sort of player that automatically gives you a prolific offense.

With such a heavy draft commitment to the defense, if we are going to be good this year then the defense really should be leading the way. 

 

 

If the offensive players around AR are not very good I don't know how you can determine if Rodgers is elite any more or not.  If Brady had this team and coaching staff around him do you think he'd fare any better on one leg?  Rodgers hasn't been great but he isn't 100% healthy either.  Plus the QB can't do it alone.

[MacReady]

I still think I was right about trading Rodgers.  The NFL is making a mockery of the separation between good and great quarterbacks.  Every single year, the line gets closer. 

The teams in the best situation right now are the ones who have loaded teams with quarterbacks on rookie contracts.

The Chiefs with Mahomes are the heavy favorites against Brady.
Goff's Rams are going to be a heavy favorite against Rodgers.
Trubisky's Bears are going to be a favorite against Brady. 

The Seahawks have turned into an average team with Wilson.
We have been getting progressively worse each and every year after Aaron's last contract. 
The Patriots only managed when Brady was woefully underpaid. 

The Eagles were the powerhouse last year.

The Browns - THE BROWNS are going to be the next hot up and coming team.
The Broncos, if they draft a QB, will instantly go to favorites in their division.

Steelers, Packers, Seahawks, Patriots, Saints... Does anybody honestly see them as a Super Bowl favorite right now?  No, because they're paying their quarterbacks and suffering the consequences. 

As the NFL continues to give out crap rules to protect quarterbacks and make it easier on receivers, you're going to see teams rise and fall based on which of them draft quarterbacks latest with some semblance of a team.

And what's sad is I'm one of the few people who sees what's so painfully obvious about this. 

This season is all very depressing to me.  Quarterbacks don't win Super Bowls, and we're paying ours more than anybody else. 

We'd be so much better off right now if we had traded Rodgers for Mack, Carr and the Raiders first round draft pick.  Prove me wrong.  And don't use Carr's 2018 season.  He's got Jon Gruden coaching him, not Mike McCarthy. 

[Sasquatch]

7 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

I still think I was right about trading Rodgers.  The NFL is making a mockery of the separation between good and great quarterbacks.  Every single year, the line gets closer. 

The teams in the best situation right now are the ones who have loaded teams with quarterbacks on rookie contracts.

The Chiefs with Mahomes are the heavy favorites against Brady.
Goff's Rams are going to be a heavy favorite against Rodgers.
Trubisky's Bears are going to be a favorite against Brady. 

The Seahawks have turned into an average team with Wilson.
We have been getting progressively worse each and every year after Aaron's last contract. 
The Patriots only managed when Brady was woefully underpaid. 

The Eagles were the powerhouse last year.

The Browns - THE BROWNS are going to be the next hot up and coming team.
The Broncos, if they draft a QB, will instantly go to favorites in their division.

Steelers, Packers, Seahawks, Patriots, Saints... Does anybody honestly see them as a Super Bowl favorite right now?  No, because they're paying their quarterbacks and suffering the consequences. 

As the NFL continues to give out crap rules to protect quarterbacks and make it easier on receivers, you're going to see teams rise and fall based on which of them draft quarterbacks latest with some semblance of a team.

And what's sad is I'm one of the few people who sees what's so painfully obvious about this. 

This season is all very depressing to me.  Quarterbacks don't win Super Bowls, and we're paying ours more than anybody else. 

We'd be so much better off right now if we had traded Rodgers for Mack, Carr and the Raiders first round draft pick.  Prove me wrong.  And don't use Carr's 2018 season.  He's got Jon Gruden coaching him, not Mike McCarthy. 

Even if everything you say above is true (particularly the bolded), its too late.  Woulda/coulda/shoulda is a pointless game.  We signed Rodgers, and we didn't trade him for Mack as you suggest.  Too late, too bad, so sad.

[MacReady]

Just now, Sasquatch said:

Even if everything you say above is true (particularly the bolded), its too late.  Woulda/coulda/shoulda is a pointless game.  We signed Rodgers, and we didn't trade him for Mack as you suggest.  Too late, too bad, so sad.

But it's not too late.  We could still trade Rodgers and McCarthy to the Browns.  They deserve each other.  We could get Mayfield and Garrett. 

[Sasquatch]

16 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

But it's not too late.  We could still trade Rodgers and McCarthy to the Browns.  They deserve each other.  We could get Mayfield and Garrett. 

 

Get on the horn Gute - make it happen!!!

[Packerraymond]

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

We'd be so much better off right now if we had traded Rodgers for Mack, Carr and the Raiders first round draft pick.  Prove me wrong.  And don't use Carr's 2018 season.  He's got Jon Gruden coaching him, not Mike McCarthy. 

"Prove me wrong, but don't use any factual evidence that Carr isn't that great a QB, because that's the only way to prove me wrong." What's someone supposed to use to argue besides Carr's numbers? This year really is no different than any other year save the one, which is looking more like the outlier than the norm.

No one here has ever tried to argue that the best way to build a team is around a rookie on a rookie deal. Yet if it is so easy why doesn't everyone on the league do it? The bust rate for 1st round QBs is pretty high. How's the whole rookie QB contract working for the Bucs? Titans? Jags? There will be 2-3 from last year's class that bust, and same for 2019. 

Also you've never answered my question on this let's say you drafted Wentz, what do in 5 years? Let him go to avoid paying him?

[MacReady]

Trade him in year four for a haul and keep hosting the NFL.  

[SSG]

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

We'd be so much better off right now if we had traded Rodgers for Mack, Carr and the Raiders first round draft pick.  Prove me wrong.  And don't use Carr's 2018 season.  He's got Jon Gruden coaching him, not Mike McCarthy. 

Someone hasn't watched one snap of Derek Carr's play over the last 2 season.  He's been terrible the last 2 years and a large reason they've lost 5 more games than they've won (only 8 more TDs than INTs).  

Love the "prove me wrong but you can't use any of the stats needed to due so".  Derek Carr is a below average NFL QB who makes 25 million dollars a year.  I'd much rather overpay for a elite NFL QB capable of putting a team on his back than a mediocre one who's never going to be a focal point of an offense. We'd need an LAR or Dallas type of run game to have prolonged success with Derek Carr.

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Trade him in year four for a haul and keep hosting the NFL.  

You could win 2 SBs in 4 years with that QB and have job security for the next decade by re-signing him, but instead you're trading him and if the next guy flops, not only are you fired, but probably go down as the worst GM who ever won a ring. I find that tough to buy. You're backing that Brinks truck up to that QBs front door.