Aaron Rodgers and new contract

[Leader]

7 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

It's also called Tom Brady and the most successful QB career of all time

?? - wrong context. My comment was in response to "Rodgers needing to adjust his playstyle to ensure his longevity"

One could say Romo needed to as well - but he either never did, or he did but it was too late for his career.

[Dubz41]

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 10:04 PM, Packerraymond said:

Safe to say you're alone. If he was actually dangerous in his decision making I'd agree. However the ability to keep a play alive, buy another 5 seconds and still be able to tuck it for 3 yards or throw it away is unbelievably rare. He's the poker player that has a ton of chips in the pot but doesn't feel he has to go all in if he's not going to win the hand. So rare. How many QBs do you see that feel because they bought 7 seconds of time have to come away with a big play?

The big chunks plus the scrambles outweigh the 4 yard dump to Montgomery by a landslide to me.

Sorry, but HZ is not alone.  If Rodgers would take the dump off sometimes and just take the first down, our defense wouldn't have to be on the field so much.  Since our offense is so much better than our defense it only makes sense to control the ball more.  So, how about dump offs in the first half and go for the throat in the second half?

[Leader]

18 minutes ago, Dubz41 said:

So, how about dump offs in the first half and go for the throat in the second half?

Thats cool......just dont let the other team know that.

[Stevein2012]

39 minutes ago, Dubz41 said:

Sorry, but HZ is not alone.  If Rodgers would take the dump off sometimes and just take the first down, our defense wouldn't have to be on the field so much.  Since our offense is so much better than our defense it only makes sense to control the ball more.  So, how about dump offs in the first half and go for the throat in the second half?

Since the superbowl our offense has been top 10 in plays per drive on offense every year but 2 which were 2015 (18th) and 2017 (11th) not to mention how little this offense turns the ball over. Typically if GBs defense has been on the field a lot it has been because they can't get themselves off of it not because the offensive style doesn't control the ball enough.

I'd be all for using the RBs more in the passing game but just because we haven't used them much doesn't mean the offense doesn't control the ball.

[MacReady]

18 hours ago, Stevein2012 said:

Since the superbowl our offense has been top 10 in plays per drive on offense every year but 2 which were 2015 (18th) and 2017 (11th) not to mention how little this offense turns the ball over. Typically if GBs defense has been on the field a lot it has been because they can't get themselves off of it not because the offensive style doesn't control the ball enough.

This is like saying  I don't need 30 dollars because I have 20 dollars.  The Packers are better if Rodgers takes what the defense gives him instead of insisting on creating what the defense doesn't give him. 

Why do you think Drew Brees and Tom Brady are still playing at a high level?  Do you think these two are just magical humans?  They're not.  Brady, other than a handful of plays that are set up certain ways, gets the ball to the first open receiver, and that's typically the RB.  Brady targeted his running backs 158 times last year.  Brees 177 times. 

For reference, in 2016, Packer running backs had 128 targets total.  That seems higher than it is.  Why?  Because that's the total number of targets per running back, and Christine Michael had 20 catches before he came to the Packers.  Since he had 20 catches as a Seahawk, that means at least 20 of those 128 targets came from a different team. 

Actually, I found a team by team total RB targets list. 

2016 - Packers were 17th. 
2015 - Packers were 14th.
2014 - Packers were 26th.
2013 - Packers were 23rd.

The one time the Packers were in the top half of the league in RB targets was 2015.  What do you remember about 2015? 

First, this site attributes 19 targets to Ty Montgomery for that year.  The problem is that Ty Montgomery was a receiver in his rookie year, 2015.  That's 19 targets that should not have been attributed to the RB position.  That drops the Packers into the 20's.  2015 was the year in which everybody at WR was injured.  Jordy didn't play a game.  Cobb was battling injuries.  Adams was battling confidence and an injury.  Still... The Packers were bottom in the league in RB targets. 

In 2016, Ty Montgomery converted to RB.  His first two games at RB he had 10 catches (each game) for 164 yards.  Know how many he had combined over the next ten regular season games?  24.  After consecutive 10 catch games, Montgomery had 24 catches the rest of the season. 

There is no arguing this point.  In spite of the Packers having one of the best receiving backs in the NFL, Rodgers consistently avoids throwing to the running backs while the rest of the NFL consistently throws to running backs.  . 

 

[MacReady]

Also, more people need to complain about Rodgers.  The complaints with him were strong when we won the Super Bowl.  The more people who complain about him, the better he plays. 

If you like the Packers and want them to win a Super Bowl, you'd better start getting more vocal about Rodgers and his shortcomings because I can't prop up an entire fanbase with my complaints. 

[Stevein2012]

28 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

This is like saying  I don't need 30 dollars because I have 20 dollars.  The Packers are better if Rodgers takes what the defense gives him instead of insisting on creating what the defense doesn't give him. 

