The Aaron Rodgers performance thread

[Half Empty]

OK, I won't.

 

[Quientus]

He also has the best coach in NFL history (who also happens to be a great GM). Brady is great at the check down, but he also runs an offense that seems to ALWAYS have a guy open as a quick option if necessary. Let's not pretend that Brady & Rodgers are the ONLY differences between the two teams.

If you look at the games the Packers played These past 2-3 seasons, you will agree that on most of the Plays (passing) there is a short route - check-Down - run ... however History has proved that Rodgers more often than not prefers not to use his Check downs and most often will try to extend the play in favor of the long completion rather than take what the defense gives him ... While I agree that the Pack needs some upgrades on offense, Lets not kid ourselves, The Packers o-Line isn’t that bad ... And I can almost guarantee, if Rodgers would “****’n’dunk” more, the team record would be alot different ...

 

[Do7]

He also has the best coach in NFL history (who also happens to be a great GM). Brady is great at the check down, but he also runs an offense that seems to ALWAYS have a guy open as a quick option if necessary. Let's not pretend that Brady & Rodgers are the ONLY differences between the two teams.

Let's also not pretend like Brady has constantly had to carry the load like Rodgers has over the years. Especially in the post season.

 

[Ogsponge]

I think the one thing that Rodgers needs to change is this mythical Vulcan mind meld he requires from his receivers. Design the play, practice the play, run the play, throw the ball to the receiver regardless of who that receiver is, move the chains.

I believe some of this is a function of the offense created but Rodgers relies too much on 1 or 2 receivers when I believe there should be more balance to the point that the receiving group relies on Rodgers to get them the ball.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

If you look at the games the Packers played These past 2-3 seasons, you will agree that on most of the Plays (passing) there is a short route - check-Down - run ... however History has proved that Rodgers more often than not prefers not to use his Check downs and most often will try to extend the play in favor of the long completion rather than take what the defense gives him ... While I agree that the Pack needs some upgrades on offense, Lets not kid ourselves, The Packers o-Line isn’t that bad ... And I can almost guarantee, if Rodgers would “****’n’dunk” more, the team record would be alot different ...

There is a huge, discernable difference between a "check down" and what Brady and NE do. Brady is not checking down, the plays are designed to go short to a receiver or RB. Which is different than these check downs everyone loses their mind over where the QB has to go through all of his other reads before looking to the RB. Defenses WANT the offense to check down. Brady does not go through all of his reads during every play and finally get back to the check down, that's ridiculous. That is the way the plays are designed.

Rodgers becoming more like Alex Smith isn't a good thing. However, having an offensive coach who is better at scheming players open , reading and attacking defenses, and situational play calling is what we need.

 

[PackAttack12]

There is a huge, discernable difference between a "check down" and what Brady and NE do. Brady is not checking down, the plays are designed to go short to a receiver or RB. Which is different than these check downs everyone loses their mind over where the QB has to go through all of his other reads before looking to the RB. Defenses WANT the offense to check down. Brady does not go through all of his reads during every play and finally get back to the check down, that's ridiculous. That is the way the plays are designed.

Rodgers becoming more like Alex Smith isn't a good thing. However, having an offensive coach who is better at scheming players open , reading and attacking defenses, and situational play calling is what we need.

This should be required reading.

 

[Half Empty]

For us or Rodgers and the staff?

 

[PackAttack12]

For us or Rodgers and the staff?

Anyone who is confused.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There is a huge, discernable difference between a "check down" and what Brady and NE do. Brady is not checking down, the plays are designed to go short to a receiver or RB. Which is different than these check downs everyone loses their mind over where the QB has to go through all of his other reads before looking to the RB. Defenses WANT the offense to check down. Brady does not go through all of his reads during every play and finally get back to the check down, that's ridiculous. That is the way the plays are designed.

Rodgers becoming more like Alex Smith isn't a good thing. However, having an offensive coach who is better at scheming players open , reading and attacking defenses, and situational play calling is what we need.

Agreed and it's time for Gute to get him a weapon(s) that he can use in that way. Jones is about as close as the Packers have right now to it in the form of a RB and I don't see him as being able to do what Kamara and White do for the Saints and Patriots offenses. Would really be interesting to see how Rodgers performed on either of those offenses, but the Packers may have no choice in needing to run similar offenses. AR isn't getting any younger and his legs are running out of time to be able to try and sit back and run through all of the progressions before throwing the ball.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I guess it's the bonus I don't like. If a player gets a signing bonus of $40 million atop a salary of $10 million a year for four years, he gets paid $50 million the first year, and $10 million the next three. But if they spread out the cap hit, it costs $20 million a year. That cap number more accurately reflects the player's value per season.

As for that bolded statement, I would say it does not. The player depreciates and future value must be discounted. When Antonio Brown signed his contract going into 2017 and then had it restructured going into 2018, was his worth in 2017 and 2018 at ages 29 and 30 more than what he will be worth in 2021 at age 33 in the last year of the current contract? Of course.

