O boy.. Real reason it's failing?

[sschind]

Not really. We don't know if any new incoming coach will have AR's respect either. AR knows the scheme better than the new coach and may resent interference in his game, esp if new coach removes play calling from him. Somebody needs to have a chat with AR and MM to work out a compromise. Sure both are mature people and can work this out.

Depends on if Murphy lets Rodgers pick the next coach or not. If he does it will probably be Alex Van Pelt...Or Jordy Nelson.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Rodgers ability to change plays has been known for a long time. once MM allowed that genie out of the bottle there was no putting it back. the failure of the O is on both of them. some flexibility is good but wholesale ability to change things is bad. that's one reason i say the new coach is going to be between a rock and a hard place. reeling in the prima donna is going to be near impossible...and we already know he's not shy about calling out the coach. who's going to want to take that on?

I don't think any QB is impossible to get back under control, and MM proved this back in 2006 when he got in Favre's face for his silly soft toss interception on family night that Nick Collins just snared out of the air.

Now, I'm afraid at this point, Rodgers may be tuning out MM and MM's attempts to do to Rodgers what he did to Favre may not work now. But I'd like to think a new sheriff in that locker room might come in and put his foot down to say that ******** the plays around won't be tolerated, and Rodgers will respect him. I mean, if MM as a new HC could do that to Favre, why couldn't a new HC do that to Rodgers?

 

[longtimefan]

Anyone ever have a boss they hated, and really wouldn't listen to them? Did the bare min?

Thrn a new boss entered and you changed your attitude and started to do more?

I think the same thing could be applied here

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

This is all true, and I certainly won't paint McCarthy as a total victim in this, especially considering he is HC over the entire team, and some of the problems we've seen out of the players seem to indicate a HC who is disengaged with them.

But unfortunately I really believe there is a lot of truth to these sayings. Rodgers's contract has seemed to have gone to his head, and he's now turned into the man he was once an understudy to. I mean, I definitely have to admit the way he seems to want to run around the pocket and take deep shots if he doesn't get sacked first is very Favre like. Favre did this all the time before Sherman got fired. Only difference is Rodgers substitutes the ints for sacks.

Your statement is so hauntingly accurate

 

[HardRightEdge]

Certainly I do not want Rodgers to be traded because with him behind center there is always a glimmer of hope. But it really irks me they signed him to such extension and I am sure I will be corrected if wrong, but 2 years before his previous extension ended. Seeing how they played WITHOUT him last year gave him a huge advantage to negotiating and I think the front office jumped the gun and made sure to lock him up. They and we saw the same thing with him sidelined. He has earned all the money he is making without a doubt. But I wish the organization would do a little more to help the supporting cast around him and now a little handcuffed because of him.

I was asked last year by a Bears fan who is constantly testing my patience if I thought the Packers should move on from Rodgers because the team looks awful and they're wasting his good years away. And while the obviously answer is a big "NO!" Sitting back and actually thinking about the hypothetical of it happening, I wasn't that upset if they actually moved on from him. Because if a team that was in the market last year traded for him, Jax, Ari, or Den, I wouldn't have been angry and after watching this year happen all over again, that same part of me that wouldn't have been angry, still wouldn't be angry.

You can't trade Rodgers now, or for a few years to come. The dead cap from the signing bonus makes it so. My post was a "what if"; a trade now is a moot point.

I would observe that players are not paid based on what they've "earned". They are paid on prospective future performance. On that score, Rodgers contract was on the team-friendly side relative to the the rapid escalation in QB pay.

As for doing a little more to help the supporting cast, I'm not sure what more could have been done. With only about $9 mil in the cap space bank currently, $3 mil less before moving Clinton-Dix, there was not much more capital to work with. One might question the value of the FA signings that were made, but the effort was made, most notably Graham, within the cap constraints. It could have been the more expensive Allan Robinson instead of Graham, I suppose, had there been an extra $5 mil in 2018 cap laying around, but it could not have been both.

