Aaron Rodgers Appreciation Thread 4.20

[Pugger]

18 hours ago, squire12 said:

If you watch the games on TV, you are contributing to the $$ that is available to pay these entertainers.  Where should the money go if not to the performers?

Of course the money should go to the performers.  I just think entertainers as a whole make ridiculous sums of money.  But it is what the market is I guess.

[GalenaPackFan]

19 hours ago, Mazrimiv said:

Referencing Jordy/Cobb makes more sense, but is still off the mark.  Cash was never the issue, Cobb's production after he signed his big contract was.  Between Jordy and Cobb, their was plenty of cash invested at WR while Adams was developing as Jordy's replacement.  Things began to go off the rails when Cobb started producing like a JAG at age 26 when he was expected to be in the middle of his prime.  Had things gone as expected, Cobb would now be entering the tail end of a productive career in GB with Adams in his prime.  There should be a young WR being developed to replace Cobb, but for some reason TT/Gute abandoned the strategy of drafting an early WR every 2 or 3 years, and have whiffed badly in repeated attempts to find a late round gem.  There has been cash available for a mid-tier FA's, but instead that cash was spent on players like Bennett and Graham.  It hasn't been a lack of cash that brought down the talent level at WR, it's been a combination of some bad decisions (Bennett/Graham) and some bad luck (Cobb)

Serious question: how is this okay for Cobb but when applied to Rodgers it's not? Am I reading your comment correctly; moving on from Cobb was justified because he wasn't playing up to his contract?

Another serious question: how come when a bad pass hits a receivers hands we yell 'He has to make that catch', but not 'He has to make that throw'?

I'm not to the trade Rodgers point, but I get where OP and AG are coming from. Tell me that Rodgers wasn't almost costing GB the Lions game during the first half.

I'm just happy the Packers seem to be able to win games without AR playing at an elite level at all times.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

18 minutes ago, GalenaPackFan said:

Serious question: how is this okay for Cobb but when applied to Rodgers it's not? Am I reading your comment correctly; moving on from Cobb was justified because he wasn't playing up to his contract?

Another serious question: how come when a bad pass hits a receivers hands we yell 'He has to make that catch', but not 'He has to make that throw'?

I'm not to the trade Rodgers point, but I get where OP and AG are coming from. Tell me that Rodgers wasn't almost costing GB the Lions game during the first half.

I'm just happy the Packers seem to be able to win games without AR playing at an elite level at all times.

The reason it is ok for Cobb is that moving on from Cobb may not cost you any games, especially with how few he played last year due to injury.  Moving on from Rodgers, despite his current issues, may cost you many games.

 

[Mazrimiv]

16 minutes ago, GalenaPackFan said:

Serious question: how is this okay for Cobb but when applied to Rodgers it's not? Am I reading your comment correctly; moving on from Cobb was justified because he wasn't playing up to his contract?

I think you are maybe misinterpreting what I was trying to say.  My comments were referencing the suggestion that the team was not able to properly maintain the WR position due to cap issues caused by the Rodgers contract. My counter to that suggestion is that GB was paying two large WR contracts to Nelson and Cobb while Adams was being developed.  There is no scenario where it makes sense for a team to pay three large contracts at WR while a high pick (Adams) was being developed, so money was not the issue.

[gopackgo972]

dude can still throw dimes. We need this aaron if we’re going to win the SB.

 

[GalenaPackFan]

12 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

I think you are maybe misinterpreting what I was trying to say.  My comments were referencing the suggestion that the team was not able to properly maintain the WR position due to cap issues caused by the Rodgers contract. My counter to that suggestion is that GB was paying two large WR contracts to Nelson and Cobb while Adams was being developed.  There is no scenario where it makes sense for a team to pay three large contracts at WR while a high pick (Adams) was being developed, so money was not the issue.

Okay, thanks. I think I get where you are going.

Still confused by the bolded though!  I get he's not 'cap casualty' in the normal sense, but ultimately...he's a cap casualty. 

[Mazrimiv]

6 minutes ago, GalenaPackFan said:

Okay, thanks. I think I get where you are going.

Still confused by the bolded though!  I get he's not 'cap casualty' in the normal sense, but ultimately...he's a cap casualty. 

For the bolded, the initial post that I responded to suggested that GB was forced to neglect the WR position because they could not afford to pay for premium players at the position.  It really didn't have anything to do with letting Cobb go.  The point was that when his rookie contract expired, GB did in fact pay him at the same time they already had a large WR contract on the books for Nelson.  In other words, the Rodgers contract did not prevent GB from paying market value contracts at the WR position.  That's all I was trying to say.

[Leader]

32 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

For the bolded, the initial post that I responded to suggested that GB was forced to neglect the WR position because they could not afford to pay for premium players at the position.  It really didn't have anything to do with letting Cobb go.  The point was that when his rookie contract expired, GB did in fact pay him at the same time they already had a large WR contract on the books for Nelson.  In other words, the Rodgers contract did not prevent GB from paying market value contracts at the WR position.  That's all I was trying to say.