And yet, his year-by-year cap numbers look like this:

https://overthecap.com/player/antonio-brown/1579/

It's pretty obvious that the amount of signing bonus in lieu of salary should be viewed conceptually as more applicable to the early years of the contract than the later years.

Your argument that prorated signing bonus for future years should travel with the player to the team receiving the player in trade does not account for the fact that the signing bonus is in part or in whole in lieu of salary in the early years of the contract as would be the case with Brown and typical of large "cap friendly" deals which are not actually friendly but just a way to defer the the cap cost.

Whether you let the signing bonus travel to the new team's cap or even if there were a way to retrospectively reallocate the signing bonus to prior years, by average salary or some other method, there is fundamental problem with that approach that goes to the core of the salary cap concept. It is fundamental to the salary cap structure that cash and cap must be equal over time. In the Brown example, Pittsburgh paid Brown $21 mil in cash money that is prorated to 2019 - 2021. If that cap transfers with the player to another in trade, in whole or in part, Pittsburgh would be up to $21 mil poorer in cash but $21 mil richer in cap. This would benefit cash rich teams which defeats the salary cap.

Even so, that would make executing any trade harder than it is now. If a team had to take on that additional $21 mil in cap in Brown's contract nobody would want to trade for him with that amount piled on top of his $10 mil in salary and roster bonus in 2019.

 

[Quientus]

There is a huge, discernable difference between a "check down" and what Brady and NE do. Brady is not checking down, the plays are designed to go short to a receiver or RB. Which is different than these check downs everyone loses their mind over where the QB has to go through all of his other reads before looking to the RB. Defenses WANT the offense to check down. Brady does not go through all of his reads during every play and finally get back to the check down, that's ridiculous. That is the way the plays are designed.

Rodgers becoming more like Alex Smith isn't a good thing. However, having an offensive coach who is better at scheming players open , reading and attacking defenses, and situational play calling is what we need.

I agree the play design is different. However, my point is still valid ... IF Rodgers would utilize the short throws more - and he has ample opportunities - and use his check downs more, the chains would be moving more than currently ...

 

[HardRightEdge]

I would be in favor of teams not agreeing to pay huge signing bonuses but you have to realize that players would ask for base salaries to be fully guaranteed over the length of the contract in that case.

Not really. If one were to avoid a signing bonus, the player is made whole if you take just the amount of the signing bonus and make it guaranteed money in the first year of the contact. He gets the same cash money at about the same time either way. There's no reason to guarantee the entire contract in skipping a signing bonus. There is an important caveat, though, from the player's perspective which I'll get to in a minute.

The fact of the matter is team managements like signing bonuses. They can defer the cap cost. Extra cap space now is worth a lot more now than it is years down the line in a "what have you done for me lately" league. The guy who doesn't defer cap might get a thank you note from the guy who replaces him, which is worth about $3 give or take.

Here's the caveat: the player likes the signing bonus because it creates what I call a "silent guarantee".

Nick Perry illustrates the point. There are tons of other examples, but he'll do.

Let's say instead of giving Perry the $18.5 mil in signing bonus it was instead an $18.5 mil guaranteed salary add in the first year of the contract. The rest of the contract remains the same. He gets the same cash money at about the same time with the same amount of guarantees applied at the same time.

Flash forward to now. Instead of having the Packers having a cap savings of $3.3 mil if Perry is cut, his cap savings would be $14.4 mil. had the signing bonus just been first year salary. That $3.3 mil in savings makes him hard to cut since that amount won't buy much of a replacement. If kept, his $11 mil in salary and roster bonus cash money for 2019 is secured. If the cap savings were $14.4 mil, he'd be gone in a flash, and nobody would be paying him that $11 mil for 2019.

So what you have is a kind of devil's bargain. The team got to defer cap and in exchange Perry got that "silent guarantee" with that signing bonus dead cap, or at least a partial guarantee since it makes the decision a whole lot harder.

Or on a smaller scale look at King's rookie contract. There have been a couple of comments in these pages characterizing him as cr*p, suggesting he should be cut. Even if he is crap, which is a possiblity but remains to be seen, that's kinda funny when you consider cutting him would create an additional $450,000 cap cost in 2019 over keeping him. He's worth more on IR for the season than off the team. At the very least there is absolutely no advantage, none, to cutting him before roster reduction to 53 before the season opener. As even as the 6th. CB the money says he stays.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

I agree the play design is different. However, my point is still valid ... IF Rodgers would utilize the short throws more - and he has ample opportunities - and use his check downs more, the chains would be moving more than currently ...

Have there been plays where he should have used his check down? Sure. Is this a really overblown complaint, and does this have a negligible effect on the offense compared to other factors? Absolutely.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While Bradys contracts over the years have had a larger cap hit (accumulated) than Rodgers’, there is No denying the *Fact* that Bradys contracts over the years have been significantly more team friendly than pretty much Any other QB contract in the League, exactly because (it seems) Brady knows that he also needs a good team to win ...

