Packers create more 2020 cap space

[Mondio]

Started off hot but tailed off? Based on what?

Gary Glasses

 

[gbgary]

Do you honestly expect Rodgers to put up better numbers than a passer rating of 117???

wth are you talking about? his 2017 season ending qb-rating/qbr were 97.2/64.4,
2018-97.6/54.4,
2019-95.4/53.5

Started off hot but tailed off? Based on what?

based on his numbers of course. see the difference between what you posted about his 2017 early games and what he ended up with? big difference.

 

[PackAttack12]

wth are you talking about? his 2017 season ending qb-rating/qbr were 97.2/64.4,
2018-97.6/54.4,
2019-95.4/53.5


based on his numbers of course. see the difference between what you posted about his 2017 early games and what he ended up with? big difference.

HE ONLY PLAYED ONE MORE FULL GAME AFTER THAT!

The game in which he returned prematurely trying to help his team keep a playoff berth alive. First game back after 8 weeks off against one of the NFL's most vicious defenses that year he had a bad game.

Jee wiz.

Why is it so difficult to understand that he had two sub par to average games in his first couple of games (like he usually does), then he lights it up three games in a row only to get knocked out essentially for the season, and then he has one terrible game in which he shouldn't have even been on the field eight weeks later.

So again. Using anything from 2017 to make a case that Rodgers wasn't good is laughable. But you just look back and say "see! see?!" without making even the slightest attempt at trying to understand the context.

Did you even watch the Packers in 2017?

The real question is wth are YOU talking about? And not just as it relates to this thread, this is a question I'd like to ask you daily.

 

[Mondio]

Did you even watch the Packers in 2017?

WIth his Gary Goggles

 

[PackAttack12]

WIth his Gary Goggles

Chill...

 

[gbgary]

HE ONLY PLAYED ONE MORE FULL GAME AFTER THAT!

The game in which he returned prematurely trying to help his team keep a playoff berth alive. First game back after 8 weeks off against one of the NFL's most vicious defenses that year he had a bad game.

Jee wiz.

Why is it so difficult to understand that he had two sub par to average games in his first couple of games (like he usually does), then he lights it up three games in a row only to get knocked out essentially for the season, and then he has one terrible game in which he shouldn't have even been on the field eight weeks later.

So again. Using anything from 2017 to make a case that Rodgers wasn't good is laughable. But you just look back and say "see! see?!" without making even the slightest attempt at trying to understand the context.

Did you even watch the Packers in 2017?

The real question is wth are YOU talking about? And not just as it relates to this thread, this is a question I'd like to ask you daily.

i'm didn't say he wasn't good. i said he's been inconsistent for 3 seasons and his ratings have gotten worse. go back and reread it. you posted numbers for 3 games. he played in 4 others (7 in total). those are his numbers. his ratings have gotten worse.

 

[PackAttack12]

i'm didn't say he wasn't good. i said he's been inconsistent for 3 seasons and his ratings have gotten worse. go back and reread it. you posted numbers for 3 games. he played in 4 others (7 in total). those are his numbers. his ratings have gotten worse.

Go back and look at how he started the first two games in 2009 (87.7 rating) or 2010 (94.7) or 2012 (89.3) or 2014 (95.65) or 2016 (82.9). Slow starts have NEVER been out of the norm for Aaron Rodgers. This isn't something that started in 2017. He started slow like he's been known to do, and then cranked it up. His passer rating before getting crushed by Anthony Barr in 2017 was 106, which was up from the year before.

But please. Continue with your nonsensical drivel about the demise of Aaron Rodgers.

If you want to start with 2018, I can respect that more. You can make a better argument for it. But 2017? Nah.

 

[gbgary]

Continue with your nonsensical drivel about the demise of Aaron Rodgers.

"demise"...he's not dead...but he's also not the rodgers he was the years you mention. you can't argue that he is either. age, injuries, etc., have caught up with him. i've consistently said he's still good and has brilliant moments. i want to see more. i want to see him better than he currently is. i want the Packers to get their money's worth. MLF's O gives rodgers the perfect opportunity to thrive in his current state. he just has to embrace it.

