The Aaron Rodgers performance thread

[Heyjoe4]

well to be fair, I rarely know what thread i'm in, I'm just responding to posts

well to be fair, I rarely know what thread i'm in, I'm just responding to posts

Most threads can manage to stay on topic for 5 or 6 pages. This thread has over 100. When I get frustrated with the comments, I go back to the subject of the original thread. If I have something left to say I’ll say it. But see, for this thread I’m off topic........

 

[rmontro]

why not? Seattle was going to beat us? MN was going to beat us? The team that MN beat was going to beat us?

Actually, I was more concerned about playing on the road. And we could have played San Francisco in the second round, depending on our record.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Actually, I was more concerned about playing on the road. And we could have played San Francisco in the second round, depending on our record.

I think SF was the only team in the playoffs who could beat us (and, of course, they did). But I was hoping for a NO/GB game at Lambeau instead of the Hags. I believe we would have beaten the Saints at home. Ah well, on to next year. Whatever that will look like. If this quarantine stays in place it might come down to coaches playing each other on the next version of Madden.....

 

[rmontro]

I think SF was the only team in the playoffs who could beat us

Well, all home team bravado aside, the Eagles had already proven they could beat us. Saints or Seahawks could have beaten us if we were on the road. Doesn't mean they would have, but there was a possibility. I won't give the Vikings the courtesy of that, however

 

[Do7]

I think SF was the only team in the playoffs who could beat us (and, of course, they did). But I was hoping for a NO/GB game at Lambeau instead of the Hags. I believe we would have beaten the Saints at home. Ah well, on to next year. Whatever that will look like. If this quarantine stays in place it might come down to coaches playing each other on the next version of Madden.....

I honestly believe if we played San Fran in Lambeau the game would've been much closer.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Well, all home team bravado aside, the Eagles had already proven they could beat us. Saints or Seahawks could have beaten us if we were on the road. Doesn't mean they would have, but there was a possibility. I won't give the Vikings the courtesy of that, however

Spoken like a true Packers fan!!!!!!! Yield nothing to the hated Queens! Well said!

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I think SF was the only team in the playoffs who could beat us (and, of course, they did). But I was hoping for a NO/GB game at Lambeau instead of the Hags. I believe we would have beaten the Saints at home. Ah well, on to next year. Whatever that will look like. If this quarantine stays in place it might come down to coaches playing each other on the next version of Madden.....

The Saints would have slaughtered us IMO - they probably would have put up more points than the 9ers too. Drew Brees and Michael Thomas would have had a field day and Kamara would have eviscerated us. We nearly lost to a Detroit Lions team with a home playoff game on the line, don't fool yourself into thinking we would have beaten the Saints.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Well it’s all conjecture and what’s done is done. On to next year, I hope!

 

[Do7]

The Saints would have slaughtered us IMO - they probably would have put up more points than the 9ers too. Drew Brees and Michael Thomas would have had a field day and Kamara would have eviscerated us. We nearly lost to a Detroit Lions team with a home playoff game on the line, don't fool yourself into thinking we would have beaten the Saints.

I call ********. The Saints may have scored points on us, but there's no way in hell they would've slaughtered us, especially in Lambeau. Brees airs the ball out, but our secondary is pretty good for the most part. They would have to beat us in the trenches and after the pitiful performance Brees did in a DOME at HOME no less, I don't see how you would draw that conclusion, especially considering that they were the prohibitive favorites against Minnesota and they couldn't put them down like we did. There defense is highly overrated as they actually gave up more points than us if I recall correctly. We would've scored on them with little trouble, there is no doubt in my mind. The Saints got exposed plain and simple.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I call ********. The Saints may have scored points on us, but there's no way in hell they would've slaughtered us, especially in Lambeau. Brees airs the ball out, but our secondary is pretty good for the most part. They would have to beat us in the trenches and after the pitiful performance Brees did in a DOME at HOME no less, I don't see how you would draw that conclusion, especially considering that they were the prohibitive favorites against Minnesota and they couldn't put them down like we did. There defense is highly overrated as they actually gave up more points than us if I recall correctly. We would've scored on them with little trouble, there is no doubt in my mind. The Saints got exposed plain and simple.

The Saints got run on, same as what would have happened had we had to play Cook again late in the season. The Vikings have their number, and had we had to play them with Cook at the end of the season I'm sure that game would have been a loss with the way our run defense ended the season. I have considerable doubt that the Packers would have been able to stop a Saints team that was riding an offensive hotstreak with the likes of Kamara and Murray in their backfield. Taysom Hill would have been licking his chops for a chance to score against the team that cut him. Not only that, Michael Thomas had a record breaking season and would have likely been targeted 15+ times. We couldn't stop Lockett when it counted, there would have been little chance they'd stop Thomas. The Saints put up more than 40 pts on the 9ers. They'd likely have done the same against us... even in Lambeau. We're lucky we didn't get embarrassed by them on our home field.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

we all know that 13-3 record was very deceptive.

