Random Packer News & Notes

[Sandy]

All I'll say on the matter is hindsight really is nice, but the element that's forgotten is you can't trade the player before the fan base is ready to move on and expect it to go smoothly.

Savvy posters on here saw it years in advance. Hats off to all of you for being right. For a long time I was blinded by my child-like desire to see a second ring with Rodgers.

But a majority of fans last year figured keeping Rodgers = another MVP and a shot at a SB.

So let's say we trade him, get three first rounders from Denver, but Love comes in and struggles with a bunch of rookie WRs, the defense does what it did, Bakh's knee did what it did, and we lose a few more to go maybe 5-12 while an invigorated Rodgers makes a deep playoff run in the loaded AFC.

The average fan would have ******* rioted.

[Old Guy]

10 minutes ago, Sandy said:

All I'll say on the matter is hindsight really is nice, but the element that's forgotten is you can't trade the player before the fan base is ready to move on and expect it to go smoothly.

Savvy posters on here saw it years in advance. Hats off to all of you for being right. For a long time I was blinded by my child-like desire to see a second ring with Rodgers.

But a majority of fans last year figured keeping Rodgers = another MVP and a shot at a SB.

So let's say we trade him, get three first rounders from Denver, but Love comes in and struggles with a bunch of rookie WRs, the defense does what it did, Bakh's knee did what it did, and we lose a few more to go maybe 5-12 while an invigorated Rodgers makes a deep playoff run in the loaded AFC.

The average fan would have ******* rioted.

Some good points but you assume the fanbase wasn't ready to move on from him last year. I'm not sold on that idea.

Also, the fanbase gets pissed off all the time over things. That why the front office and HC get paid big bucks, to make good football decisions.

Rodgers to Denver would have ended very similar to how Wilson to Denver ended. Denver did not have the roster they thought they had to compete. IT was not going to happen for them. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Old Guy

[Sandy]

13 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Some good points but you assume the fanbase wasn't ready to move on from him last year. I'm not sold on that idea.

Also, the fanbase gets pissed off all the time over things. That why the front office and HC get paid big bucks, to make good football decisions.

Rodgers to Denver would have ended very similar to how Wilson to Denver ended. Denver did not have the roster they thought they had to compete. IT was not going to happen for them. 

I'm just going what I read in other Packers forums and the Packers fans I do know (I'm not in Wisconsin though so it's admittedly a small sample size)

I do also believe that Regular-season Rodgers (which might be the best nickname I've ever come up with) is that much better and that much more familiar with the offense than Wilson that they would have been at least a solid 11 win team.

One other item to consider - if we did have an awful season after trading Rodgers, then MLF and possibly Gute are on the hot seat a year early.

But I do agree (using hindsight) that the three firsts and getting Loves sea legs underneath him a year early was clearly the better option.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Sandy

[turf toe]

17 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Some good points but you assume the fanbase wasn't ready to move on from him last year. I'm not sold on that idea.

Also, the fanbase gets pissed off all the time over things. That why the front office and HC get paid big bucks, to make good football decisions.

Rodgers to Denver would have ended very similar to how Wilson to Denver ended. Denver did not have the roster they thought they had to compete. IT was not going to happen for them. 

 

I remember reading a poll, might have been JS online and Packer fans favored bringing Rodgers back during those trade talks, and while that contract seemed inflated it was basically a 1 year deal for average money.

And it allowed another season to groom Love to better handle a pass rush, so it's good in that sense, but bad because it marginalized Rodgers trade value, in the long of it, Love might be the only beneficiary, least we can hope for that rainbow

[Rainmaker90]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

You understand that hindsight has proven those people to be right? 

Are you being serious or sarcastic ?

[Rainmaker90]

A lot of people are saying/implying that Rodgers ‘couldn’t get it done’ in the playoffs , which I just think is such a simple way of thinking . 
 

He obviously hasn’t been great, but there’s a lot of luck involved too. 
 

Bahk doesn’t get hurt, they probably beat Tampa. 
 

If he and Jenkins aren’t hurt vs SF to go along with the blocked punt , they probably beat SF , most likely beat LA and then play Cinci who they already beat that year. 
 

Name of the game though. But Aaron Rodgers was certainly more than capable of winning another ring. More capable than most QBs. It’s silly to think otherwise . 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, turf toe said:

really, to me hindsight has once again proven to be misleading, SF rambled for 250 yrds, keeping Rodgers on the bench, and we had a key injury and a bunch of dropped passes against Tampa, why is it that fans always seem to blame the QB for not being able to over come blunders from his team mates, normal I suppose to just blame the QB.

