Jump to content

Is Aaron Rodgers prime being wasted by Thompson/McCarthy?

Darkness

By Darkness
in NFL General

Is Aaron Rodgers prime being wasted?  

91 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Aaron Rodgers prime being wasted?

    • Yes
      47
    • No
      44

Recommended Posts

CWood21

CWood21

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Darkness said:

The credit being given to GB's "success" with Rodgers at QB reminds of the credit given to CLE's "success" during LeBron's first stint with Cavs. Both players greatness elevated the mediocre teams around them 

You have anything of substance to back this up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Forge

Forge

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, JBURGE25 said:

I would say our best 6 players right now, in no order, are:

Rodgers
Nelson
Bakhtiari
Bulaga
Daniels
Perry

Italics were inactive Sunday morning, and bolded were hurt in the first two drives. So yeah, tough go. Atlanta played a great first half, it's just frustrating. Wish we could have seen what we could have done going into the half down 17-7 or if we had scored on that 2 minute drill instead of the OPI call and subsequent pick. In all likelihood its still a pretty easy loss, but would have been a more entertaining game.

You're sleeping on Dial and Brooks :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BayRaider

BayRaider

Posted
Posted

Yes it is. Not as bad as the Colts but the Packers are garbage without ARod. If they had an average QB, they are probably a 3-5 win team. Even when the Packers were ultra good in 2010 and 2011, they still had the #32 defense but were at least stacked on offense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
childofpudding

childofpudding

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, incognito_man said:

nothing random about it. That guy who tweeted that spends his life finding obscure stats to rip on Aaron Rodgers.

My takeaway is "AR has done a great job getting a lead heading into the 4th quarter in all but 35 of his games against good teams"

There's no context around how many points GB gives up in the 4th quarter in those games, either. It's just a completely useless stat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAF-N72EX

JAF-N72EX

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, BayRaider said:

Yes it is. Not as bad as the Colts but the Packers are garbage without ARod. If they had an average QB, they are probably a 3-5 win team.

Well isn't that what a great QB is supposed to bring to a team? Is that not the reason we call them 'special'?

4 hours ago, BayRaider said:

Even when the Packers were ultra good in 2010 and 2011, they still had the #32 defense but were at least stacked on offense. 

They had a top 3 defense in 2009 and 2010. In 2011 they fell off because losing a player like Nick Collins will do that. You know why? Because he was a special player. You think that's just a coincidence?

Winning a Superbowl is not easy. This isn't madden. Even if Rodgers had a top 10 defense every year there is still no guarantees that Rodgers and the Packers would have any more rings than they do now. In fact, I can almost guarantee that if the Packers DID have a top 10 defense every year that there would be a ton of critics and haters claiming that 'Rodgers is carried by the defense' because that's just how most of us fans operate whether you wanna believe it or not. 

Look, I'm very critical of the Rodgers and the Packers' organization in general when it's called for, just like any other team. For instance I blame Rodgers for his play during the Cardinals playoff game. Most look at stats and say that Rodgers played lights out and I strongly disagree and have backed that up numerous times. I blame the FO and staff on lack of development at key positions on defense. Like last year when I stated that Randall and Rollins(FO's top draft picks) were not that good and had the entire Packer fan base blast me for it and saying that it was injuries even though they were playing like trash when they were healthy.

So again I'm very critical of them. But at what point do you draw the line of expectations? Do you expect the Raiders to win multiple Superbowls with David Carr? What happens if they don't....is that a failure? Or would you just be happy with being SB contenders and making the playoffs for the next decade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
incognito_man

incognito_man

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, BayRaider said:

Yes it is. Not as bad as the Colts but the Packers are garbage without ARod. If they had an average QB, they are probably a 3-5 win team. Even when the Packers were ultra good in 2010 and 2011, they still had the #32 defense but were at least stacked on offense. 

This is intentional sarcasm right? It's hard to tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Packerraymond

Packerraymond

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, BayRaider said:

Yes it is. Not as bad as the Colts but the Packers are garbage without ARod. If they had an average QB, they are probably a 3-5 win team. Even when the Packers were ultra good in 2010 and 2011, they still had the #32 defense but were at least stacked on offense. 

Packers had one of the best secondaries the league has seen since the turn of the century in 2010. They were the #2 scoring defense and #5 in yardage. Also had a QBR against of 67.2 for the whole season, you clearly are clueless on the subject.

2011 was historically bad, but they lost an All-Pro safety to career ending injury, Charles Woodson took his first real step in regression and Tramon Williams had nerve damage in his shoulder that he never really recovered from. Had Collins and Williams stayed healthy, that team would have been an entirely different defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lancerman

lancerman

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Championshiporbust said:

Yes. Had Rodgers been with a Belichick or even a Tomlin, he'd win 4 Super Bowl championships and a conference championship ring by now.

lol Brady won two titles against teams Rodgers was scared to throw the ball against and in one of them his defense did more than Brady's 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
showtime

showtime

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Darkness said:

The credit being given to GB's "success" with Rodgers at QB reminds of the credit given to CLE's "success" during LeBron's first stint with Cavs. Both players greatness elevated the mediocre teams around them 

I do not agree with this comparison.  If you look at LeBron's first stint with the Cleveland Cavaliers from 2003-2010 the talent around him was mediocre.  Whether it be:  Mo Williams, Delonte West, Larry Hughes, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Donyell Marshall, Daniel Gibson, etc - those guys were essentially a team of role players surrounded by the best player in the league.  Aaron Rodgers' situation is not the same.  For instance, Rodgers has had some quality WR's during his time:  Donald Driver, Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, Devante Adams, etc.  The Packers have fielded some really good teams during Rodgers' time in Green Bay and they are a team that is consistently in the postseason/championship hunt.  I feel like Rodgers has preformed well enough in several of the Packers postseason losses to earn victories.  Unfortunately, the defense has let them down at times and they went up against some really tough 49er and Seahawk teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...