Actually you're the only one considering it a fact.

Fans of a lotta other teams would kill for the kind of teams GB has fielded since the Holmgren/Favre/Wolf era began. Could GB have won a few more SBs? Yeah, I think so with better drafting and better use of free agency. But all in all, we have little to complain about. Quite the opposite.

While Packers fans shouldn't complain about the overall success the team has experienced but there's no doubt the team should have won more Super Bowls.

Actually, I was more concerned about playing on the road. And we could have played San Francisco in the second round, depending on our record.

With the Packers winning the division there was no way they could have played the Niners in the second round.

The Saints would have slaughtered us IMO - they probably would have put up more points than the 9ers too. Drew Brees and Michael Thomas would have had a field day and Kamara would have eviscerated us. We nearly lost to a Detroit Lions team with a home playoff game on the line, don't fool yourself into thinking we would have beaten the Saints.

The Saints lost at home to the Vikings, a team the Packers beat twice during the regular season. I would have felt pretty confident about our chances against New Orleans.

The Saints got run on, same as what would have happened had we had to play Cook again late in the season. The Vikings have their number, and had we had to play them with Cook at the end of the season I'm sure that game would have been a loss with the way our run defense ended the season.

Geez, the Vikings put up 16 points with Cook in the lineup against the Packers at Lambeau. With the way our defense dominated the LOS he wouldn't have made a difference in the second meeting.

 

[PackAttack12]

what the heck is a favre dead-ender?
we all know that 13-3 record was very deceptive. no need to discuss that further.

No. You are almost in a world of your own with that one. And you believe that because it fits your narrative. It's beyond played out.

You were wrong about the Packers last year and you don't know how to deal with it, other than to say that it was deceptive, misleading, blah blah blah.

You'll conjure up all kinds of excuses if/when the Packers have similar success this upcoming season as well.

 

[gbgary]

No. You are almost in a world of your own with that one. And you believe that because it fits your narrative. It's beyond played out.

You were wrong about the Packers last year and you don't know how to deal with it, other than to say that it was deceptive, misleading, blah blah blah.

You'll conjure up all kinds of excuses if/when the Packers have similar success this upcoming season as well.

i was wrong about the record...happily so. most people were. it was a fun season. but i wasn't alone in saying they didn't play like a 13-3 record would suggest. the vast majority of nfl press agreed. the defense was much better, but the O was worse than the 2018 O with essentially the same personnel which included an emerging rookie in lazard, a better aaron jones, a better jimmy graham, a healthier, and better O line...but rodgers went from the middle of the league in QBR to the bottom 3rd. on to 2020. as of right now i'll predict...9-7.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Actually you're the only one considering it a fact.



While Packers fans shouldn't complain about the overall success the team has experienced but there's no doubt the team should have won more Super Bowls.



With the Packers winning the division there was no way they could have played the Niners in the second round.



The Saints lost at home to the Vikings, a team the Packers beat twice during the regular season. I would have felt pretty confident about our chances against New Orleans.



Geez, the Vikings put up 16 points with Cook in the lineup against the Packers at Lambeau. With the way our defense dominated the LOS he wouldn't have made a difference in the second meeting.

What? Cook ran for 200 all purpose yards and a score the first meeting. That loss is not on Cook. And our line dominated the LOS with their backup Rb's in so big whoop. With how poorly we faired against Mostert we would have been gutted by any half decent rb, and Cook is probably a top 3 rb.

 

[Mondio]

all those yards and couldn't score any points. It was a 2 possession game from the start practically. Teams tend to give up rushing yards then, the telling point is MN couldn't score any points despite doing it. and without a GB fumble in their own territory I don't care how many rushing yards a team gets when losing by double digits.

MN didn't come close to winning either game

 

[Heyjoe4]

Actually you're the only one considering it a fact.



While Packers fans shouldn't complain about the overall success the team has experienced but there's no doubt the team should have won more Super Bowls.



With the Packers winning the division there was no way they could have played the Niners in the second round.



The Saints lost at home to the Vikings, a team the Packers beat twice during the regular season. I would have felt pretty confident about our chances against New Orleans.



Geez, the Vikings put up 16 points with Cook in the lineup against the Packers at Lambeau. With the way our defense dominated the LOS he wouldn't have made a difference in the second meeting.

I do agree GB should have won at least one more, maybe two SBs in the Favre/Rodgers eras. They didn’t, and I don’t have enough room here to go into the why of it. But yeah, while they’ve always kept us as fans entertained, we’ll always feel there should have been more championships.

And as for the NO debate, I would have liked our chances playing at Lambeau. I liked our chances against all the NFC playoff teams, except SF. If the NFCCG had been played at Lambeau instead of Levis stadium, we would have put on a more competitive game, but probably not enough to beat the niners.

