Aaron Rodgers officially begins holdout by skipping Packers mandatory mini-camp

[incognito_man]

22 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

This I am very interested in. Do you have a link? I would love to know the probabilities. 

It was the 4th down bot on twitter IIRC, decision (again in a vacuum) was within a percent or two either way. Then, if you factor in the context, it adds more sense. I don't feel strongly one way or the other (kick or go for it), but the the logic is sound that the confidence in Rodgers after 3 (very bad) attempts is lowered in the coach's head. On the other side, the defense had gone: INT, INT, INT, FG against TB's last 4 drives (and an increased confidence in stopping them with 3 timeouts and 2 min warning).

This is, of course, a tangent to the original point that it is (actually) ironic that Rodgers is criticizing the rational decision given his failures that lead to the necessity of said decision.

[incognito_man]

4 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Maybe if the Packers had another legit option besides Davante Adams, they could have converted one of those attempts. Probably part of Rodgers frustration with the team's inability to add more weapons for him.

Brady had Evans, Godwin, AB, and Gronk. Probably helps in putting up points. The other team in the super bowl was also loaded with weapons. Probably didn't hurt.

I'm aware that I'm not clever. Believe me. But this GB team absolutely could be a superbowl contender if the FO made more aggressive moves, much like the Bucs, Chiefs, and Rams have done in recent years. If they aren't already, seeing as Rodgers consistently gets them reasonably far into the playoffs. It has nothing to do with Rodgers cap # that's for sure. That can always be finagled with if a team really wants to make moves to get things done.

Regardless, I'm aware these points will likely fly over your head. But carry on.

Such a tired argument. I'm not going to have it again. But understand you're in a significant minority that continues this paper-thin argument that "Rodgerzz haz no weaponzzz".

It's demonstrably incorrect, and you should stop thinking it.

[incognito_man]

13 minutes ago, ET80 said:

But yeah, my likes are from Texans related comments, not comments on a injury prone WR a single individual tried to sell as a #2 WR in the NFL...

You're a liar now, too. Go figure.

For everyone else (who obviously doesn't care because this is a stupid post about a series of stupider posts you made):

I don't think, and never have thought that Devin Funchess is currently a #2 WR. I made literally dozens of posts with the following, and only the following information: Devin Funchess is former #1 WR (in Carolina) who had upside to be a #2/3 WR in Indy and GB in 2019/2020 but got derailed due to injuries and COVID who is now (in 2021) a fringe roster guy who is unlikely to make the team. Nothing more, nothing less. 

[Malfatron]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

He brings it up in every unrelated thread he can because he is insecure and likes the attention and cheap "likes".

 

 

that works?

 

 

Funchess.

[Sad People]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

There's nothing ironic about me, someone who posts intelligently, pointing out a stupid post that refers to something intentionally misrepresented to score cheap, thoughtless reactions from other rubes.

It detracts from the site and intelligent discussion. I used to think he was better, but it seems not.

1. I doubt people really care all that much about “likes” seems like youre putting to much Into that it’s a darn football.

2. I completely disagree that it detracts from the site and think it adds something to site personally. People should be able to make jokes and try and make people laugh with their posts instead of being all serious all the time, leave that crap for work or something. It’s suppose to be a community feel here and posts like that add to that feeling, I know it doesn’t bug me what so ever. 

[MrOaktown_56]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

Such a tired argument. I'm not going to have it again. But understand you're in a significant minority that continues this paper-thin argument that "Rodgerzz haz no weaponzzz".

It's demonstrably incorrect, and you should stop thinking it.

If it’s demonstrably incorrect, why am I the not the only one who brings it up? I never said he has no weapons.  They’re just not that good. No team is losing an ounce of sleep over any packers receiver not named Davante Adams.

 Rodgers elevates his receivers but it’s a lot easier when they’re good players. Teams that have won the bowl as of late have had significantly better. That’s for sure. 

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, mattyice0401 said:

1. I doubt people really care all that much about “likes” seems like youre putting to much Into that it’s a darn football.

2. I completely disagree that it detracts from the site and think it adds something to site personally. People should be able to make jokes and try and make people laugh with their posts instead of being all serious all the time, leave that crap for work or something. It’s suppose to be a community feel here and posts like that add to that feeling, I know it doesn’t bug me what so ever. 

Low-brow humor (like what he's been doing) doesn't add to anything, including this site. Clever humor (not what he's doing) adds to anything, including this site. You are conflating "humor" with "intelligent humor". Nobody is suggesting people need to be serious. I am suggesting people should be less dumb.

