I'd be upset too if I were Aaron Rodgers.

[TransientTexan]

4 hours ago, Sandy said:

You're clearly anti-Rodgers.

That's a lie. The fact that you view objective evaluations as "anti", reveals you to be a Rodgers fanboi. 

4 hours ago, Sandy said:

mentioning Amos and Douglas as our best defensive backs this year was not as much a commentary on Gute's talent evaluation,

that's irrelevant. the end effect is that you are beating him over the head with his own ability to find some gems. 

4 hours ago, Sandy said:

It's positional balance that's out of whack.

and you're the one accusing others of treating it like a video game?

4 hours ago, Sandy said:

People say ILBs don't matter, but look at the difference Campbell made this year. 

So an *elite* LB made a difference? that says nothing about positional comparison. an elite CB would *also* make a difference, or an elite edge, esp if replacing poor players and instead of replacing mediocre players. ILB success is much a product of scheme and the players around them. you could argue that Campbell is proof-positive that high investment is *not* needed at that position. Just have to find the right puzzle-piece for your scheme, which can vary massively from team to team

 

4 hours ago, Sandy said:

All I'm arguing is that not enough resources have been put into pass catchers - a position I think is arguably second most important on an offense (maybe third behind tackle) - and other positions that led to roster holes that could have changed the outcome of the game.

so you're arguing a whole position group vs. an individual player

 

4 hours ago, Sandy said:

one more thing - these "9 of 11 starters" on offense...I can't figure out who the 9 solid starters are. That's a made up number you keep saying

Not made up at all. & btw, it's 9 of the 10 starters outside of Rodgers, so essentially 10 of 11 if you think (hopefully) that Rodgers is at least average.

Bak (elite #1 OT), Jenkins (elite #1 OG), Myers (avg C), Newman (avg #2 OG), Turner (good #2 OT), Adams (elite #1 WR), MVS/Lazard (pick whichever and you have a decent #3 WR), Tonyan (avg TE), AJones (good RB)

Literally the only gripe was that we were going to line up a #3-caliber WR (whichever of the MVS/Lazard) in the #2 WR spot. (assuming you disregard Cobb as an insignificant investment or a lottery ticket unlikely of panning out). Everyone else was easily at least average especially if you appropriately treat each OT spot (LT & RT) and each OG spot (LG & RG) as its own position, so you only compare LG's to LG's and RG's to RG's. 

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by TransientTexan

[coachbuns]

8 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

What cost them this year was the special teams AND the offense. 

And no, getting Special Teams squared up, is going to cost you resources dedicated to the offense/defense. 

Ok then, special teams will continue to suck according to your plan and cost them games just like the last 2 years.  LOL, they can draft players who can play both offense/defense and special teams.  OR, maybe use some starters on special teams like MANY other teams.  Doing nothing on  that unit is just plain arse stupid.

[coachbuns]

3 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

That's a lie. The fact that you view objective evaluations as "anti", reveals you to be a Rodgers fanboi. 

that's irrelevant. the end effect is that you are beating him over the head with his own ability to find some gems. 

and you're the one accusing others of treating it like a video game?

So an *elite* LB made a difference? that says nothing about positional comparison. an elite CB would *also* make a difference, or an elite edge, esp if replacing poor players and instead of replacing mediocre players. ILB success is much a product of scheme and the players around them. you could argue that Campbell is proof-positive that high investment is *not* needed at that position. Just have to find the right puzzle-piece for your scheme, which can vary massively from team to team

 

so you're arguing a whole position group vs. an individual player

 

Not made up at all. & btw, it's 9 of the 10 starters outside of Rodgers, so essentially 10 of 11 if you think (hopefully) that Rodgers is at least average.

Bak (elite #1 OT), Jenkins (elite #1 OG), Myers (avg C), Newman (avg #2 OG), Turner (good #2 OT), Adams (elite #1 WR), MVS/Lazard (pick whichever and you have a decent #3 WR), Tonyan (avg TE), AJones (good RB)

Literally the only gripe was that we were going to line up a #3-caliber WR (whichever of the MVS/Lazard) in the #2 WR spot. (assuming you disregard Cobb as an insignificant investment or a lottery ticket unlikely of panning out). Everyone else was easily at least average especially if you appropriately treat each OT spot (LT & RT) and each OG spot (LG & RG) as its own position, so you only compare LG's to LG's and RG's to RG's. 

 

What you say is true ... when HEALTHY.  

[Sandy]

7 hours ago, Packer_ESP said:

whatever

Ok I'll admit my "grasping at straws" jpeg was a **** move, I apologize - and do recognize you make a valid argument.