 

[PackAttack12]

"demise"...he's not dead...but he's also not the rodgers he was the years you mention. you can't argue that he is either. age, injuries, etc., have caught up with him. i've consistently said he's still good and has brilliant moments. i want to see more. i want to see him better than he currently is. i want the Packers to get their money's worth. MLF's O gives rodgers the perfect opportunity to thrive in his current state. he just has to embrace it.

So you concede on 2017. Thanks. Much appreciated.

 

[longtimefan]

Now we have two threads on his performance?

Yea!

 

[gbgary]

Gary Glasses

lol...they allow me see things for what they are. you can't see because your pompoms are obstructing your view.

 

[Mondio]

when you find my posts about how awesome Rodgers has been this year, feel free to point out the pompoms

 

[PackAttack12]

when you find my posts about how awesome Rodgers has been this year, feel free to point out the pompoms

There are those like you, me, PB2000, the captain, HRE, Dantés, etc. that are capable of admitting that Rodgers hasn't played up to his full capability, yet also considering very legitimate factors that haven't helped Rodgers in the transition. That's called being objective, but he calls it being a cheerleader and waving pom poms.

Yet gbgary makes everything out to be Rodgers' fault, doesn't consider any other variables that don't feed into that narrative. But according to him, THIS is being a realist and being objective.

lololololol.

 

[gbgary]

There are those like you, me, PB2000, the captain, HRE, Dantés, etc. that are capable of admitting that Rodgers hasn't played up to his full capability, yet also considering very legitimate factors that haven't helped Rodgers in the transition. That's called being objective, but he calls it being a cheerleader and waving pom poms.

Yet gbgary makes everything out to be Rodgers' fault, doesn't consider any other variables that don't feed into that narrative. But according to him, THIS is being a realist and being objective.

lololololol.

dude. i'm making a joke. take it easy.

 

[PackAttack12]

dude. i'm making a joke. take it easy.

You think I was talking about your response to Mondio? lol. Nope. I'm talking about your whole schtick. Your whole anti-Rodgers agenda. I captured the essence of what you are perfectly in that post.

And you know it's true, other wise you would dispute it.

You are a Rodgers hater. It is what it is. Just admit it.

 

[gbgary]

You think I was talking about your response to Mondio? lol. Nope. I'm talking about your whole schtick. Your whole anti-Rodgers agenda. I captured the essence of what you are perfectly in that post.

And you know it's true, other wise you would dispute it.

You are a Rodgers hater. It is what it is. Just admit it.

nope. not a hater. far from it.

 

[Do7]

nope. not a hater. far from it.

All evidence point to the contrary. But in all seriousness, out of respect because in the past you were able to make some legit points, I won't call you a Rodgers hater, again those titles belong to Quientus and especially RicFlair. But you're definitely a critic and you lean towards the negative spectrum in regards to him.

 

[gbgary]

All evidence point to the contrary. But in all seriousness, out of respect because in the past you were able to make some legit points, I won't call you a Rodgers hater, again those titles belong to Quientus and especially RicFlair. But you're definitely a critic and you lean towards the negative spectrum in regards to him.

yes...i am a critic of late. he's not the player physically he once was and that can't be held against him. his mindset however bothers me. it's got to change in ways his body can't. he's been a special player and i want it to continue. he has precious little time left.

 

[Do7]

yes...i am a critic of late. he's not the player physically he once was and that can't be held against him. his mindset however bothers me. it's got to change in ways his body can't. he's been a special player and i want it to continue. he has precious little time left.