[incognito_man]

39 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

If it’s demonstrably incorrect, why am I the not the only one who brings it up? I never said he has no weapons.  They’re just not that good. No team is losing an ounce of sleep over any packers receiver not named Davante Adams.

 Rodgers elevates his receivers but it’s a lot easier when they’re good players. Teams that have won the bowl as of late have had significantly better. That’s for sure. 

There are millions of people who "bring up" that the earth is flat. Not being the only person doing something doesn't mean it's not demonstrably wrong.

Aaron Rodgers has the best OL in the NFL.

Aaron Rodgers has arguably the best WR in the NFL.

Aaron Rodgers has a top 5-10 RB behind him.

Aaron Rodgers has the #1 TE in the NFL is passer rating when targeted, and is likely overall a top 12-15 TE.

Broaden your mental horizon past "WR2" and you'll understand why the tired argument of "Aaron Rodgers offensive supporting cast is bad" is straight up nonsense.

[MrOaktown_56]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

There are millions of people who "bring up" that the earth is flat. Not being the only person doing something doesn't mean it's not demonstrably wrong.

Aaron Rodgers has the best OL in the NFL.

Aaron Rodgers has arguably the best WR in the NFL.

Aaron Rodgers has a top 5-10 RB behind him.

Aaron Rodgers has the #1 TE in the NFL is passer rating when targeted, and is likely overall a top 12-15 TE.

Broaden your mental horizon past "WR2" and you'll understand why the tired argument of "Aaron Rodgers offensive supporting cast is bad" is straight up nonsense.

And with all those things you mentioned, none of my points are wrong. Robert Tonyan is an average tight end who’s production is inflated by a generational qb. 
 

I still didn’t say it’s bad. That’s a horrible straw man. But it’s not that great. It’s demonstrably worse than other teams that are beating the packers and winning the bowl. And I’m hard pressed to think adding a good receiver to the room wouldn’t help the packers super bowl chances. I’d like to see you suggest otherwise. 

[childofpudding]

I would say that if you look at entire supporting casts on offense, only TB and KC clearly had it better.

[NudeTayne]

2 hours ago, incognito_man said:

There are millions of people who "bring up" that the earth is flat. Not being the only person doing something doesn't mean it's not demonstrably wrong.

Aaron Rodgers has the best OL in the NFL.

Aaron Rodgers has arguably the best WR in the NFL.

Aaron Rodgers has a top 5-10 RB behind him.

Aaron Rodgers has the #1 TE in the NFL is passer rating when targeted, and is likely overall a top 12-15 TE.

Broaden your mental horizon past "WR2" and you'll understand why the tired argument of "Aaron Rodgers offensive supporting cast is bad" is straight up nonsense.

 

51 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

And with all those things you mentioned, none of my points are wrong. Robert Tonyan is an average right end who’s production is inflated by a generational qb. 
 

I still didn’t say it’s bad. That’s a horrible straw man. But it’s not that great. It’s demonstrably worse than other teams that are beating the packers and winning the bowl. And I’m hard pressed to think adding a good receiver to the room wouldn’t help the packers super bowl chances. I’d like to see you suggest otherwise. 

Just to add the power of 3rd perspective, you two both make complete sense; Rodgers in Green Bay has produced elite numbers. General perception is that Adams is elite (with or without Rodgers), the Packers have at the very least an above-average offensive line, as well as RB. Rodgers and Tonyan have been an elite connection; thus, I would say Tonyan is at least low-end starter without Rodgers, if not an above-average starter.

Personally, I agree that another weapon at WR looks like a good idea, but there are some young guys still developing there. 

Also, the Packers used pick 85 on a wide receiver in Amari Rodgers. He kinda gives me Deebo Samuel type of game, gritty and tough player. I understand he's a rookie, but his college game looked quite polished (and fwiw he's the son of a coach). 

The Packers have some young talent to keep developing. I like their WR depth more than most and could see one of these guys having (small, like touching a thousand yards) a breakout seasons. Maybe it'll be 6'5" glidey Equanimeous St. Brown? Maybe Lazard? Amari goes for 800 as a rookie?

tl;dr Rodgers elevates the entire offense, and it also looks like the Packers have done a reasonably solid job stocking the offensive cabinet

Edited June 16, 2021 by NudeTayne

[MrOaktown_56]

3 minutes ago, NudeTayne said:

 

Just to add the power of 3rd perspective, you two both make complete sense; Rodgers in Green Bay has produced elite numbers. General perception is that Adams is elite (with or without Rodgers), the Packers have at the very least an above-average offensive line, as well as RB. Rodgers and Tonyan have been an elite connection; thus, I would say Tonyan is at least low-end starter without Rodgers, if not an above-average starter.

