1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Valuable lesson for Rodgers

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by doughsellz, Jan 14, 2010.

  1. Clay's Jock Strap

    Clay's Jock Strap TRK's Hero

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    388
    Ratings:
    +26
    Well then, since I guess I should assume you mean me, please point out my hypocrisy. If you cannot, I suggest you zip your trap and stop assuming what my views are on various topics.
     
  2. angryguy77

    angryguy77 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    384
    Ratings:
    +2
    Tell me, are you as upset at Woodson missing as you are with Favre?

    Will you say that Woodson is as unreliable for showing up as Favre concerning OTA and Mini camps?
     
  3. Clay's Jock Strap

    Clay's Jock Strap TRK's Hero

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    388
    Ratings:
    +26
    Depends on their reasons. If Woodson had no legitimate reason, then I would absolutely be just as upset with him. He is a team leader and he, just like all other "leaders" should lead by example.

    McCarthy has often said he wants 100% (of people that don't have bigger issues) of players at team functions. I don't think he is happy when anyone, let alone his leaders skip. It makes it harder to hold the faces in the crowd accountable and not appear to be a hypocrite. Just because he doesn't undress them in the press doesn't mean he likes it - and my guess is that he doesn't or he wouldn't say things like 'their goal is to have 100% participation.'
     
  4. doughsellz

    doughsellz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2008
    Messages:
    301
    Ratings:
    +2
    OK. You never typed the NAME but there's no mistaking why you wrote what you did. You said Rodgers would be more beneficial since he won't be discussing retirement every off-season, implying that was one reason GB's better off with Rodgers than with his predecessor (quite true). You indirectly made this thread about #4 with that inference. I responded.
     
  5. Clay's Jock Strap

    Clay's Jock Strap TRK's Hero

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    388
    Ratings:
    +26
    Actually, it is pretty hard to praise Rodgers for doing things that are more leader-like than his predecessor without naming favre or bringing him up indirectly. Favre didn't like to participate in camps and OTAs, that is documented fact. Although there was a big age gap, he did a lot of things both in Green Bay and NY to be distant with his teammates, that is documented. Rodgers does things to bond with his team mates. Also, it is hard to deny that it puts a bit of a strain on a team's front office when, for several offseasons in a row, they need to go through free agency and the draft without even knowing who their starting QB is going to be. That is why I made the retirement comment.

    Favre put a lot of strains on the team his last few years, and right now, with AR you don't have any of that. It makes preparation a lot easier and McCarthy doesn't have to worry about looking like the QB's caddy (like the guy in Minnesota right now does) to the rest of HIS team and looking like a court jester.

    Again, if Thompson and McCarthy were wrong about Rodgers, they would look like complete assclowns right now because they would have in effect cut off their nose to spite their face. It is hard to win without a good QB and to kiss off one of the best of all time solely because he had become a diva simply would not have been a good enough reason - they still need to WIN. Rodgers' development makes it look like they made the right call - and IMO it took serious stones to be the guy(s) making a decision like that. If the Packers would currently be floundering with ****** QB play and no end in sight, those two would have been tarred and feathered. Even with Aaron proving to be one of the best young QBs in football, some still want to lynch the management. Again, a very tough business decision had to be made and I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to be the guy to have to do it.
     
  6. angryguy77

    angryguy77 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    384
    Ratings:
    +2
    But you didn't answer the second question. I want to know what you think, not MCburger.

    There is no "if" you can't have one set of rules for one and not the other. You say Favre is unreliable, is Woodson too?
     
  7. Jess

    Jess Movement!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,118
    Ratings:
    +471
    You should know by now, every topic is about Brett Favre. Even if it doesn't start out that way. :lol:
     
  8. Clay's Jock Strap

    Clay's Jock Strap TRK's Hero

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    388
    Ratings:
    +26
    Go back and look at what I typed and differentiate what you think it means from what it actually means.

    I flat out said in my last post...
    Sure looks to be pretty straight forward to me. I don't know WHY Woodson didn't show up. If it is for any reason other than a legitimate one I wouldn't be happy about it, no. We KNOW Favre missed because he is still back on his tractor "wondering if he still wants to play or not." If Wood doesn't have a good reason, if I were McCarthy I'd be telling Charles - "dude, you don't need to participate if that is what keeps you young and fresh for game day, but you DO need to be here to set an example and be a team mate." By the way, the LEADERSHIP part comes from attending team functions. The reliability part comes from not knowing if you are going to have the guy or not - doesn't fit Charles because he isn't supposedly "mulling" retirement. You know damn well he is going to be your starting CB and you don't have to wonder about how to prepare for his possible absence in FA and the draft.
     