The link to the SI piece contains a kitchen sink of possible issues one could focus on, but for my money the most salient observation is this:

"The spread system played into Rodgers’s strengths as a sandlot playmaker. But that style of play requires tremendous chemistry between the quarterback and the other 10 players, who must have a similar “feel” for how any given play is developing and what their quarterback will do on the fly."

The piece goes on to talk about "roster turnover", a poor choice of words, since that was in fact confined to Nelson-out-Graham-in, while Nelson was clearly in decline. The piece goes on to talk about the Allison and Cobb injuries, which are factors but don't qualify as "roster turnover".

The spread system is discussed in counterpoint to McCarthy implementing alternatives such as bunch formations and combination routes. Whatever tension there may be in the play calling it would seem to come down to this more scripted approach vs. the freewheeling, play-extending playground approach. Is McCarthy trying to work within the constratints of an inexperienced receiver group and Rodgers mobility issues which were fairly apparent until this past week? Funny thing...the article nowhere mentions "knee".

Conversely, has Rodgers simply wanted to be Rodgers as we know him, hoping to elevate his teammates to his level of play while working through the mobility issues? Who's right? You decide. But I'd say the horses are not there to do what has always been done, at least not this season. And the clock and the injuries are ticking down on too many core veterans on both sides of the ball. And how can you expect to re-wire a 35 year old brain that has been seeing the game and playing the game a certain way for so long? He would have to accept that what he has been doing won't work anymore. I don't see that happening.

I see more of logical progression to this point, with pay levels, age and cumulative injuries having moved the roster past the window of opportunity rather than any woulda-shoulda-coulda this-move-or-that-move that could have prevented it. Maybe if it had been a very clean year in terms of injuries the team would have been rolling by now with 10 wins in the cards. But I saw that as the upside and not qualifying as a championship caliber roster and those clean injury seasons are abberations that can't be counted on for a repeat going forward.

I keep coming back to the same point: With key vets in decline and likely out the door and not a ton of cap space, you have to count on further development of this past draft class and then stack good drafts on top of that to get to a critical mass of good players on cheap rookie deals. 2020 should be the target for legitimate championship contention, and you would expect it will be if there is a coaching changed. No more 30 year old back-and-fill free agents, please.

Of course nothing in the SI piece talks about the lack of discipline, the league leading penalty differential, the mental errors. That falls to the head coach.

 

[Title Town USA]

You can't trade Rodgers now, or for a few years to come. The dead cap from the signing bonus makes it so. My post was a "what if"; a trade now is a moot point.

I would observe that players are not paid based on what they've "earned". They are paid on prospective future performance. On that score, Rodgers contract was on the team-friendly side relative to the the rapid escalation in QB pay.

As for doing a little more to help the supporting cast, I'm not sure what more could have been done. With only about $9 mil in the cap space bank currently, $3 mil less before moving Clinton-Dix, there was not much more capital to work with. One might question the value of the FA signings that were made, but the effort was made, most notably Graham, within the cap constraints. It could have been the more expensive Allan Robinson instead of Graham, I suppose, had there been an extra $5 mil in 2018 cap laying around, but it could not have been both.

The link to the SI piece contains a kitchen sink of possible issues one could focus on, but for my money the most salient observation is this:

"The spread system played into Rodgers’s strengths as a sandlot playmaker. But that style of play requires tremendous chemistry between the quarterback and the other 10 players, who must have a similar “feel” for how any given play is developing and what their quarterback will do on the fly."

The piece goes on to talk about "roster turnover", a poor choice of words, since that was in fact confined to Nelson-out-Graham-in, while Nelson was clearly in decline. But I digress. The piece goes on to talk about the Allison and Cobb injuries, which are factors but don't qualify as "roster turnover".

