vikingsrule Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 1 hour ago, disaacs said: To finish 9-7, they'd have to beat the Vikings in Lambeau...are you fine with that? aren't they 5-6? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perrynoid Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 43 minutes ago, TENINCH said: Wonder if Rodgers looks for a new deal this offseason....especially with Stafford now making more than him. Are you factoring in all those commercials he is in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted November 28, 2017 Author Share Posted November 28, 2017 37 minutes ago, vikingsrule said: aren't they 5-6? Yes, but they are likely going to lose at Carolina (or I wouldn't even put it past them to lose to Cleveland) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted November 28, 2017 Author Share Posted November 28, 2017 50 minutes ago, TENINCH said: Wonder if Rodgers looks for a new deal this offseason....especially with Stafford now making more than him. Not likely after this season, considering he's still got 2 years left on his deal and his signing bonus comes off the Packers' cap after this year. After next year though, all bets are off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplexing Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 I wonder if GB would have done much better this year hadn't Rodger got hurt. They don't seem as solid as they did in the past. So, Rodgers may not have carried them to a much better record. Just wondering aloud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted November 29, 2017 Author Share Posted November 29, 2017 2 hours ago, Purplexing said: I wonder if GB would have done much better this year hadn't Rodger got hurt. They don't seem as solid as they did in the past. So, Rodgers may not have carried them to a much better record. Just wondering aloud. Yes, they probably would have, considering he is the straw that stirs the drink. I don't think they've been a full, solid team in probably 5 years...he's just carried them, acting as a facade over a paper-thin talent of a team. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 I can think of 2-3 games that I would bet a Rodgers led Packers team would have won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 1 hour ago, SemperFeist said: I can think of 2-3 games that I would bet a Rodgers led Packers team would have won. I don't think GB is as good as MN with Rodgers. I could see them being a game or two behind us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 34 minutes ago, vikingsrule said: I don't think GB is as good as MN with Rodgers. I could see them being a game or two behind us. Well, 2-3 more wins would have them at 7-4/8-3, which would be a game or two back of us. So... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 35 minutes ago, vikingsrule said: I don't think GB is as good as MN with Rodgers. I could see them being a game or two behind us. I think they'd be right around the same record. Still lose to Pitt. (The Steelers play down to their opponents and they did that Sunday night) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriminalMind Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 GB wins double digit games with Rodgers, no doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplexing Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 21 hours ago, disaacs said: Yes, they probably would have, considering he is the straw that stirs the drink. I don't think they've been a full, solid team in probably 5 years...he's just carried them, acting as a facade over a paper-thin talent of a team. I agree they'd do better with him than without him. But I think it might not be much better, as some think, because his supporting cast is weaker than in prior years, which we both agree on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriminalMind Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 With clay saying Rodgers looks good and making throws, even though he didn't have a 330 lb man on him, want GB to continue the slide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywindO2 Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Aaron Rodgers to the Bears?!!?!?! http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/fans/2017/11/29/mom-son-bears-fans-ran-into-aaron-rodgers-chicago-and-just-beginning/899706001/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted November 30, 2017 Author Share Posted November 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Purplexing said: I agree they'd do better with him than without him. But I think it might not be much better, as some think, because his supporting cast is weaker than in prior years, which we both agree on. Fair enough. I think they'd probably be 8-3 at this point and probably would finish 11-5 (just based off their schedule) with him, but now without him, I think they'll likely finish 7-9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.