Why do you think Drew Brees and Tom Brady are still playing at a high level?  Do you think these two are just magical humans?  They're not.  Brady, other than a handful of plays that are set up certain ways, gets the ball to the first open receiver, and that's typically the RB.  Brady targeted his running backs 158 times last year.  Brees 177 times. 

For reference, in 2016, Packer running backs had 128 targets total.  That seems higher than it is.  Why?  Because that's the total number of targets per running back, and Christine Michael had 20 catches before he came to the Packers.  Since he had 20 catches as a Seahawk, that means at least 20 of those 128 targets came from a different team. 

Actually, I found a team by team total RB targets list. 

2016 - Packers were 17th. 
2015 - Packers were 14th.
2014 - Packers were 26th.
2013 - Packers were 23rd.

The one time the Packers were in the top half of the league in RB targets was 2015.  What do you remember about 2015? 

First, this site attributes 19 targets to Ty Montgomery for that year.  The problem is that Ty Montgomery was a receiver in his rookie year, 2015.  That's 19 targets that should not have been attributed to the RB position.  That drops the Packers into the 20's.  2015 was the year in which everybody at WR was injured.  Jordy didn't play a game.  Cobb was battling injuries.  Adams was battling confidence and an injury.  Still... The Packers were bottom in the league in RB targets. 

In 2016, Ty Montgomery converted to RB.  His first two games at RB he had 10 catches (each game) for 164 yards.  Know how many he had combined over the next ten regular season games?  24.  After consecutive 10 catch games, Montgomery had 24 catches the rest of the season. 

There is no arguing this point.  In spite of the Packers having one of the best receiving backs in the NFL, Rodgers consistently avoids throwing to the running backs while the rest of the NFL consistently throws to running backs.  . 

 

I have no issue against using backs more in the passing game.  My post was responding to the excuse people often make that our offense has somehow caused the defense to get tired or be on the field more.  For some reason a lot of people seem to have this inaccurate perception of the offense traditionally being this boom or bust thing instead of being very efficient regardless of who they are throwing to.

[MacReady]

Just now, Stevein2012 said:

I have no issue against using backs more in the passing game.  My post was responding to the excuse people often make that our offense has somehow caused the defense to get tired or be on the field more.  For some reason a lot of people seem to have this inaccurate perception of the offense traditionally being this boom or bust thing instead of being very efficient regardless of who they are throwing to.

And I agree with the offense/defense correlation, but I disagree on being complacent with being good when we could consistently be the best offense in the league. 

[Packerraymond]

7 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

And I agree with the offense/defense correlation, but I disagree on being complacent with being good when we could consistently be the best offense in the league. 

Based on your arbitrary opinion. I could say if you take away the yards we gained from Aaron extending plays and add 6-7 yards instead for a check down, our offense would be worse.

There's no proof either way. Our offense has been really good. The pass game even better. Rodgers efficiency numbers for his career are GOAT level, safe to say we're just fine passing on the checkdown.

[Leader]

 

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Based on your arbitrary opinion. I could say if you take away the yards we gained from Aaron extending plays and add 6-7 yards instead for a check down, our offense would be worse.

Do you factor in Aaron's two injuries he got by extending plays into your arbitrary opinion? 

[MacReady]

Just now, Leader said:

 

Are you using that as an example against my argument?  If you are, it doesn't really factor in.  The play was designed for him to roll out.  Nobody was around him.  The play design and nobody around him allowed for him to wait. 

Show the play against Chicago in 2013 and against Minnesota in 2017 and let's see who was/wasn't open and whether or not extending the play was a good or bad idea. 

[Leader]

16 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Are you using that as an example against my argument?  If you are, it doesn't really factor in.  The play was designed for him to roll out.  Nobody was around him.  The play design and nobody around him allowed for him to wait. Show the play against Chicago in 2013 and against Minnesota in 2017 and let's see who was/wasn't open and whether or not extending the play was a good or bad idea. 

Nope. You werent on my mind.

[KingOfTheNorth]

Football is a game of adjustments. Rodgers like all elite QBs must adjust to what the defenses are presenting to him. Brees and Brady (Both examples the HtZ uses)  both looked like they were washed up a few years ago. Both made adjustments to their game and have rebounded since. Rodgers knows he is no good to the Packers on the bench. I am confident he will pick his spots more carefully. If fans see this, I know Rodgers does as well. I hope McCarthy is being truthful when he said the offense is changing. IMO the play calling had more to do with our RBs not being used as pass catchers. I'm not sure of the stat but I would be interested to see the percentage of passing plays called where the RB runs a route and isn't a pass blocker.

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Do you factor in Aaron's two injuries he got by extending plays into your arbitrary opinion? 

Yeah that doesn't matter to me, QBs get hurt in the pocket too. In fact every QB ACL tear I can remember off the top of my head was in the pocket.