The spread system is discussed in counterpoint to McCarthy implementing alternatives such as bunch formations and combination routes. Whatever tension there may be in the play calling it would seem to come down to this more scripted approach vs. the freewheeling, play-extending playground approach. Is McCarthy trying to work within the constratints of an inexperienced receiver group and Rodgers mobility issues which were fairly apparent until this past week? Funny thing...the article nowhere mentions "knee". Conversely, has Rodgers simply wanted to be Rodgers as we know him, hoping to elevate his teammates to his level of play while working through the mobility issues? Who's right? You decide. But I'd say the horses are not there to do what has always been done, at least not this season. And the clock and the injuries are ticking down on too many core veterans on both sides of the ball. And how can you expect to re-wire a 35 year old brain that has been seeing the game and playing the game a certain way for so long?

I see more of logical progression to this point, with pay levels, age and cumulative injuries having moved the roster past the window of opportunity rather than any woulda-shoulda-coulda that could have prevented it. Maybe if it had been a very clean year in terms of injuries the team would have been rolling by now with 10 wins in the cards. But I still would not see this as a championship caliber roster and those clean injury seasons are abberations that can't be counted on for a repeat going forward.

I keep coming back to the same point: With key vets in decline and likely out the door and not a ton of cap space, you have to count on further development of this past draft class and then stack good drafts on top of that to get to a critical mass of good players on cheap rookie deals. 2020 should be the target for legitimate championship contention, and you would expect it will be if there is a coaching changed. No more 30 year old back-and-fill free agents, please.

TLDR?

 

[HardRightEdge]

TLDR?

Suffering from Twitter brain? I'd prefer you don't, quite frankly. I'd conclude you did not read the longer SI piece linked in the OP and the topic of this thread. It's a lot longer.

DSKN.

Don't ask.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

You can't trade Rodgers now, or for a few years to come. The dead cap from the signing bonus makes it so. My post was a "what if"; a trade now is a moot point.

I would observe that players are not paid based on what they've "earned". They are paid on prospective future performance. On that score, Rodgers contract was on the team-friendly side relative to the the rapid escalation in QB pay.

As for doing a little more to help the supporting cast, I'm not sure what more could have been done. With only about $9 mil in the cap space bank currently, $3 mil less before moving Clinton-Dix, there was not much more capital to work with. One might question the value of the FA signings that were made, but the effort was made, most notably Graham, within the cap constraints. It could have been the more expensive Allan Robinson instead of Graham, I suppose, had there been an extra $5 mil in 2018 cap laying around, but it could not have been both.

The link to the SI piece contains a kitchen sink of possible issues one could focus on, but for my money the most salient observation is this:

"The spread system played into Rodgers’s strengths as a sandlot playmaker. But that style of play requires tremendous chemistry between the quarterback and the other 10 players, who must have a similar “feel” for how any given play is developing and what their quarterback will do on the fly."

The piece goes on to talk about "roster turnover", a poor choice of words, since that was in fact confined to Nelson-out-Graham-in, while Nelson was clearly in decline. The piece goes on to talk about the Allison and Cobb injuries, which are factors but don't qualify as "roster turnover".

The spread system is discussed in counterpoint to McCarthy implementing alternatives such as bunch formations and combination routes. Whatever tension there may be in the play calling it would seem to come down to this more scripted approach vs. the freewheeling, play-extending playground approach. Is McCarthy trying to work within the constratints of an inexperienced receiver group and Rodgers mobility issues which were fairly apparent until this past week? Funny thing...the article nowhere mentions "knee".

Conversely, has Rodgers simply wanted to be Rodgers as we know him, hoping to elevate his teammates to his level of play while working through the mobility issues? Who's right? You decide. But I'd say the horses are not there to do what has always been done, at least not this season. And the clock and the injuries are ticking down on too many core veterans on both sides of the ball. And how can you expect to re-wire a 35 year old brain that has been seeing the game and playing the game a certain way for so long? He would have to accept that what he has been doing won't work anymore. I don't see that happening.

I see more of logical progression to this point, with pay levels, age and cumulative injuries having moved the roster past the window of opportunity rather than any woulda-shoulda-coulda this-move-or-that-move that could have prevented it. Maybe if it had been a very clean year in terms of injuries the team would have been rolling by now with 10 wins in the cards. But I saw that as the upside and not qualifying as a championship caliber roster and those clean injury seasons are abberations that can't be counted on for a repeat going forward.