How is it possible that on one hand Brady has accounted for a larger cap hit over the past eight seasons yet on the other his deals have been more team friendly than Rodgers'???

Not really. If one were to avoid a signing bonus, the player is made whole if you take just the amount of the signing bonus and make it guaranteed money in the first year of the contact.

Most teams wouldn't be able to fit most signing bonuses under the cap it that money would be guaranteed during the first season of a contract. Take Rodgers as an example, he would have counted $66.9 million towards the cap in 2018.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Most teams wouldn't be able to fit most signing bonuses under the cap it that money would be guaranteed during the first season of a contract. Take Rodgers as an example, he would have counted $66.9 million towards the cap in 2018.

Obviously, thus the devil's bargain.

 

[PackAttack12]

How is it possible that on one hand Brady has accounted for a larger cap hit over the past eight seasons yet on the other his deals have been more team friendly than Rodgers'???

 

[rmontro]

How is it possible that on one hand Brady has accounted for a larger cap hit over the past eight seasons yet on the other his deals have been more team friendly than Rodgers'???

I don't really have an opinion on this, but I've heard so many people say that Brady has taken less, including former players. If it's not true, it made me wonder why so many people say it. So what about these articles?:

https://www.businessinsider.com/tom-brady-contract-discounts-patriots-bargain-2018-7

https://www.theringer.com/2017/1/27...t-restructure-patriots-super-bowl-e18ede48f08

https://www.businessinsider.com/tom-brady-less-money-contract-2013-2

 

[LambeauLombardi]

The fact that we (myself including) think we need to spend a money on a backup quarterback is an indictment on AR. You don't see the Seahawks or Patriots message board complaining about not having a good enough backup qb. His injuries and unavailability is the biggest reason why this team is what it was in 17 and 18.

 

[OldSchool101]

Aaron Rodgers doesn’t have enough years left for GB to truly make up for lack of support they have afforded him. I realize ignoring #12 wasn’t on purpose to make Rodgers look bad and the GM thinking highly of Rodgers capabilities factored into TTs decision making at going overwhelmingly Defense in the drafts.
As far as surrounding Rodgers with talent, the only way we will ever know is if GB hits at least 10 of the next 15 1st and 2nd day draft selections on Offense. Also while staying relatively equal on personnel FA losses vs FA additions on the Offensive side of the ball.
If we go D at pick #12. That means #30, 44 and #75 all have to be on Offense. If not, this may very well become the beginning of a downward tangent against a curving effort to pull our Offense back up

 

[Mondio]

I don't think all of that needs to be used on offense. I'd see the oline as biggest need to upgrade. a younger tackle prospect that plays guard rookie season might be enough. Recently Rodgers may not have been getting as much "support" but let's be real here, They've given him a steady slew of passing targets in his career. Recently Jordy got cut, Cobb can't stay on the field and Adams is the only guy that was out there. They did sign the "the best" FA TE they could and Rodgers couldn't get him the ball and when he did, Graham couldn't catch half of them.

I think if people go back and look at the past drafts from starting in 1992, you'll notice a trend at the top of the draft. what's happened recently is hardly unique.

 

[OldSchool101]

As an example. New England in 2018 threw BOTH first round selections at OT and RB
In 2017 they went OG day 2
In 2016 they took a OG and QB day 2
In 2014 they took a QB day 2

That’s SIX picks before 3rd day.
2-1st rounders
1-2nd rounder
3-3rd rounders



In that 5 year span GB took on Offense:
ZERO-1st rounders
2-2nd rounders
1–3rd rounder

I used NE because it was the first team that came to mind as being successful at injecting talent into their Offense.

 

[Half Empty]

How bad was their defense in those years?

 

[gbgary]

I think the one thing that Rodgers needs to change is this mythical Vulcan mind meld he requires from his receivers. Design the play, practice the play, run the play, throw the ball to the receiver regardless of who that receiver is, move the chains.

I believe some of this is a function of the offense created but Rodgers relies too much on 1 or 2 receivers when I believe there should be more balance to the point that the receiving group relies on Rodgers to get them the ball.

lol exactly! there have always been open guys and plays to be made but in recent years, especially this last season, he's looking past these guys. he holds the ball, blocking eventually breaks down, and a poor throw or a throwaway results. that's the exact opposite of what's needed. street-ball needs to be scraped. the big question is whether his leopard can change it's spots. i'm skeptical.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think the one thing that Rodgers needs to change is this mythical Vulcan mind meld he requires from his receivers.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[OldSchool101]

How bad was their defense in those years?

You’ve just made my exact point. In that example anyway, NE used significant resources from the draft on the Offensive side going back years, but it obviously has not been detrimental to their D.