Even though I think Lazard could be the worst #2 receiving option in the league (others of course will disagree), of course Rodgers should have looked at him when he was open. Definitely not a good play by Rodgers. And you're right, there's no way we should have predicted Lewis would fumble. I do think, however, in a year that there were solid receiving options available at the deadline, our inability to trade for any one to bolster a weak position may have led to a different history in which we won the SB this year.  That the game might not have come down to hinge on plays like those or a ST meltdown.

What I hope happens this offseason is that if we go for it, we really go for it and sign or trade for someone after maxing out our cap so that we actually have a player who can make teams pay for double-covering Devante. 

[TransientTexan]

2 hours ago, coachbuns said:

What you say is true ... when HEALTHY.  

True. But that is an entirely different discussion. If you take any team and wipe out their entire OL w/ injuries as well as half the team’s pro-bowlers, that’s not likely going to be a SB year. I don’t expect any FO to ever have enough resources to have a contingency plan that can withstand that sort of luck, esp if they aren’t coming off a multi-year stretch of top-10 draft slots. 

sometimes **** happens and it’s just not your year. The teams that make it through to the trophy are both good and lucky. 

[coachbuns]

9 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

True. But that is an entirely different discussion. If you take any team and wipe out their entire OL w/ injuries as well as half the team’s pro-bowlers, that’s not likely going to be a SB year. I don’t expect any FO to ever have enough resources to have a contingency plan that can withstand that sort of luck, esp if they aren’t coming off a multi-year stretch of top-10 draft slots. 

sometimes **** happens and it’s just not your year. The teams that make it through to the trophy are both good and lucky. 

Very true, that was very evident in the Super Bowl this year .. maybe even more lucky health wise than good.  

[GHARMON9]

 

 

Man we've been choking forever. 

[Norm]

26 minutes ago, GHARMON9 said:

 

 

Man we've been choking forever. 

Plz no

[Zycho32]

I can't really call myself Anti-Rodgers... but I would say I'm Rodgers-Weary.

I have a basic idea of AR's current skills. I'd say athletically he's about ninety percent of his peak. He can still move about a fair bit. There's been a visible decline in his arm strength- he's not hitting dimes at forty yards anymore, much less WMDs known as Hail Marys. He can still hit from range, but with less success than before- I've seen more and more off-course throws that can't really be blamed on insufficient timing from the receiver. Not generally worrying, as that's expected with age.

The problem's been an accumulation of Mental Fat. Also a common thing the older you grow, mental fat is basically combination of laziness and stubbornness. This seriously degrades careers beyond the mid-thirties and sooner depending on the mileage. Right now for AR, this is represented mostly in his late-game tendencies to have tunnel vision towards Adams, sometimes to the detriment of other receivers. It's the most provable part(one can argue a lot of the offensive stalling comes from him wanting plays from the shotgun formation, but that's conjecture), but even this can be compensated for. Just not in a way that's fair to those presently on the roster. I'll put it this way, as much as OBJ is hated for choosing the Rams over the Packers, would AR have ignored him for Davante in a crucial moment in the playoffs the way someone like Lazard was?

That such a question is debatable is still alarming, but at least there's a question. With Lazard the answer seems clearly to be 'No'.

At the end of the day, Rodgers is no longer a QB capable of leading a team through the playoffs single-handedly, but he's being paid like one. And all the restructuring in the world isn't going to change that. It might make the next year a little easier to keep a few crucial pieces, but in general some depth and a few major cogs are going to be lost and the team will be forced to re-fill those holes through the draft(which we're middling at, let's be honest), or on cheap FA deals(which won't be as fortunate as last year, just looking at the law of averages). So everything looks like another 10-13 wins in a sleepwalking regular season where Rodgers has a random excellent game against overmatched competition, only to face an early end in the playoffs against legitly top competition.

So yeah, I'm Rodgers-Weary. To the point where I'd almost look forward to a two-win season under Love instead, if only because it'll be different and interesting.

[coachbuns]

6 hours ago, Zycho32 said:

I can't really call myself Anti-Rodgers... but I would say I'm Rodgers-Weary.

I have a basic idea of AR's current skills. I'd say athletically he's about ninety percent of his peak. He can still move about a fair bit. There's been a visible decline in his arm strength- he's not hitting dimes at forty yards anymore, much less WMDs known as Hail Marys. He can still hit from range, but with less success than before- I've seen more and more off-course throws that can't really be blamed on insufficient timing from the receiver. Not generally worrying, as that's expected with age.

The problem's been an accumulation of Mental Fat. Also a common thing the older you grow, mental fat is basically combination of laziness and stubbornness. This seriously degrades careers beyond the mid-thirties and sooner depending on the mileage. Right now for AR, this is represented mostly in his late-game tendencies to have tunnel vision towards Adams, sometimes to the detriment of other receivers. It's the most provable part(one can argue a lot of the offensive stalling comes from him wanting plays from the shotgun formation, but that's conjecture), but even this can be compensated for. Just not in a way that's fair to those presently on the roster. I'll put it this way, as much as OBJ is hated for choosing the Rams over the Packers, would AR have ignored him for Davante in a crucial moment in the playoffs the way someone like Lazard was?

