Trading Rodgers: A Down Year Discussion

[pollino14]

This thread is straight embarrassing, thinking about trading AR. We've been so lucky with phenomenal QB play for years, and people want to give it away. Go ask teams like Buffalo, Mia, Cle etc. who have been looking for a above average QB for years how easy it is.

[gizmo2012]

On 10/20/2017 at 10:00 AM, HorizontoZenith said:

I completely and wholly disagree.  If one aspect of your team plays poorly in the playoffs, you are not winning the game.  Just ONE aspect, and you're not winning or likely even getting to the playoffs. 

Show me one team in the past 20 years of Super Bowl history that didn't have a good defense (23 points or less average in playoffs) and I'll relent and believe that Rodgers can get it done with an 11-32 ranked defense.  You weren't going to do the work there, but I will.  And I'll go one further and add a couple teams. 

Packers - 16
Broncos - 18
Broncos - 10.6
Rams - 19.6
Ravens - 5.75
Patriots - 15.6
Buccaneers - 12.3
Patriots - 19
Patriots - 17
Steelers - 15.5
Colts - 16.25
Giants - 16.25
Steelers - 20.3
Saints - 19.6
Packers - 19
Giants - 14
Ravens - 22
Seahawks - 13.3
Patriots - 20.6
Broncos - 14.6
Patriots - 20.3

Super Bowl winning defenses in the playoffs give up an average of: 16.5 points per playoff game.
Our defense since Rodgers has been here has given up an average of: 26.4 points per playoff game.

Aaron Rodgers is not 10 points better than the rest of the NFL.  He has averaged 28.5 points per game in his playoff career.  A two point difference does NOT suggest that Aaron is good enough to constantly overcome the opposition in the playoffs. 

Adding to this, the only year he DID win a Super Bowl, the Packers offense scored 100 points for an average of 25 a game.  The defense allowed 76 points. 

Aaron Rodgers in the playoffs is not even as good as Drew Brees in the playoffs.  Brees has averaged 29 points per game in the playoffs.  He's averaged 30 if you count only his Saints playoff games. 

Are you blaming a bad defense on Rodgers? Are the Packers winning too many games for you every year? Brees makes the playoffs once or twice and you compare him to Rodgers? I absolutely do not get your point in all of this. To me it's simple - the team needs a new look and appoach on defense. The coaches and front office have to stop dumping good OL for the hope that someone else can step up. The surprise is Rodgers didn't get hurt earlier. It is past time Capers retires and Thompson retires. MCarthy is on the bubble for 2 years or he's gone. 

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, pollino14 said:

This thread is straight embarrassing, thinking about trading AR. We've been so lucky with phenomenal QB play for years, and people want to give it away. Go ask teams like Buffalo, Mia, Cle etc. who have been looking for a above average QB for years how easy it is.

I get it, but....just play the game, knowing full well GB won't and shouldn't trade him.

What if you got a QB who is the next Carson Wentz?  So for Rodgers, you get back Wentz and Myles Garrett?

QB's coming out this year are supposed to be very good...that's the only way the scenario works for me.  You gotta hit big time with your first round Cleveland pick at QB.  

BTW...I'm not advocating for this scenario, just wondering out loud about how it could work.  I still go back to my thought that no other QB is going to be successful with McCarthy as he is now.  Mac needs to retool the offense to fit a new QB...and Dom needs to go.

Seems the simpler way to get another Super Bowl is to get a new defensive coordinator and see if that helps.  Cuz Rodgers will keep us in games solely on his own.

[pollino14]

39 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I get it, but....just play the game, knowing full well GB won't and shouldn't trade him.

What if you got a QB who is the next Carson Wentz?  So for Rodgers, you get back Wentz and Myles Garrett?

QB's coming out this year are supposed to be very good...that's the only way the scenario works for me.  You gotta hit big time with your first round Cleveland pick at QB.  

BTW...I'm not advocating for this scenario, just wondering out loud about how it could work.  I still go back to my thought that no other QB is going to be successful with McCarthy as he is now.  Mac needs to retool the offense to fit a new QB...and Dom needs to go.

Seems the simpler way to get another Super Bowl is to get a new defensive coordinator and see if that helps.  Cuz Rodgers will keep us in games solely on his own.

Still a no for me. I'm not giving up a QB playing at a HOF level that easily. 

[MantyWrestler]

5 minutes ago, pollino14 said:

Still a no for me. I'm not giving up a QB playing at a HOF level that easily. 

With that logic we were stupid for going with Rogers over Favre. We let him go for an unproven young QB. (Insert Wentz). 

Oh ya, and Garret and 2 # 1’s yet, Cleveland’s and ours yet. 

[Cheesehawk]

1 hour ago, gizmo2012 said:

Are you blaming a bad defense on Rodgers? Are the Packers winning too many games for you every year? Brees makes the playoffs once or twice and you compare him to Rodgers? I absolutely do not get your point in all of this. To me it's simple - the team needs a new look and appoach on defense. The coaches and front office have to stop dumping good OL for the hope that someone else can step up. The surprise is Rodgers didn't get hurt earlier. It is past time Capers retires and Thompson retires. MCarthy is on the bubble for 2 years or he's gone. 

Eh, hard to place any blame on the FO for our OL problems right now. Injuries have killed us there. The one consistent piece on that OL this season has been Jahri Evans.. we made an uncharacteristic (and cheaper) move to assist the OL and it has been a great value signing. Our T situation going into the season looked great with Bahk, Bulaga, Spriggs, Murphy and Barclay. No one expected Spriggs to look terrible and Murphy and Barclay to get hurt as well. Lane Taylor looked good last season and we know we have an average to above average C in Linsley. 