Please try to be clearer with your thoughts and how you relay them okay?
(Sorry....couldnt resist!)

[Mazrimiv]

I blame my dead frog brain

[Malfatron]

15 hours ago, YaddaHolla said:

dude can still throw dimes. We need this aaron if we’re going to win the SB.

 

I would be happy with him throwing Nickels

[mikemike778]

16 hours ago, Mazrimiv said:

For the bolded, the initial post that I responded to suggested that GB was forced to neglect the WR position because they could not afford to pay for premium players at the position.  It really didn't have anything to do with letting Cobb go.  The point was that when his rookie contract expired, GB did in fact pay him at the same time they already had a large WR contract on the books for Nelson.  In other words, the Rodgers contract did not prevent GB from paying market value contracts at the WR position.  That's all I was trying to say.

 

The issue with receiver isn't that we haven't spent a lot of money on it in free agency (which is understandably for reasons given) - it is that it has been ignored in the draft on the first two days for a long time. We should have gone for a receiver early in the last couple of years. If you do that then when Cobb leaves ideally they are ready to be a decent WR2 now and you draft another to keep the chain going. It takes time to build chemistry so you don't want to be having to patch the position. We also have the undesirable situation where most of the better offensive players are starting to age now.

I don't have a serious problem with prioritising the defence but if you do that then you have to expect a significant downturn in the passing game. Expectations are way too high given the lack of talent at WR/TE and Rodger's age and that probably goes for Aaron himself who needs to dial down his own role. Most of the FA money and draft capital has gone on the defence - Rodgers should accept that and let them win the game and not try and over-do things and not lose it.  To an extent that has just about been the case, he has generally just done enough and the lack of interceptions is a huge factor in the 13-3 record (some people may get a huge shock on the INT front post Rodgers).

Just keep it simple and be a very good game manager should be the goal. 

 

[AlexGreen#20]

7 minutes ago, mikemike778 said:

 

The issue with receiver isn't that we haven't spent a lot of money on it in free agency (which is understandably for reasons given) - it is that it has been ignored in the draft on the first two days for a long time. We should have gone for a receiver early in the last couple of years. If you do that then when Cobb leaves ideally they are ready to be a decent WR2 now and you draft another to keep the chain going. It takes time to build chemistry so you don't want to be having to patch the position. We also have the undesirable situation where most of the better offensive players are starting to age now.

I don't have a serious problem with prioritising the defence but if you do that then you have to expect a significant downturn in the passing game. Expectations are way too high given the lack of talent at WR/TE and Rodger's age and that probably goes for Aaron himself who needs to dial down his own role. Most of the FA money and draft capital has gone on the defence - Rodgers should accept that and let them win the game and not try and over-do things and not lose it.  To an extent that has just about been the case, he has generally just done enough and the lack of interceptions is a huge factor in the 13-3 record (some people may get a huge shock on the INT front post Rodgers).

Just keep it simple and be a very good game manager should be the goal. 

 

We have the highest paid offense in the league. 

This concept that the offense isn't getting resources is just another way for people to cover for an average QB.

[minnypackerfan]

19 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

We have the highest paid offense in the league. 

This concept that the offense isn't getting resources is just another way for people to cover for an average QB.

Wait till people find out that the pay for our TE position group is in the top 5 of the league....maybe even the most in the league.

Edited January 2, 2020 by minnypackerfan

[{Family Ghost}]

13 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

We have the highest paid offense in the league. 

This concept that the offense isn't getting resources is just another way for people to cover for an average QB.

Depends on the resources you are talking about.  The Packers offense is lagging way behind the defense when it comes to high draft picks being spent on that side of the ball compared to the defense.  We go defense nearly every year in round one of the draft.  The only 1st rounders on offense are Rodgers (2005), and Bulaga (2010).  The only 2nd rounders are Adams and Jenkins.  

[Dubz41]

12 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

We have the highest paid offense in the league. 

This concept that the offense isn't getting resources is just another way for people to cover for an average QB.

This is where stats get in the way.  We're the highest paid offense because we re-sign our talent.  We have lost some of the balance of getting production out of rookie contracts.  Yes, Aaron Jones is on his rookie contract and we are damn lucky he turned out, but now is he in line to get that second contract as a RB?  The problem is we haven't had any young picks develop over the last three years other than Jones (looking at you Spriggs).  We just don't have the base talent to develop, especially at WR. 

All that being said, seeing Rodgers miss guys is tough to swallow.  Part of the problem is that a few years ago he was sooooo damn good it is hard to watch.

So, we need an influx of base talent at WR.  Lazard could be a good #3.  My wish for our new #2 is Brandon Aiyuk, AZ St. in the second round.