I keep coming back to the same point: With key vets in decline and likely out the door and not a ton of cap space, you have to count on further development of this past draft class and then stack good drafts on top of that to get to a critical mass of good players on cheap rookie deals. 2020 should be the target for legitimate championship contention, and you would expect it will be if there is a coaching changed. No more 30 year old back-and-fill free agents, please.

Of course nothing in the SI piece talks about the lack of discipline, the league leading penalty differential, the mental errors. That falls to the head coach.

This stuff is why I been ragging that the NFL needs to tear up the CBA and throw the salary cap out the window. The cap doesn't even do what it's supposed to anyway considering the Patriots have benefited from it.

 

[Title Town USA]

Suffering from Twitter brain? I'd prefer you don't, quite frankly. I'd conclude you did not read the longer SI piece linked in the OP and the topic of this thread. It's a lot longer.

DSKN.

Don't ask.

Believe it or not, it's possible to get a point across without writing an essay. Just a helpful hint, because I can tell you the majority of people will not read something when it is that long.

 

[MassPackersFan]

McCarthy may have tried to evolve this offense on the run in the middle of the season, but that's far too late. These concepts should have been developed and practiced like crazy over the off-season (maybe a few off-seasons ago; the offense has looked stagnant for years except for incredible sandlot plays by Rodgers), so that everyone - from Rodgers to the rookie receivers - can not just execute the plays but maximize their effectiveness.

 

[PackAttack12]

No Hundley just sucked

However Matt Flynn did okay?

Yeah 30 years ago.

 

[HardRightEdge]

This stuff is why I been ragging that the NFL needs to tear up the CBA and throw the salary cap out the window. The cap doesn't even do what it's supposed to anyway considering the Patriots have benefited from it.

What would you propose in its place? And how do you see the Patriots having any advantage under the current systesm?

In the absence of the cap, the high revenue teams like the Patriots would have a clearer advantage even if it was a soft cap with a luxury tax like in MLB. Belichick wheels and deals players, signs them, rents them, cuts them, trades them or lets them walk, like most GMs change their underwear. And he's done it extremely well in fitting them into the jobs he has in the "do your job" formulation.

Further, over the years, he's adapted his offense to the available and affordable resources, going from balanced attacks to WR-centric attacks to slot-TE attacks and variations in between. It doesn't have anything to do with the cap.

 

[HardRightEdge]

McCarthy may have tried to evolve this offense on the run in the middle of the season, but that's far too late. These concepts should have been developed and practiced like crazy over the off-season (maybe a few off-seasons ago; the offense has looked stagnant for years except for incredible sandlot plays by Rodgers), so that everyone - from Rodgers to the rookie receivers - can not just execute the plays but maximize their effectiveness.

The question is whether Rodgers resisted those changes and if so were there good reasons to do so.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Believe it or not, it's possible to get a point across without writing an essay. Just a helpful hint, because I can tell you the majority of people will not read something when it is that long.

Quite frankly, I don't care what the majority of people think or do, if that has not already been abundantly clear to you. An observant person would have caught that. And like I said, this thread is about the SI post linked in the OP. You must assume the majority of people will not read that either which of course doesn't stop anybody from commenting.

If your turn of mind is not toward balancing factors and nuances and then drawing a conclusion then stick to Twitter bites. Shorter is not necessarily smarter, as your posts abundantly illustrate.

I don't think many people read my in-depth "Stat Matchup" posts either, and among those who did many would not have gotten what I was driving at. It couldn't possibly be meaningful since you've never seen anything else like it. Fewer still might have noticed I picked the point spread in each of them based on that analysis. Oh, well.

And now, for the big red X....

 

[rmontro]

Sounds like the fans are slowly starting to lose respect for Aaron similarly to Aaron losing respect for MM. Interesting.

This is the first time Rodgers has had a losing record this late in the season, and the first time they've been this far out of the playoffs in a long while, and it's the first time they appear to be the third best team in the division. The team was bad last year, but there was the Hundley excuse.

