Rodgers miffed about loss of Van Pelt

[GleefulGary]

Foles also has a very talented offensive coach that puts in plays to put his players in great position to succeed. Pederson basically forced Collinsworth to say "RPO" so many times during the Super Bowl that i wanted to punch my TV. I can't recall the last time someone looked at the Packers offense and mentioned something innovative.

The problem there was that Collinsworth didn't know what a RPO was or wasn't. He was talking out of his ***.

 

[Mondio]

RPO is the new buzzword in announcing. They all ****ing use it, incessantly.

 

[Poppa San]

I can't recall the last time someone looked at the Packers offense and mentioned something innovative.

So you missed the games this season where Cobb lined up in the wildcat and actually passed the ball once? Or the handful of Hundley AND Rodgers read option plays?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So you missed the games this season where Cobb lined up in the wildcat and actually passed the ball once? Or the handful of Hundley AND Rodgers read option plays?

The wildcat, wow! That's a new and innovative play!!!!! And read-option doesn't equal innovative, that's been around for decades. Innovative is HOW those plays are implemented. Look at the Eagles offense or the Pats offense and how they use personnel groupings, motion, and routes to get guys open. Then look at the Packers offense. It's not a flattering comparison.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The problem there was that Collinsworth didn't know what a RPO was or wasn't. He was talking out of his ***.

OK. Because as well know Collinsworth is a terrible announcer who doesn't really understand football and how it works.

 

[Mondio]

The wildcat, wow! That's a new and innovative play!!!!! And read-option doesn't equal innovative, that's been around for decades. Innovative is HOW those plays are implemented. Look at the Eagles offense or the Pats offense and how they use personnel groupings, motion, and routes to get guys open. Then look at the Packers offense. It's not a flattering comparison.

They don't run anything new, it's all been around for years. Unless of course you call 2 trick plays innovative. Go ahead and try building an offense off of that LOL The only reason those worked, or almost worked, was because of how well the rest of the regular stuff run for years is run. You know why NE runs so many of those plays? They have to. They have a TE and a small WR and that fits his strengths. You know what opened that up? some of the regular old plays they all run and guys were running free deep all game long. There is nothing NE has run that GB hasn't also ran. our teams are different and our QB's have different strengths along with all the other players. as good as our offenses have been, i'm not sure why it's such an issue. Romo and Collinsworth don't say RPO enough when we play?

 

[Mike McCarthy]

I have visions of using Monty and cobb in a lot more RPGs next season. Especially in short yardage situations. You can thank me later for being so highly successful.

 

[PikeBadger]

I have visions of using Monty and cobb in a lot more RPGs next season. Especially in short yardage situations. You can thank me later for being so highly successful.

I do too. Lots of options to create mismatches against defenses imo.

 

[Poppa San]

The wildcat, wow! That's a new and innovative play!!!!! And read-option doesn't equal innovative, that's been around for decades. Innovative is HOW those plays are implemented. Look at the Eagles offense or the Pats offense and how they use personnel groupings, motion, and routes to get guys open. Then look at the Packers offense. It's not a flattering comparison.

So explain then the innovative plays that were in the SB? Throwing to the QB? Heck that was in the Waterboy. Crossing routes? Rubs, picks? Tackles getting out to block on WR screens? Throwback to the back who then throws downfield? aka halfback option. Just about every play and position combination has been done decades ago. Rodgers actually keeping the ball on a read option is innovative. Hundley on a keeper not so much. Wildcat back tossing the ball doesn't happen often on any team.

 

[Veretax]

They don't run anything new, it's all been around for years. Unless of course you call 2 trick plays innovative. Go ahead and try building an offense off of that LOL The only reason those worked, or almost worked, was because of how well the rest of the regular stuff run for years is run. You know why NE runs so many of those plays? They have to. They have a TE and a small WR and that fits his strengths. You know what opened that up? some of the regular old plays they all run and guys were running free deep all game long. There is nothing NE has run that GB hasn't also ran. our teams are different and our QB's have different strengths along with all the other players. as good as our offenses have been, i'm not sure why it's such an issue. Romo and Collinsworth don't say RPO enough when we play?