 

[Do7]

i was wrong about the record...happily so. most people were. it was a fun season. but i wasn't alone in saying they didn't play like a 13-3 record would suggest. the vast majority of nfl press agreed. the defense was much better, but the O was worse than the 2018 O with essentially the same personnel which included an emerging rookie in lazard, a better aaron jones, a better jimmy graham, a healthier, and better O line...but rodgers went from the middle of the league in QBR to the bottom 3rd. on to 2020. as of right now i'll predict...9-7.

And a BETTER and HEALTHIER Rodgers. Nice of you to leave that part out.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

but i wasn't alone in saying they didn't play like a 13-3 record would suggest. the vast majority of nfl press agreed.

They were wrong as well. I have no idea how it's possible for a team to be considered better or worse than their record indicates as they have to make enough plays to win those games.

the defense was much better, but the O was worse than the 2018 O with essentially the same personnel which included an emerging rookie in lazard, a better aaron jones, a better jimmy graham, a healthier, and better O line...but rodgers went from the middle of the league in QBR to the bottom 3rd. on to 2020. as of right now i'll predict...9-7.

First of all the offense scored exactly the same amount of points last season than they did in 2018. In addition Graham and the offensive line weren't improved either.

As a side note please stop using QBR to make a point, it's a terrible metric. According to it Jameis Winston, who threw 30 interceptions and seven pick sixes, had a better season than Rodgers.

What? Cook ran for 200 all purpose yards and a score the first meeting. That loss is not on Cook. And our line dominated the LOS with their backup Rb's in so big whoop. With how poorly we faired against Mostert we would have been gutted by any half decent rb, and Cook is probably a top 3 rb.

Read carefully, I didn't put the Vikings loss against the Packers on Cook but said he wouldn't have made a difference in the game.

The defense wasn't able to contain Mostert as the Niners dominated the LOS. The Vikings offensive line wasn't able to create any holes for their running backs in that game though.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

They were wrong as well. I have no idea how it's possible for a team to be considered better or worse than their record indicates as they have to make enough plays to win those games.

Packers were 15th in points scored last year and 9th in points allowed. The Packers gave up 5.7 yards per play while allowed 5.7 yards per play. Historically, that's not a 13-3 team. Some people seem to think that means they didn't earn that record, that's wrong. What it really means when people say they were a sub-par 13-3 team is that the team is probably going to regress next year, which is kind of easy to predict considering the holes on this team. Am I saying they will miss the playoffs? Nope. Just that anyone expecting 13 wins next year is putting too much stock into a win total last year that consisted mainly of one-score wins and some pretty lopsided losses; Packers won 8 games by one score while their 3 losses were by 7, 15, and 29 points.

For comparison, 49ers were also 13-3 and they won 5 games by one score, their 3 losses were by 3, 3, and 7 points. 49ers allowed 4.7 yards per play while gaining 6.0 yards per play. 13-3 is a REALLY good team, and the Packers were good last year but still had significant weaknesses.

 

[PackAttack12]

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

Anyone pretending this doesn’t have something to do with Rodgers’ numbers the past couple seasons are fooling themselves.

 

[gbgary]

And a BETTER and HEALTHIER Rodgers. Nice of you to leave that part out.

that's right. forgot about the health factor. they were worse in 2019 even with a healthier rodgers.

 

[gbgary]

They were wrong as well. I have no idea how it's possible for a team to be considered better or worse than their record indicates as they have to make enough plays to win those games.

come on. i highly doubt you haven't heard the term winning ugly. the passing game was very ugly last season.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

They were wrong as well. I have no idea how it's possible for a team to be considered better or worse than their record indicates as they have to make enough plays to win those games.



First of all the offense scored exactly the same amount of points last season than they did in 2018. In addition Graham and the offensive line weren't improved either.

As a side note please stop using QBR to make a point, it's a terrible metric. According to it Jameis Winston, who threw 30 interceptions and seven pick sixes, had a better season than Rodgers.



Read carefully, I didn't put the Vikings loss against the Packers on Cook but said he wouldn't have made a difference in the game.

The defense wasn't able to contain Mostert as the Niners dominated the LOS. The Vikings offensive line wasn't able to create any holes for their running backs in that game though.

That's a load of hot garbage. Cook is an elite talent, see his performance against the Saints (on the road) who had a better run defense than us. Even if they somehow managed to contain him at the LOS, he would have been found in the passing game. He likely would have put up 200 all-purpose yards against us again, there is no doubt in my mind. Our run defense was brutal last year.

 

[rmontro]

come on. i highly doubt you haven't heard the term winning ugly. the passing game was very ugly last season.

I'm pretty sure even Rodgers used the term winning ugly last year. Anyway, if they win the Super Bowl ugly, I'll take it.

 

[Do7]

that's right. forgot about the health factor. they were worse in 2019 even with a healthier rodgers.

That's a load of bull and you know it Gary. Stop it.