As of late? Dude you've been criticizing Rodgers ever since I've been here. Don't even deny that. Back then you made valid points, but now your arguments are reaching at this point. As for him not being the same player, uh...with respect, no $hit. The dude may not be playing as phenomenal as he used to but he's still playing at a pretty high level in comparison to most of his contemporaries, only a handful had a better season. On top of that the dude is freaking learning a new system and you're going on this nonsense in regards to his mindset? Dude we're freaking 13-3 for crying out loud with a new system and with very little talent? Everyone here has acknowledged that Rodgers could play better, but it seems from my observation that you refuse to acknowledge that as well as any learning curves that Rodgers may have in the FIRST YEAR of a new system, suggesting that he's trying to undermine the offense. The dude has said he's bought in and said he doesn't need to go out and be the hero throwing for 4 to 5 touchdowns like he used to. But it's weird with you. This offense has become more balanced and yet are sitting here at 13-3 and yet somehow Rodgers is undermining Lefleur. Can he play better? Of course he can, we've said that time and time again, and who's to say he won't play better going forward? So the losses we suffered are due to a power struggle between Rodgers and Lafleur like he had with McCarthy, who everyone has acknowledged, even McCarthy himself said his plays were being stagnant and stale?

Gary you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point dude. In all my time here I have not seen you straight up admit you being wrong without providing some kind of explanation or excuse of some kind. Your arguments went from logical to downright ridiculous, it's no wonder why people poke fun at you and call you a Rodgers hater. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt due to past history when you did provide objective views and whatnot. You're nowhere near as bad as Queintus and especially RicFlair, (those two are on a tier to themselves, though I'd rank Flair highest)

 

[gbgary]

As of late?

yeah. the last 2 years of his 12 year career as a starter. as for the rest...*shrugs*

 

[Deleted member 6794]

based on his numbers of course. see the difference between what you posted about his 2017 early games and what he ended up with? big difference.

It's absolutely ridiculous to include Rodgers performance against the Panthers in 2017 when evaluating his play.

Before getting injured against the Vikings that year his passer rating was 103.2, which would have ranked third in the league at the end of that season.

 

[gbgary]

ok

 

[Stanger37]

I don't have a dog in the fight but this is a constant fight between a friend of mine that is a Bear fan that has never liked Rodgers and myself, who is a Packer fan and like Rodgers.

Has there been a decline? Sure, without question. Age, injuries, lack of talent around him, coach that overstayed his welcome. There are countless of reasons we can argue about that has contributed to this.

However I will say, the Packers are 13-3 this year and seem to finally have a real defense and run game. He threw nearly a whole game or two less passes this year since 2014. I'll take 10-12 less passes a game from him if it translates to wins than going 32-47 for 350+ yards and 2-3 TDs and going 9-7 and missing the playoffs. BUT RODGERS LOOKED GREAT ALL YEAR!

There is a chance he is the second most important Aaron on the team and that makes the next few years even more scary because we all know what Aaron Rodgers is capable of, especially if they can put another weapon or two around him.

 

[Dantés]

Rodgers was Rodgers to start 2017. Then he injured his collarbone. That wipes out the rest of the season. You can't consider the results of a game where he attempted to come back early from injury and redeem what would become a lost season.

Then he injured his MCL in week one of 2018 and the injury limited him for all or most of the season. It was obvious to anyone watching.

In 2019, he's been in a new offense with very few good targets in the offense.

None of this means that Rodgers is 100% still the same guy he always was. All it means is that there are other explanations for his performance. We really don't know for sure whether he's regressed or whether it's largely circumstantial. Either is a possibility.

For me, the proof will be in 2020. We assume Rodgers will be healthy. Hopefully his receiving talent will have been addressed, as least to some extent. And it will be his second year in the offense, so a comfort level will have had the chance to develop.

If he lights it up next year, I won't be surprised. If it's more of the inconsistent, fits and starts kind of offense, then I will have to assume that he just isn't what he once was.

 

[Mondio]

I saw him start making those rodgers type throws nearer the end of last year, and I see him make them this year to receivers, which leads me to lean towards he can still do it, but it's a comfort level and talent around him issue more than anything. I'm not expecting him to be Rodgers of 7 years ago, but I do expect to see a decent improvement as comfort in a new system and getting some better pass catchers.