That such a question is debatable is still alarming, but at least there's a question. With Lazard the answer seems clearly to be 'No'.

At the end of the day, Rodgers is no longer a QB capable of leading a team through the playoffs single-handedly, but he's being paid like one. And all the restructuring in the world isn't going to change that. It might make the next year a little easier to keep a few crucial pieces, but in general some depth and a few major cogs are going to be lost and the team will be forced to re-fill those holes through the draft(which we're iddling at, let's be honest), or on cheap FA deals(which won't be as fortunate as last year, just looking at the law of averages). So everything looks like another 10-13 wins in a sleepwalking regular season where Rodgers has a random excellent game against overmatched competition, only to face an early end in the playoffs against legitly top competition.

So yeah, I'm Rodgers-Weary. To the point where I'd almost look forward to a two-win season under Love instead, if only because it'll be different and interesting.

Be very careful what you wish for.  Thinking you you never saw the Packers play in the 80's and 90's as they sucked back then and I guarantee you ... it was NOT different and interesting.  This Rodgers thing will be revealed in less than a month; relax and enjoy.  And yes, I too am weary of regular season wins and puking it up in the playoffs.  It doesn't sit well but sure as heck is better than sucking for years.

[spilltray]

44 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

Be very careful what you wish for.  Thinking you you never saw the Packers play in the 80's and 90's as they sucked back then and I guarantee you ... it was NOT different and interesting.  This Rodgers thing will be revealed in less than a month; relax and enjoy.  And yes, I too am weary of regular season wins and puking it up in the playoffs.  It doesn't sit well but sure as heck is better than sucking for years.

Personally I don't see that as a binary alternative. Hit or miss with luck, this is a good front office and a good coaching staff. I don't think Rodgers leaving = we become the Jets. A 2-15 season with Love likely means a top pick next year and the opportunity to take a mulligan on the QB. 

I don't fear an 80s scenario because I think the football operations are better run now than they were.

[Leader]

1 hour ago, coachbuns said:

Thinking you you never saw the Packers play in the 80's and 90's as they sucked back then and I guarantee you ... it was NOT different and interesting. 

Times and situations couldnt be more different. The current FO is far superior to what was patching things together back when. I dont see extended losing as a possibility.  

[vegas492]

3 hours ago, coachbuns said:

Be very careful what you wish for.  Thinking you you never saw the Packers play in the 80's and 90's as they sucked back then and I guarantee you ... it was NOT different and interesting.  This Rodgers thing will be revealed in less than a month; relax and enjoy.  And yes, I too am weary of regular season wins and puking it up in the playoffs.  It doesn't sit well but sure as heck is better than sucking for years.

I see this too much.  This whole we are going to revert back to the 80's Packers when Rodgers leaves stuff.

It was a different league back then, no salary cap....etc.

Look at our front office now.  Look at our coaching staff.  Look at the talent on the roster outside of Rodgers.

There's no reason to think we will be 80's bad without Rodgers.  It's the same stuff that was said when Favre done.  Only people forget talking about it that way because of what Rodgers has become.

This isn't a Jordan Love thing.  There are a lot of QB's out there who would win a lot of games with this GB roster.  And dare I say, many of them wouldn't lock on to Adams or check out of as many running plays as Rodgers does.

Jimmy G would win a lot of games here.  Kirk Cousins would win more.  Top of my head with those two.  Add in Wilson and Watson to that mix.

It isn't like we couldn't find a QB outside of Love to win games.  We draft well.  We manage the cap pretty well.  No reason to think we will be 80's awful if Rodgers isn't here.

And yes, I remember those 80's teams.  I was young, but I do remember QB's back to Dickey.  Prior to that?  Yah, no.

[Dubz41]

2 hours ago, vegas492 said:

And yes, I remember those 80's teams.  I was young, but I do remember QB's back to Dickey.  Prior to that?  Yah, no.

Well, I remember Don Horn, Scott Hunter, Jerry Tagge, All the wayzo with Jim Del Gaizo, then we sold the farm for John Hadl, Carlos Brown, then relative decent play from Lynn Dickey and David Whitehurst for 7-8 years. Then Randy Wright and the Majik man until Favre.  That doesn't even mention Rich Campbell, our #1 pick that never started a game.

[beekay414]

What happened in the 70s/80s has no bearing on what'll happen in the future. Good teams are made by good front offices and we've had good front offices for the better part of 30 years. There's no reason to believe the franchise will crater. Just an unnecessary fear. This isn't basketball where one player moves on and your franchise is ****ed.

Edited February 23, 2022 by beekay414