The only part you left out was, the reason the Foles one worked so well, is because it hadn't been seen run by philly recently. WHen Miami started the Wild Cat thread years ago, it was successful initially only because teams weren't yet familiar with how to exploit it. Every scheme has its weaknesses, but plays like the wild cat on occassion can be used to try and catch an opponent off Guard. Philly did just that in the Super Bowl, which is REALLY hard to do to NE.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

They don't run anything new, it's all been around for years. Unless of course you call 2 trick plays innovative. Go ahead and try building an offense off of that LOL The only reason those worked, or almost worked, was because of how well the rest of the regular stuff run for years is run. You know why NE runs so many of those plays? They have to. They have a TE and a small WR and that fits his strengths. You know what opened that up? some of the regular old plays they all run and guys were running free deep all game long. There is nothing NE has run that GB hasn't also ran. our teams are different and our QB's have different strengths along with all the other players. as good as our offenses have been, i'm not sure why it's such an issue. Romo and Collinsworth don't say RPO enough when we play?

Yeah, there's a LOT that the Pats and Eagles do that the packers don't. How many times did you see RBs wide open in the flat or running crossing routes in the Super Bowl? How many times do you see that during a Packers game? We can disagree on this. You can continue to believe that MM is an innovative offensive coach who maximizes the potential of his offensive players. I'll continue to believe that MM is a guy that benefits from having the best QB on the planet and relies on Rodgers to cover his flaws. It works out well because if we all agreed then their wouldn't be any discussion.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So explain then the innovative plays that were in the SB? Throwing to the QB? Heck that was in the Waterboy. Crossing routes? Rubs, picks? Tackles getting out to block on WR screens? Throwback to the back who then throws downfield? aka halfback option. Just about every play and position combination has been done decades ago. Rodgers actually keeping the ball on a read option is innovative. Hundley on a keeper not so much. Wildcat back tossing the ball doesn't happen often on any team.

How about the ENTIRE offense? The rub route that got the REALLY bog conversion to Ertz? The fact that the Eagles didn't miss a beat when Wentz went down? The fact that the Pats and Eagles both actually incorporate the RBs into the passing game in a way that Packers fans have been begging for for years? People are looking for specific flashy plays to illustrate the difference while the difference is in HOW the teams run routes, set up personnel groupings, and take advantage of what they know the other team's defense is going to do. The difference is that the Packers tend to trot out the offense and rely on their guys beating the other team's guys. Eagles and Pats rely on the play-design to beat the other team, or at the very least put the other team in bad matchups.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

However, back to the original point of this post. I have contended that Rodgers is worth communicating with, that it doesn't hurt anything to let Rodgers know what is going on and explaining things to keep him happy. Others have argued that Rodgers needs to be treated like a normal employee and simply do what he's told and shut up. It should also be pointed out that one of those stances is REALLY going to backfire during contract negotiations.

 

[Veretax]

How about the ENTIRE offense? The rub route that got the REALLY bog conversion to Ertz? The fact that the Eagles didn't miss a beat when Wentz went down? The fact that the Pats and Eagles both actually incorporate the RBs into the passing game in a way that Packers fans have been begging for for years? People are looking for specific flashy plays to illustrate the difference while the difference is in HOW the teams run routes, set up personnel groupings, and take advantage of what they know the other team's defense is going to do. The difference is that the Packers tend to trot out the offense and rely on their guys beating the other team's guys. Eagles and Pats rely on the play-design to beat the other team, or at the very least put the other team in bad matchups.

My memory is a little different. I remember the Eagles Struggling for a week or two until they figured out the right mix for Foles who btw had been a starter int his league before. Not quite the same thing as the fresh backup the packers had to rely on.