So many people have been calling Rodgers the GOAT for so long, and now that the team is struggling, people are lining up to take shots at him. People love to kick celebrities when they're down. Look at Rodgers TD-INT ratio, he's got 20 TDs to one INT. You might say the TD total is a little low. Still, pretty amazing, right? But what is there to show for it? They're 4-6-1. The new rules have QBs around the league posting amazing stats. You'd think Rodgers would get a boost from them as well.

 

[Stanger37]

This is the first time Rodgers has had a losing record this late in the season, and the first time they've been this far out of the playoffs in a long while, and it's the first time they appear to be the third best team in the division. The team was bad last year, but there was the Hundley excuse.

So many people have been calling Rodgers the GOAT for so long, and now that the team is struggling, people are lining up to take shots at him. People love to kick celebrities when they're down. Look at Rodgers TD-INT ratio, he's got 20 TDs to one INT. You might say the TD total is a little low. Still, pretty amazing, right? But what is there to show for it? They're 4-6-1. The new rules have QBs around the league posting amazing stats. You'd think Rodgers would get a boost from them as well.

You are right because even Cowherd, who I actually enjoy listening to but have to turn him off at times, he has a bit that he plays during commercials that literally says "Brady and Rodgers are the deodorant of the NFL. they make you stink less" and now he is drilling Rodgers any chance he possibly gets. He is the problem with the media, he gives Rodgers all the credit when he does something with nothing. But when the team isn't good, he doesn't acknowledge the lack of talent. WHICH, he does when he says he is the 'deodorant of the NFL' Acknowledges that Matt Nagy hides all the imperfections that Mitch has, but does not touch upon MM holding Rodgers back. Nagy made Chase Daniel look like a viable option last week and chances are he will again this week. That is what good coaching does.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

This is the first time Rodgers has had a losing record this late in the season, and the first time they've been this far out of the playoffs in a long while, and it's the first time they appear to be the third best team in the division. The team was bad last year, but there was the Hundley excuse.

So many people have been calling Rodgers the GOAT for so long, and now that the team is struggling, people are lining up to take shots at him. People love to kick celebrities when they're down. Look at Rodgers TD-INT ratio, he's got 20 TDs to one INT. You might say the TD total is a little low. Still, pretty amazing, right? But what is there to show for it? They're 4-6-1. The new rules have QBs around the league posting amazing stats. You'd think Rodgers would get a boost from them as well.

I think you hit the nail on the head. But the million dollar questions is why isn't he getting the boost? It makes me crazy seeing Kirk Cousins putting up numbers like that when he plays us. Roster and coaching cant be this much of a hindrance. I have no answers lol

 

[Title Town USA]

Quite frankly, I don't care what the majority of people think or do, if that has not already been abundantly clear to you. An observant person would have caught that. And like I said, this thread is about the SI post linked in the OP. You must assume the majority of people will not read that either which of course doesn't stop anybody from commenting.

If your turn of mind is not toward balancing factors and nuances and then drawing a conclusion then stick to Twitter bites. Shorter is not necessarily smarter, as your posts abundantly illustrate.

I don't think many people read my in-depth "Stat Matchup" posts either, and among those who did many would not have gotten what I was driving at. It couldn't possibly be meaningful since you've never seen anything else like it. Fewer still might have noticed I picked the point spread in each of them based on that analysis. Oh, well.

And now, for the big red X....

Less than 5 paragraphs...we're making progress - I'm proud of you!

 

[HardRightEdge]

...he's got 20 TDs to one INT. You might say the TD total is a little low. Still, pretty amazing, right?

The Packers have 12 give aways, including a Kizer pick and 10 lost fumbles. That fumble count is 2nd. most in the league, and Rodgers is responsible for a couple of those. Nonetheless, Rodgers INT count has kept the overall damage to a minimum, with those 12 giveaways tied for 6th. fewest in the league.

But what about the defense? 12 takeaways. 22nd. in the league. And when you consider 3 of those were traded with Clinton-Dix and 2 were on ST forced fumbles by Raven Green, you're left with 7 generated by the defense's current personnel. That's a meaningful contributing factor to the lack of success.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Less than 5 paragraphs...we're making progress - I'm proud of you!