Personally, I agree that another weapon at WR looks like a good idea, but there are some young guys still developing there. 

Also, the Packers used pick 85 on a wide receiver in Amari Rodgers. He kinda gives me Deebo Samuel type of game, gritty and tough player. I understand he's a rookie, but his college game looked quite polished (and fwiw he's the son of a coach). 

The Packers have some young tangent to keep developing. I like their WR depth more than most and could see one of these guys having (small, like touching a thousand yards) a breakout seasons. Maybe it'll be 6'5" glidey Equanimeous St. Brown? Maybe Lazard? Rodgers goes for 800 as a rookie?

tl;dr Rodgers elevates the entire offense, and it looks like the Packers have done a reasonably solid job stocking the offensive cabinet

It's an average group IMO. Maybe a tiny bit better than that. It would have been so easy and inexpensive to bring in a veteran who could have instantly contributed over the past 2-3 years, and instead, complacency. Complacency doesn't win you super bowls. 

Edit: for the record, I like Amari Rodgers. But looking at last years class (completely skipping on adding a receiver in favor of an H-back who will likely not be a major contributor, a qb who will not see the field anytime soon, and a running back who is behind aaron jones who you just extended) is just dense to me. That and not adding a veteran doesn't sit well with me. The NFL is about aggressively adding talent to win games. I haven't gotten that vibe from the packers FO in comparisons to the teams I mentioned earlier.

[NudeTayne]

1 minute ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

It's an average group IMO. Maybe a tiny bit better than that. It would have been so easy and inexpensive to bring in a veteran who could have instantly contributed over the past 2-3 years, and instead, complacency. Complacency doesn't win you super bowls. 

To the nude eye it did indeed appear as if the Packers could use one more #2-level receiver. Folks wanted prime Greg Jennings across from Devante. That said, there were a lot of injuries and perhaps there was a guy they were confident in--Lazard? 🤔--who just didn't make it happen. That's on their judgment, of course, but maybe they haven't actually starved Rodgers of resources.

The offensive line gives him a lot of time, yeah, and the front office has been willing to pay players. The team is willing to spend and is heavily invested in offense. We may never know, of course, but I want to believe they were willing to get him weapons, that it was some combo of the player and price not making sense or else a player on the roster (contrary to team expectation of that player) flopping.

[MrOaktown_56]

8 minutes ago, NudeTayne said:

To the nude eye it did indeed appear as if the Packers could use one more #2-level receiver. Folks wanted prime Greg Jennings across from Devante. That said, there were a lot of injuries and perhaps there was a guy they were confident in--Lazard? 🤔--who just didn't make it happen. That's on their judgment, of course, but maybe they haven't actually starved Rodgers of resources.

The offensive line gives him a lot of time, yeah, and the front office has been willing to pay players. The team is willing to spend and is heavily invested in offense. We may never know, of course, but I want to believe they were willing to get him weapons, that it was some combo of the player and price not making sense or else a player on the roster (contrary to team expectation of that player) flopping.

I'm just pointing out what I see. "Haven't starved him of talent" isn't a ringing endorsement.

I'm just saying, look at the toys some of the other top qb's were getting. How hard would it have been to add an Agholor/Sanders/Tyrell Williams type of player and also draft a receiver early?

I understand the "their judgment thing". I used to believe more in that. Then I saw the continued assets being invested in our defense with 0 return and became more skeptical.

[malak1]

5 hours ago, incognito_man said:

He brings it up in every unrelated thread he can because he is insecure and likes the attention and cheap "likes".

The actual irony is that all respectable readers recognize how gross it all is (and has been since the beginning). 

 

He brings it up because it’s funny. You’re right, technically, Funchess was a number 1. I also agree that this whole “not a real number one” is a function of fantasy football. At one point, Johnny effin Knox was a number 1. So I’m on your side here.
 

The thing is, in 2021 no one really talks about number 1 receivers like that anymore, so you guys were basically just talking past each other. In today’s football lexicon, calling Funchess a number 1 is ridiculous….and funny