The Aaron Rodgers Grief Phase: Acceptance

[Pugger]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

No they don't?

The entire thread has buried (justifiably) the ST, and half of it is working damn hard to give Rodgers cover behind "The Offensive Line didn't play well" and "Gute should be held accountable for the lack of weapons".

I was speaking generally, not about Rodgers specifically.   If you are winning you are on top of the football world.  But if his team is losing games because his line stinks or they can't run the ball how often is the QB blamed when in reality he might be pretty darn good but nobody can tell because he is on his backside all afternoon?  In 2010 Rodgers played like garbage for most of the NFCC game in Chicago but that is all but forgotten because we won that game with our defense.  IF our ST unit wasn't historically bad and the defense only gives up 2 FGs we'd be getting ready for the Rams and not too many people would be talking about how Rodgers played.

I didn't get the feeling folks here were giving Rodgers a pass over his performance Saturday night.  A lot of them are ready to move on and are weary of his lousy play so often in the postseason.

[AlexGreen#20]

6 minutes ago, Pugger said:

I was speaking generally, not about Rodgers specifically.   If you are winning you are on top of the football world.  But if his team is losing games because his line stinks or they can't run the ball how often is the QB blamed when in reality he might be pretty darn good but nobody can tell because he is on his backside all afternoon?  In 2010 Rodgers played like garbage for most of the NFCC game in Chicago but that is all but forgotten because we won that game with our defense.  IF our ST unit wasn't historically bad and the defense only gives up 2 FGs we'd be getting ready for the Rams and not too many people would be talking about how Rodgers played.

I didn't get the feeling folks here were giving Rodgers a pass over his performance Saturday night.  A lot of them are ready to move on and are weary of his lousy play so often in the postseason.

Stafford never got criticized in Detroit for example.

Manning never got blasted for being a playoff train wreck.

QBs that are liked by the media (basically just not Jay Cutler) get too much credit for wins and get a pass for losses.

[Brit Pack]

On reflection of Rodgers interview on the McAfee show one thing strikes me as quite interesting. He is debating about whether he is up for the 'grind' of playing a season. However, he got a year voided off his contract because he didn't like the idea that the Packers could trade or cut him with little cap consequence at any time and he was 'a lame duck QB.' 

Like all of us, I'm not sure what Rodgers wants. A year to year deal, or a long terms deal? If he wants a long term deal why bring up the 'will I won't I retire' point. If that is the mindset then we are into a Favre situation where every offseason its a question of 'do I want  to play or not' but then why look for a contract that gives you the gaurantee that you are the starter for the next few years, if you are not sure you want to play that long anyway? 

If he is asking for a year to year deal, that could be pretty sweet and team friendly, as he is already on a one year deal that pays him well. And he seems to think the negotiation with Gutey for a deal will be pretty easy.

Also did I hear him right but did he pretty much quash the notion of playing anywhere else? It seemed to me he is first figuring out if he wants to play, then figure out what the team is doing with Adams and then he'll decide to play with the Packers or not. I thought he said he wasn't interested in hitting free agency/trade.

All very interesting

[mikemike778]

5 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

Like all of us, I'm not sure what Rodgers wants. A year to year deal, or a long terms deal? If he wants a long term deal why bring up the 'will I won't I retire' point. If that is the mindset then we are into a Favre situation where every offseason its a question of 'do I want  to play or not' but then why look for a contract that gives you the gaurantee that you are the starter for the next few years, if you are not sure you want to play that long anyway?  with Adams and then he'll decide to play with the Packers or not. I thought he said he wasn't interested in hitting free agency/trade.
 

 

The reality is he is a person who is probably deeply upset by the loss against 49ers. He's not stupid he knows he fluffed his lines, he's probably angry with himself, internally he will be angry with the special teams and probably angry with the world.

He's probably changed his mind about what he wants 100 times since the game.  Like most fans, gone through various emotions.

Ultimately he probably wants to play for a good Packers team. I'm guessing he probably isn't picky about length of contract as long as he isn't considered a placeholder for Love.

Re money. Its impossible to know what you would do in terms of team friendly deals. Most top NFL players play for vanity money. It makes no difference to their life but having extra 0s in the balance looks nice. You would think once a player is financially set up for life, at that point money is secondary.   Same goes with someone like Adams. Being paid 28m a year wont make his life any better than being paid 10m. Obviously being highest paid WR is a 'status' .    

 

 

 

[skibrett15]

19 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

Also did I hear him right but did he pretty much quash the notion of playing anywhere else? It seemed to me he is first figuring out if he wants to play, then figure out what the team is doing with Adams and then he'll decide to play with the Packers or not. I thought he said he wasn't interested in hitting free agency/trade.

All very interesting

he was posturing this whole last offseason then? could be.

the walk away from the game angle would mean the packers get no compensation in the form of a trade

[mikemike778]

20 hours ago, Leader said:

The thing that just busts me up about this last game....is how absolutely winnable it was.
I mean damn. I wanna use the wrong word (inexcusable) for the situation...but damn.
Really, really tired of coming close but no cigar - which in my case doesnt require a SB win - just get your *** back there. Ugh!

 

What busts me up about this game is that if we won, I would be confident, MLF would fix the offence next week and we'll never know. 

Rodgers and the Offense fluffed their lines badly. But the defence bailed them out big time. It was a light out performance from them better than anyone could have hoped for. If we had the 31st best ST in the league then we would have won. 

