Trading Rodgers: A Down Year Discussion

[packfanfb]

1 minute ago, deltarich87 said:

What's easier to accomplish...building a good defense or finding a HOF QB? You find the QB and go from there. GB has the QB. You want them to trade him because the FO has missed on their defensive picks?

Randall, Rollins, Fackrell, Khryi Thornton, Datone Jones, Jerel Worthy, etc. These were all defensive picks by GB over the yrs taken within the first 3 rds. This is part of the reason why the defense continues to be stagnant as a middling one at best

TBH, I honestly think the defensive performance would improve just simply with a switch at DC. Secondary still needs more talent for sure, but I don't think Dom helps that group out or puts them in the best position to succeed either

 

Ding ding ding. Someone gets it.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

68/13, that's the TD/INT playoff ratio of the last 10 SB winning QBs. Elite QB play wins in the playoffs.

Joe Flacco, Eli Manning, Peyton Manning.  Peyton Manning was not an "elite" QB that year.  Proof that non-elite quarterbacks can have elite playoff outings. 

Interesting you stopped at 10.  The year before?  Peyton Manning won with a 3/7 TD/INT ratio.  3/1 the year before that, 12/2 (two years), 5/3, 1/1, 3/1, 8/4, 6/3 (two years). 

So last ten years it was 68/13, the ten years before that it was 40/22. 

108/35 over the past 20 years. 

And we both know TD/INT ratio doesn't tell the whole story.  When your defense isn't allowing points, you don't have to take risks to keep up. 

[Packerraymond]

5 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Joe Flacco, Eli Manning, Peyton Manning.  Peyton Manning was not an "elite" QB that year.  Proof that non-elite quarterbacks can have elite playoff outings. 

Interesting you stopped at 10.  The year before?  Peyton Manning won with a 3/7 TD/INT ratio.  3/1 the year before that, 12/2 (two years), 5/3, 1/1, 3/1, 8/4, 6/3 (two years). 

So last ten years it was 68/13, the ten years before that it was 40/22. 

108/35 over the past 20 years. 

And we both know TD/INT ratio doesn't tell the whole story.  When your defense isn't allowing points, you don't have to take risks to keep up. 

Are you going to take 90s QB stats too? Game's changed drastically in 10 years, rule changes favoring offense.

Your QB has to play elite, they don't need to be elite. Joe Flacco may have had the best run of any of them, Eli Manning too. Have either of them even sniffed a SB since? No. Rodgers does every year, because an elite QB always gives you a chance.

You keep pointing out this elite defense thing, but there is a salary cap. Look at Denver, look at Seattle (once they had to pay Wilson), look at Baltimore. One and dones. Rodgers wouldve have been there for the NINTH straight year.

I'll take a roster building strategy that puts me in the dance every year over one that gets me a 1-2 year window, then is purged by FA losses and now Im left with a mediocre defense and non elite QB.

Your strategy is one to build a short term SB window. I'll take long term.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Your strategy is one to build a short term SB window. I'll take long term.

That's literally the opposite of what the truth is.  I'm trying to put my faith in 2 blue chip defensive players under 24 years old, plus two more first round draft picks.  You're putting your faith in a quarterback who is going to turn 34 in December. 

The only good point you've had so far is maintaining a top defense.  With this plan, we'd have 3 years left of current pro (Ramsey, Bosa, Garrett, etc), 4 years plus fifth year option on 3 first round draft picks. 

After the 2018 season, we have to re-sign Rodgers.  We're not building a top defense after that. 

[jontat83]

I don't think having so much money invested in Rodgers means we can't have an average to good defense (and that's all we need IMO, we don't need an elite defense). What's stopping us in not hitting on our draft picks and not utilizing FA like some others teams do. Oh and people says it's easy to blame Capers but he runs a scheme that is not at all rookie friendly (a common complaint about that was also labelled to Lebeau in Pittsburgh, that the Steelers always had trouble integrating rookies into their scheme). Remember this Packers team is usually one of the youngest teams in the league most years.

I just think there isn't an appetite to fix it/sheer stubbornness in some cases, but there are ways and that is without getting rid of your all world QB to pave the way for it.

[MacReady]

Just now, jontat83 said:

What's stopping us in not hitting on our draft picks and not utilizing FA like some others teams do. Oh and people says it's easy to blame Capers but he runs a scheme that is not at all rookie friendly

You answered your own question in your very next sentence.  If Capers is here and we remain a draft and develop team, we will not win.  We tried utilizing free agents, but one mid-tier corner and three over 30 front seven players will not fix miscommunications in the secondary. 

[ReadyToThump]

I said this during the offseason and I still stand by it... Letting Peppers and Jones go was a huge mistake, especially when we replaced them with Fackrell and Biegel. (Glad we were able to pick up Brooks...)

[MacReady]

Just now, ReadyToThump said:

I said this during the offseason and I still stand by it... Letting Peppers and Jones go was a huge mistake, especially when we replaced them with Fackrell and Biegel. (Glad we were able to pick up Brooks...)

Peppers yes.  You must have been the only other one because everybody else was okay with letting Peppers go.  I could prove it if I had to, but I was very vocal about wanting to bring Peppers back, and I used the fact that he was the only one who made any plays at all for us during our 10 game win streak.  He turned the Giants game around for us last year is one play off the top of my head.  Thompson let go of Woodson AND Peppers too early, and it ticks me off.

Datone?  No.  Datone has been cut by two division rivals already.  If he was good, or if he could help, we'd sign him. 

[Pugger]

44 minutes ago, ReadyToThump said:

I said this during the offseason and I still stand by it... Letting Peppers and Jones go was a huge mistake, especially when we replaced them with Fackrell and Biegel. (Glad we were able to pick up Brooks...)