I have seen this in Madden though. You can overcome a bit of a talent gap with good play calling.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

However, back to the original point of this post. I have contended that Rodgers is worth communicating with, that it doesn't hurt anything to let Rodgers know what is going on and explaining things to keep him happy. Others have argued that Rodgers needs to be treated like a normal employee and simply do what he's told and shut up. It should also be pointed out that one of those stances is REALLY going to backfire during contract negotiations.

So would you give Rodgers the final say in the decision? How much say would he have? If his say doesn't carry much weight, why pretend that it does? If Rodgers is adamant about it being the wrong move and the team will regret not taking his advice, what than?

The only way I see this as being done better would be to sit AR down, before actually firing AVP and say "We just want to let you know that a decision has been made to let AVP go for these reasons and we felt it was important that you knew before it went public. What are your thoughts?" I'm sure part of the "hurt" that AR felt with the decision was hearing it through the media or other sources, feeling like he was left out of the process. I still don't think it was AR's decision, but if the Packers wanted to massage the ego of their #1 player, that might have been an approach that would have taken some of the sting out of it.

 

[PackAttack12]

So would you give Rodgers the final say in the decision? How much say would he have? If his say doesn't carry much weight, why pretend that it does? If Rodgers is adamant about it being the wrong move and the team will regret not taking his advice, what than?

The only way I see this as being done better would be to sit AR down, before actually firing AVP and say "We just want to let you know that a decision has been made to let AVP go for these reasons and we felt it was important that you knew before it went public. What are your thoughts?" I'm sure part of the "hurt" that AR felt with the decision was hearing it through the media or other sources, feeling like he was left out of the process. I still don't think it was AR's decision, but if the Packers wanted to massage the ego of their #1 player, that might have been an approach that would have taken some of the sting out of it.

Good thoughts.

There's absolutely no harm in at least keeping Rodgers in the loop. Supposedly Brady was instrumental in getting McDaniels to stay on with the Patriots. We can talk about no player is bigger than the team all we want. Players like Rodgers and Brady are exceptions to the rule. It's not to say that the team has to give in to said player's demands, but it would sure as hell be a good idea to at least communicate with Rodgers on what decision will be made regarding HIS position coach. Especially given the ridiculous drop off in the W/L column without Rodgers.

For better or worse, Aaron Rodgers IS the Green Bay Packers right now. Pissing him off is not an ideal situation no matter what you think is right or wrong. Bottom line, don't **** off 12 when he's almost all you have.

 

[Mondio]

Yeah, there's a LOT that the Pats and Eagles do that the packers don't. How many times did you see RBs wide open in the flat or running crossing routes in the Super Bowl? How many times do you see that during a Packers game? We can disagree on this. You can continue to believe that MM is an innovative offensive coach who maximizes the potential of his offensive players. I'll continue to believe that MM is a guy that benefits from having the best QB on the planet and relies on Rodgers to cover his flaws. It works out well because if we all agreed then their wouldn't be any discussion.

Of course they do different stuff, they have different players. They have Gronk, and when they didn't they had Bennett. We had Finely he went down and have had trouble getting another TE. But don't confuse that with not being a productive offense. We have been. It's just not the same. And while the Pats do different things, they aren't new things.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So would you give Rodgers the final say in the decision? How much say would he have? If his say doesn't carry much weight, why pretend that it does? If Rodgers is adamant about it being the wrong move and the team will regret not taking his advice, what than?

The only way I see this as being done better would be to sit AR down, before actually firing AVP and say "We just want to let you know that a decision has been made to let AVP go for these reasons and we felt it was important that you knew before it went public. What are your thoughts?" I'm sure part of the "hurt" that AR felt with the decision was hearing it through the media or other sources, feeling like he was left out of the process. I still don't think it was AR's decision, but if the Packers wanted to massage the ego of their #1 player, that might have been an approach that would have taken some of the sting out of it.