The FO deserves no blame for the OL, they have done a great job building that line. 

[pollino14]

6 minutes ago, MantyWrestler said:

With that logic we were stupid for going with Rogers over Favre. We let him go for an unproven young QB. (Insert Wentz). 

Oh ya, and Garret and 2 # 1’s yet, Cleveland’s and ours yet. 

Favre wasn't playing at a HOF level at the time... And there were many other variables.

[MantyWrestler]

38 minutes ago, pollino14 said:

Favre wasn't playing at a HOF level at the time... And there were many other variables.

So? Rogers is going to be 35 next year and may never again play at this level as well. He might be on the downside of his career too. 

 He has also played at Hall of Fame level the last four or five years; how many Super Bowls have we won? 

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, pollino14 said:

Still a no for me. I'm not giving up a QB playing at a HOF level that easily. 

I would, but only for that huge haul and I'd have to be 100% certain of the QB I'd be taking.  Like Andrew Luck certain during the draft, not even Wentz certain.  Wentz as he is now, you bet, but back then, it would be a no for me.

And...outside of the Mannings and Luck, I'm trying to figure out if there were QB's coming out that were locks to be excellent.

To further that argument, I loved Watson this year, thought he was a stud, and I wouldn't do the deal for him (during last year).  No for Mahomes.  No for Trubitsky.

I wouldn't for Winston or Mariotta.  I wouldn't for Goff.

Heck, I wouldn't for young Rodgers as he was coming out or Alex Smith.

Gotta be one special QB that you know 100% is going to be excellent.  And that is really, really tough to find.

I still think the easier way to another title is with Rodgers and without Capers.

[pollino14]

21 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I would, but only for that huge haul and I'd have to be 100% certain of the QB I'd be taking.  Like Andrew Luck certain during the draft, not even Wentz certain.  Wentz as he is now, you bet, but back then, it would be a no for me.

And...outside of the Mannings and Luck, I'm trying to figure out if there were QB's coming out that were locks to be excellent.

To further that argument, I loved Watson this year, thought he was a stud, and I wouldn't do the deal for him (during last year).  No for Mahomes.  No for Trubitsky.

I wouldn't for Winston or Mariotta.  I wouldn't for Goff.

Heck, I wouldn't for young Rodgers as he was coming out or Alex Smith.

Gotta be one special QB that you know 100% is going to be excellent.  And that is really, really tough to find.

I still think the easier way to another title is with Rodgers and without Capers.

I get it, but there aren't those 100% guarantee guys. Andrew Luck still isn't a superstar. It's just a too big of a risk. We need a defensive star, but there's other ways to do it without making a severe risk of trading AR.

[vegas492]

That's my point, there aren't many of those guarantees.  But, this draft is supposed to be excellent for QB's, so if there were a draft to strongly consider it, it would be this one.

Coming out, no one has been as highly thought of as Luck.  (Since Peyton/Eli)  Maybe Cam.  And I wouldn't do the deal for Cam either.

I know nothing about the Qb's, besides the press telling me that there are a couple really good ones.  Anyone watch these kids that can chime in?

[Dubz41]

Rosen, UCLA- all the tools, good size, pro set, but he is a D**K- leadership questions

Jackson, Louisville- tools +, explosive playmaker, good arm, runs too much, has that inner drive.

Darnold- highly rated, but I just see Eli part II.  Don't know why, just don't think he's it.

Josh Allen, Wyoming- Bigger Brett Favre. Gunslinger, but does he understand schemes? needs a lot of coaching.

Clayton Thorson, Northwestern.  Late riser, positive scouting reports, good size. Haven't seen a lot of him though.

[Kenrik]

I don't think the QB class is doing as well as people thought.

I think Darnold is more of a Stafford than Eli. Bigger QB, good arm, clutch when called on(more Eli I guess), forces ball and makes terrible throws.

[StinkySauce]

8 hours ago, vegas492 said:

I would, but only for that huge haul and I'd have to be 100% certain of the QB I'd be taking.  Like Andrew Luck certain during the draft, not even Wentz certain.  Wentz as he is now, you bet, but back then, it would be a no for me.

Gotta be one special QB that you know 100% is going to be excellent.  And that is really, really tough to find.

I mean, if you were to ditch ARod and in return you could get a rookie who plays as well as Andrew Luck and also any one single player either in the forthcoming draft or currently playing (but no, you can't have Andrew Luck and Arod), would you like our yearly SB chances that much more than you do with Rodgers year in and out?  And, even if you do think those chances are improved, how many Colts games have you watched, and have any of them been as heart-stoppingly spectacular as watching Rodgers?  How many Rodgers games have been so stupidly awesome?  Answer: so many that you don't even notice anymore.  Rodgers was injured early in week 6 this year and he STILL had two jaw-dropping games. And not Favre jaw-dropping.  We're talking Rodgers jaw-dropping: the kind where your jaw drops but . . . you know, it always drops when you're watching Rodgers so who cares?  

I vote against trading him.

[vegas492]

And with all those jaw dropping plays, we've been to one Super Bowl with him.

The goal is to win the big game.  I've said it before on here, I don't see us getting another one with Rodgers as long as the coaches remain the same.  Change some up and then Rodgers has a chance.

I was against trading him too.  Doubt crept into my mind when considering the QB draft class and seeing what Wentz has been able to do in his first two years.