I agree with Peppers but not so much with Jones.  He's having a problem staying employed.  He jut got cut by Lions the other day and is currently a FA.

[MantyWrestler]

6 hours ago, pollino14 said:

First off, no offence Horizon but this discussion shouldn't be taking place. It's absurd to even think about trading Aaron Rodgers.

 

Second off, Cleveland would jump on this deal in a second. Wouldn't even be a discussion. 

I would take this trade for Green Bay in a heartbeat.

another great olb or de plus the 1st or 2nd pick in the draft!!! I wouldn’t use that pick there either, I’d trade back and turn that into another 2-3 picks. 3 # 1’s would let me take a great OG, a stud RB WR, plus we’re looking at 2-3 comp picks. 

Put all that talent around Huntley and we would be dangerous. 

[Cheesehawk]

Ted missing on picks is the problem. He always drafts some head-scratching defensive guys. I feel we try to get too cute with our selections. We claim BPA but I don't see it.

[squire12]

34 minutes ago, packerrfan74 said:

Ted All GM's missing on picks is the problem. He always drafts some head-scratching defensive guys. I feel we try to get too cute with our selections. We claim BPA but I don't see it.

That sounds better

[Packerraymond]

3 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

That's literally the opposite of what the truth is.  I'm trying to put my faith in 2 blue chip defensive players under 24 years old, plus two more first round draft picks.  You're putting your faith in a quarterback who is going to turn 34 in December. 

The only good point you've had so far is maintaining a top defense.  With this plan, we'd have 3 years left of current pro (Ramsey, Bosa, Garrett, etc), 4 years plus fifth year option on 3 first round draft picks. 

After the 2018 season, we have to re-sign Rodgers.  We're not building a top defense after that. 

That's it, you have a 3-4 year window. You'd give Garrett a Watt/Von Miller type deal and if any of those draft picks hit you can sign 1 of them. Assuming that you had a SB caliber team and already had a couple 10+m dollar deals and had given Hundley/whoever the QB is 15+m for being an average starting QB. Now you've been drafting in the late 20s-30s because of this great defense, you've lost a bunch of guys to FA you have to replace and you don't have a whole lot of cap. Sounds like you're going to be relying on young players from late picks to fill this roster. Sounds a lot like us.

The NFL is literally built to stop the building of dynasties now. They want the 2011-2014 49ers, or 2012-15 Broncos. Blips of greatness followed by a fall to reality and an attempted to rebuild to get back there.

Literally the ONLY way to beat the way the league is set up and be a contender for a decade at a time is to have a HOF QB. You don't give that up.

[Gopackgonerd]

5 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

They're not horrible examples, and everybody here has said countless times, "We're wasting Aaron's career," by not having a better roster.  We can't get a better roster with Aaron on the roster.  We could do what the Patriots did and sign everybody, all the free agents, to get a #1 defense.  It worked for them, but now their defense is bad.  What if the Patriots did that and the Falcons ran the ball more than 4 times after being up 28-3?  It's not about helping this team more NEXT YEAR, it's about putting this team in a better situation for the NEXT FIVE YEARS. 

Aaron Rodgers will not win another Super Bowl without a top 10 defense.  McCarthy and him are not good enough in the playoffs to do that.  Evidence?  7/16 times they've scored below the NFL average in points per game in the playoffs.  It would be a different story if Aaron was averaging 35 points a game in the playoffs and he scored below the average 3 or 4 times, but he hasn't. 

It's the same exact thing with Tom Brady, which is why the Patriots won't be winning a Super Bowl this year unless that defense suddenly creates a top pass rusher and an above average front seven out of a bad front seven.  Brady has scored 24 points or less in 17/34 games.  Why has he been to 7 Super Bowls?  Why has he won 5?  Because he is 10-4 in those 14 games.  Because his defense played better than his offense. 

After the 2018 season, the Packers won't be able to afford to sign free agent defenders, and we won't be in a position to draft top defensive rookies.  Unless we get a Hall of Fame defensive player in this coming draft, we're going to be in for 5 more players on the level of Clinton-Dix, Randall, Clark, Perry... until Rodgers retires, and our continued lack of blue chip, all-pro potential defensive players will keep our defense at the 16-30 range of defenses.

I'd rather win a Super Bowl or two in the next 8 years while Rodgers wins 2-3 on a different team than win no Super Bowls for the next six years with Rodgers, and sending Rodgers to "Only one Super Bowl" land. 

Yes we need a top 10 defense to be a super bowl contender, but we also need to be a healthier team. That is the key, and injuries is what has killed us the most imo. 2014 is probably our healthiest year and we could of made the super bowl if it wasn't for the choke of the century. Since then we've had crazy bad luck with injuries, and this year is no different. Say we bring all these guys in, if we  continue our streak of bad injuries the outcome will be the same, and we will win even less games without Rodgers. No team in their right mind would trade a HOF player like Rodgers or Brady just to get better on Defense/load up on picks.  Why do you think the Vikings haven't been in the Super Bowl? They have a elite defense every year, yet their QBs have all been bad. The only time they got close to the super bowl was with Favre (a HOF QB). Hell they had the best Running back for years and still haven't gotten farther than the Pack in the playoffs. Why haven't they? Because they have to go against Aaron Rodgers. Teams rarely get to the promise land without a great QB. Defense helps get to the super bowl, but QBs win super bowls. 

[FinneasGage]

everytime rodgers gets hurt or goes through a sub-par spurt people wanna trade him and move on lol

no. don't trade the best QB to ever do it imo.