Thanks, Twitter brain! And if you do the math it's less than 11 paragraphs too!

But since you like short answers I'll give you one:

Let Rodgers be Rodgers since there's no other choice. The problem is you don't have the horses. It does not compute. Why do I think that? What can be done about it? For that you have to read all those paragraphs beyond your attention span.

 

[Title Town USA]

Thanks, Twitter brain! And if you do the math it's less than 11 paragraphs too!

But since you like short answers I'll give you one:

Let Rodgers be Rodgers since there's no other choice. The problem is you don't have the horses. It does not compute. Why do I think that? What can be done about it? For that you have to read all those paragraphs beyond your attention span.

My attention span is long enough to post this, and hit the ignore button, so I never again have to read one of your long-winded, condescending posts ever again! Good riddance!

 

[rmontro]

You are right because even Cowherd, who I actually enjoy listening to but have to turn him off at times, he has a bit that he plays during commercials that literally says "Brady and Rodgers are the deodorant of the NFL. they make you stink less" and now he is drilling Rodgers any chance he possibly gets.

He has been taking a lot of shots at Rodgers lately. Like you say, when Rodgers was carrying the team, he was praising him. But he was always saying he needed to get out of Green Bay, which wasn't realistic.

Now that the team's fallen off, he's criticizing him for his attitude, for not being coachable, questioning his leadership, etc. I don't know if he was ever on his top 10 all time QB list, but he isn't now. He's also got a bit he runs where he compares him with Favre, and honestly I'm not sure he's that far off on it. The second half of Favre's career here was frustrating, and if things keep up the way they are, the second half of Rodgers' career is going to be also. However, I'm going to be more optimistic, and hope that things will get better. Assuming we part ways with McCarthy during the offseason, we need to hit on a really good coach. I don't want to go through the Ray Rhodes era again, or even the Mike Sherman era.

 

[PikeBadger]

Or Favre could become the next coach and let Aaron have fun out there. (I'm kidding but also serious)

I wouldn’t let Bret Favre coach a 5 year old how to play Candyland much less anything in the Packers organization. Charles Woodson on the other hand would be a fine addition as DB consultant imo.

 

[PikeBadger]

He has been taking a lot of shots at Rodgers lately. Like you say, when Rodgers was carrying the team, he was praising him. But he was always saying he needed to get out of Green Bay, which wasn't realistic.

Now that the team's fallen off, he's criticizing him for his attitude, for not being coachable, questioning his leadership, etc. I don't know if he was ever on his top 10 all time QB list, but he isn't now. He's also got a bit he runs where he compares him with Favre, and honestly I'm not sure he's that far off on it. The second half of Favre's career here was frustrating, and if things keep up the way they are, the second half of Rodgers' career is going to be also. However, I'm going to be more optimistic, and hope that things will get better. Assuming we part ways with McCarthy during the offseason, we need to hit on a really good coach. I don't want to go through the Ray Rhodes era again, or even the Mike Sherman era.

Imo, Aaron Rodgers has not been a top 10 NFL quarterback this season up to this point. I also question his leadership and coachability. Hopefully he gets his act straightened out.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

What would you propose in its place? And how do you see the Patriots having any advantage under the current systesm?

In the absence of the cap, the high revenue teams like the Patriots would have a clearer advantage even if it was a soft cap with a luxury tax like in MLB. Belichick wheels and deals players, signs them, rents them, cuts them, trades them or lets them walk, like most GMs change their underwear. And he's done it extremely well in fitting them into the jobs he has in the "do your job" formulation.

Further, over the years, he's adapted his offense to the available and affordable resources, going from balanced attacks to WR-centric attacks to slot-TE attacks and variations in between. It doesn't have anything to do with the cap.

Baseball has shown you do not need a cap period for a competitive league, and football doesn't need it either. I'm pretty sure if you took the cap away New England would start sucking cuz Miami would outbid them in FA market.