 

on topic, yes we should have traded Rodgers prior to last year, specially since we failed to keep Tae, why would we keep him, anyone can break in rookie receivers, seems obvious to me that the staff didn't trust Love to even do that.

We had 10 drives against San Francisco. After the first drive, we scored 3 points.

Fans blame the entire team. The ARDS blames everybody BUT the QB. 

+++

How the hell are you going to argue in Paragraph 1 that hindsight is misleading, and then in paragraph 2 argue that the same hindsight was correct? 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

Sure but you can't KNOW that ahead of time. Rodgers really mailed it in once he felt he had control plus the broken thumb, losing Gary, ect... It really didn't have to go that way. Knowing what they knew at the time, you really have to bet on the upside.

I had a pretty damn good idea that Rodgers was going to be a problem. 

A minor injury causing your team leader to mail it in is a problem. A big one. 

We were 3-6 when Gary played and 5-3 when he didn't. 

We did not have to bet on the upside. We OBJECTIVELY should not have. 

[wgbeethree]

38 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Denver did not have the roster they thought they had to compete. IT was not going to happen for them. 

The Broncos would have started the season 9-1 if they scored just 18 points each game in regulation. Their D was really good to start the year. Think things would have been very different in the alternate universe where AR joined Hackett in Denver last year. Still would have been the right move but....

[AlexGreen#20]

54 minutes ago, Sandy said:

All I'll say on the matter is hindsight really is nice, but the element that's forgotten is you can't trade the player before the fan base is ready to move on and expect it to go smoothly.

Savvy posters on here saw it years in advance. Hats off to all of you for being right. For a long time I was blinded by my child-like desire to see a second ring with Rodgers.

But a majority of fans last year figured keeping Rodgers = another MVP and a shot at a SB.

So let's say we trade him, get three first rounders from Denver, but Love comes in and struggles with a bunch of rookie WRs, the defense does what it did, Bakh's knee did what it did, and we lose a few more to go maybe 5-12 while an invigorated Rodgers makes a deep playoff run in the loaded AFC.

The average fan would have ******* rioted.

1. It wasn't just hindsight. There were plenty of us advocating for it. 

2. You absolutely can trade a player before the fanbase is ready for it. GMs should not run the team at the whims of the fanbase. 

3. We would still have been better off in your hypothetical scenario. 

[packfanfb]

Not sure what this really means but I have supported for a long time the idea of bringing in another senior defensive mind to assist Barry. Frazier would fit the bill if that's what this is potentially about. 

[Green19]

6 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1. It wasn't just hindsight. There were plenty of us advocating for it. 

2. You absolutely can trade a player before the fanbase is ready for it. GMs should not run the team at the whims of the fanbase. 

3. We would still have been better off in your hypothetical scenario. 

I think keeping Rodgers on longer had everything to do with Love’s development more than “competing”. I think the front office is smart enough to know they can spin “competing” as long as Rodgers is the QB.

But it seems like they didn’t have the confidence in Love to rip the band aid off. The extension was the price of business that Rodgers was happy to do because he seems more about that than winning at this point. And GB was trying to protect its investment.

I don’t like all the ish talking he, Rodgers, keeps doing… but he isn’t dumb and was in the building. He likely read the room correctly. At the first chance they would move on. But I would just slightly add to that… once signs of Love development showed, they would look for any excuse to move on. Just like Favre.

[Rainmaker90]

22 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1. It wasn't just hindsight. There were plenty of us advocating for it. 

2. You absolutely can trade a player before the fanbase is ready for it. GMs should not run the team at the whims of the fanbase. 

3. We would still have been better off in your hypothetical scenario. 

Sometimes dumb decisions can yield good results. And sometimes smart decisions lead to bad results. 
 

[Brat&Beer]

I think Tom Clements is responsible for a lot of Love's progress last year. There is a good chance, maybe even a likelihood that Clements would not have come here if Rodgers were no longer a Packer. So I don't think it can be assumed that Love would be the player he is (or we hope he is) if the Packers had moved Rodgers after the 2021 season. 

[Refugee]

1 hour ago, packfanfb said:

Not sure what this really means but I have supported for a long time the idea of bringing in another senior defensive mind to assist Barry. Frazier would fit the bill if that's what this is potentially about. 

I’m always in favor of bringing in the old heads, especially ones that have reached the higher heights, gotten spun around by the coaching roller coaster but still love the game and want to contribute their wisdom even without the big title. There are always new trends in the game and sometimes the young hot shot coaches are ahead of that curve. Still the more things change, the more they stay the same. If you stick around long enough you will see things come back around, maybe with a new twist, but there are very few completely new and original ideas. I’m happy to have coaches like Bissacia, Clements and Gray while he was here.