I mean seriously.  In a 23 point game,  the ST cost us 13 points.  Its staggering to think of now.  No excuses for the offence who were bad but sometimes it happens and teams get shut down. 

 

[Leader]

1 minute ago, mikemike778 said:

 

What busts me up about this game is that if we won, I would be confident, MLF would fix the offence next week and we'll never know. 

Rodgers and the Offense fluffed their lines badly. But the defence bailed them out big time. It was a light out performance from them better than anyone could have hoped for. If we had the 31st best ST in the league then we would have won. 

I mean seriously.  In a 23 point game,  the ST cost us 13 points.  Its staggering to think of now.  No excuses for the offence who were bad but sometimes it happens and teams get shut down. 

 

Well....not to relive this thing....but in my mind, the following season long issues came to roost:

1. Lack of a viable / consistent / producing WR #2.  I mean - it was like we were playing with an arm tied behind our back all year long - excerbated - by the loss of Tonyan and that position group falling off the face of the earth.

2. Lack of a stable STs unit. It felt like they'd righted the ship somewhat in recent games - but perhaps the combo of the DET non-game and all the time off brought their inglorious past back.

3. Playoff Aaron when facing a stout DL. Lets face it...he wilts.....or to be less harsh....it's challenging. I (mis) thought that our handling of the SF DL in the earlier encounter had put this issue to bed and that Tampa's defensive front posed the only true challenge left. I was wrong.  

[40Year Pack Fan]

8 hours ago, Refugee said:

I don’t think you’d get an argument from most that our offense wasn’t as high powered this year as it was in ‘20. The depleted line took away our ability to dominate the LOS as well as having some rookie pieces that were not terrible but not what we had before. Even the empty stadiums gave us an advantage with the hard count on the road last year.

What set this year apart was the defense had shown they were capable of shutting down and even shutting out the opposition. we might have had the balance with a still strong offense to get it done. We neglected the third leg of the tripod and we saw the results. 

I'd say Green Bay surprised a number of people this season....Having a tough schedule and after losing the opener badly to the Saints, many were predicting at best a .500 season...Outperforming these expectations, it would stand to reason many were thinking we were as good as were last season....

[Refugee]

3 hours ago, 40Year Pack Fan said:

I'd say Green Bay surprised a number of people this season....Having a tough schedule and after losing the opener badly to the Saints, many were predicting at best a .500 season...Outperforming these expectations, it would stand to reason many were thinking we were as good as were last season....

I don’t know what number of people that was but no one in my immediate circle, and I doubt many on this forum had us at .500 even after laying an egg in the opener. I think the real questions were about the defense and that picked up early on. We overcame a ton of injuries and still had a great record but our biggest flaws were apparent all season and we didn’t correct them by the playoffs. Even with those flaws we were a top contender. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Refugee

[squire12]

4 minutes ago, Refugee said:

I don’t know what number of pet that was but no one in my immediate circle, and I doubt many on this forum had us at .500 even after laying an egg in the opener. I think the real questions were about the defense and that picked up early on. We overcame a ton of injuries and still had a great record but our biggest flaws were apparent all season and we didn’t correct them by the playoffs. Even with those flaws we were a top contender. 

It is interesting that GB had a bit of an issue of starting slow in a fair number of games and allowed some teams to hang around a bit longer than ideal.  that probably was the case in the divisional round game vs SF.  The GB defense was balling out while the GB offense could not get much going outside the first drive TD.

allowing teams to hang around seemed to bite GB in the end. 

[Refugee]

6 minutes ago, squire12 said:

It is interesting that GB had a bit of an issue of starting slow in a fair number of games and allowed some teams to hang around a bit longer than ideal.  that probably was the case in the divisional round game vs SF.  The GB defense was balling out while the GB offense could not get much going outside the first drive TD.

allowing teams to hang around seemed to bite GB in the end. 

No seems about it, we’ve got the teeth marks to prove it. 

[FAH1223]

 

[VonKarman]

7 hours ago, Brit Pack said:

On reflection of Rodgers interview on the McAfee show one thing strikes me as quite interesting. He is debating about whether he is up for the 'grind' of playing a season. However, he got a year voided off his contract because he didn't like the idea that the Packers could trade or cut him with little cap consequence at any time and he was 'a lame duck QB.' 

Like all of us, I'm not sure what Rodgers wants. A year to year deal, or a long terms deal? If he wants a long term deal why bring up the 'will I won't I retire' point. If that is the mindset then we are into a Favre situation where every offseason its a question of 'do I want  to play or not' but then why look for a contract that gives you the gaurantee that you are the starter for the next few years, if you are not sure you want to play that long anyway? 

If he is asking for a year to year deal, that could be pretty sweet and team friendly, as he is already on a one year deal that pays him well. And he seems to think the negotiation with Gutey for a deal will be pretty easy.

Also did I hear him right but did he pretty much quash the notion of playing anywhere else? It seemed to me he is first figuring out if he wants to play, then figure out what the team is doing with Adams and then he'll decide to play with the Packers or not. I thought he said he wasn't interested in hitting free agency/trade.

All very interesting

It's called leverage in case they wanna trade you to a place where you don't wanna go. He will want to pick his new team if he doesn't stay on GB and the threat of retirement is his best card to play.

[Zycho32]

1 hour ago, FAH1223 said:

 

I long thought- before the Love pick- that if Rodgers were to have retired out of spite, then MLF's stop-gap choice would've been to pay a King's Ransom for Mariota.

[FAH1223]