I've been very clear on this, RODGERS DOESN'T GET THE FINAL SAY. He just gets communicated with so that he understands why the team is doing what it's doing. While he might disagree with the decision the team won't be putting him in a position where he's on national media calling out team moves as surprises. The basic idea is that people tend to react in a more positive fashion when they feel included in the process, even if it's just as someone who gets a more detailed breakdown than the media reports. Rodgers is BY FAR the most important part of this team, it really doesn't hurt anyone to communicate with him and it risks alienating him to treat him like he needs to just shut up and do whatever MM tells him.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Of course they do different stuff, they have different players. They have Gronk, and when they didn't they had Bennett. We had Finely he went down and have had trouble getting another TE. But don't confuse that with not being a productive offense. We have been. It's just not the same. And while the Pats do different things, they aren't new things.

Yes, the Packers have been VERY productive. At no point have I argued otherwise. Unlike some, I feel like Rodgers is the reason for that success to a far greater extent than MM.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I've been very clear on this, RODGERS DOESN'T GET THE FINAL SAY. He just gets communicated with so that he understands why the team is doing what it's doing. While he might disagree with the decision the team won't be putting him in a position where he's on national media calling out team moves as surprises. The basic idea is that people tend to react in a more positive fashion when they feel included in the process, even if it's just as someone who gets a more detailed breakdown than the media reports. Rodgers is BY FAR the most important part of this team, it really doesn't hurt anyone to communicate with him and it risks alienating him to treat him like he needs to just shut up and do whatever MM tells him.

There is a difference between "consulting with" and "communicating with". Rodgers publicly stated that he wasn't happy that the Packers didn't "consult" with him about the decision on Van Pelt.

The definition of consult: "seek information or advice from (someone with expertise in a particular area)."

I get it, Rodgers is THE #1 player on the team, but consulting with him about decisions other than ones that players are typically consulted with, is going down a slippery slope in my opinion. Like I said before, if the Packers didn't inform AR of their decision before it was made public, I can see where he would be slightly put off, but should understand, he was being treated the same as the other 52+ players in the organization.

 

[Poppa San]

From the source article on page one:

“I thought that was an interesting change — really without consulting me. There’s a close connection between quarterback and quarterback coach. And that was an interesting decision.”

Which is probably true but then we see

But Van Pelt didn’t sign a contract extension which was offered last year,

which means Van Pelt was given the option to remain. One would think

Van Pelt and Rodgers were tight, after four years together in their respective roles would suggest.

that they were not as tight as this would lead you to believe if this

He just gets communicated with so that he understands why the team is doing what it's doing.

needs to be. I recall from somewhere I can't find now that Van Pelt was offered the extension before the season started which means he had all season to mention it to Aaron. Looks to me that some one is blowing smoke or he wasn't as tight with his position coach as he thought.

 

[GleefulGary]

This is all about a contract extension, and don't think otherwise.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This is all about a contract extension, and don't think otherwise.

Actually, I think it is more about Aaron.....being Aaron. But I am all ears, how does AR announcing that he is upset that he wasn't consulted in the decision to let Van Pelt go, improve his position in contract negotiations?

 

[GleefulGary]

Actually, I think it is more about Aaron.....being Aaron. But I am all ears, how does AR announcing that he is upset that he wasn't consulted in the decision to let Van Pelt go, improve his position in contract negotiations?

It probably doesn't, and you're probably right.

I just view Rodgers as being very competitive, in many areas. If he can say he's pissed about Van Pelt, enough to tell Gute and Ball that he would consider leaving, just to get another million or two a year, I think he does that. Just my thoughts. I very well could be reading it wrong.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It probably doesn't, and you're probably right.

I just view Rodgers as being very competitive, in many areas. If he can say he's pissed about Van Pelt, enough to tell Gute and Ball that he would consider leaving, just to get another million or two a year, I think he does that. Just my thoughts. I very well could be reading it wrong.

I almost think that AR "rocking the boat" could potentially have the reverse effect, the guys making the decisions don't like being second guessed by someone who plays for them. Although not exactly the same, but we saw Favre rock the boat a few times with various things and it eventually took him out of Green Bay.