  9. Green_Bay_Packers

    Green_Bay_Packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,638
    Ratings:
    +111
    Wooo I agree Brett Favre is rubbish, OH damn it!
     
  10. Clay's Jock Strap

    Clay's Jock Strap TRK's Hero

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    388
    Ratings:
    +26
    I sure don't think Brett set the best leadership examples in his last few years in town, and I also think he behaved in a pretty childish way on his way out of town, but I sure as heck wouldn't go this far (rubbish). I simply think that the pampering and entitlements he grew used to under Sherman and maybe the loss of his dad who was sort of his moral compass, really had a bad effect on him and his judgment. I honestly believe that as he grows older and reflects on things, there is a good chance he will regret some of what he did. Maybe not, but I know I sure as hell regret some of the things I did and some of the ways I behaved when I was younger and a little bit less mature in my thinking. Being right isn't always as important as is doing the right thing and for some folks that just isn't so easy to wrap their head around - especially before they mature a bit. He may think he was "right" but that doesn't make his actions righteous.

    Some people get the impression that I hate Brett. That simply isn't true. I am profoundly disappointed in many of the decisions he chose to make, that is for sure. I feel he crossed a big line going to play for our division rival. I don't think as highly of him as I once did, and as I said in another thread, now he is "dead to me." That is just the Sicilian way of saying that in my world he doesn't exist, and won't for a few years... The Viking thing was really salt in the eyes of Packer fans. There is no other franchise I can think of where the team and fans are so intimately connected. He must know this. If his intention was to get back at the team he had to realize that there would be collateral damage with the fanbase.

    Anyway, this thread is about Aaron. I will not discuss our former QB in it any futher. Actually, I am so sick of, and sickened by the topic that if I discuss it at all it will be in a favre thread.
     
  11. ThinkICare

    ThinkICare Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    711
    Ratings:
    +15
    Way off topic in here, I'll answer the OP. We didn't lose to the Cards because of Rodgers's attitude. I think we would've stopped Warner at least one other time had we had our whole secondary healthy. This is my opinion of course and people can think it wouldn't have made a difference, that's fine.
     
  12. Clay's Jock Strap

    Clay's Jock Strap TRK's Hero

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    388
    Ratings:
    +26
    I think that is spot on. Aaron certainly didn't play perfectly, but Warner just about did. When the opposing QB plays a perfect game it is pretty hard to win. Warner played brilliantly, our defense sucked the big one, there were some really bad calls and no-calls by the zebras.

    Aaron made some mistakes but quite honestly, without him we'd have probably lost by 3-4 TDs. His play for 3/4 of the game was outstanding - almost off the charts. It was marred by a bad INT and some misses on long balls but it was still a hell of a performance by a kid on the road QBing his first playoff game in the NFL. If he doesn't throw that INT we probably win... If he hits Jennings we probably win... But if he plays an "average" game by most QB's standards we would have been killed. If the defense shows up at all we win. That was one of the worst defensive efforts I have ever witnessed in over 3 decades of watching pro football. We didn't stop the pass or the run, but we made up for it by not tackling well and blowing multiple coverage assignments.
     
  13. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    I have a crazy theory that hadn't Pickett been hurt for 3 games, we would've put up a lot more pressure on Warner.

    When he went down, Raji had to step in at NT. Raji was a key rotational player, keeping the 3 DL fresh. Wynn took that job, but didn't deliver.

    So, Capers was forced to play Jolly and Jenkins a lot more snaps than intended. Both clearly worn down late season, and it wasn't because of their age.

    That's one facet of the pass defense. I see three. The other two being the incompetence of the secondary, and the inneptitude of Capers in adapting to quick passing patterns, and fast deliveries by smart, veteran QBs...

    -

    In essence, we couldn't collapse the pocket in time, the secondary couldn't cover the zone, and Capers didn't call for them to bump the receivers to delay their routes and allow our pass rush to get to the QB...
     
  14. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    BTW, Rodgers' first 3+ TD game... He delivered in this game. He was responsible for ALL the staggering 45 points we put. It's not like he played so so and then failed. It's not like in past games he saved us, so he "had credit". No.

    Like you said, if Rodgers doesn't play that game, it's 45-0. Well, another QB would've put up some points, but 45, all by himself?
     
  15. doughsellz

    doughsellz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2008
    Messages:
    301
    Ratings:
    +2
    Actually it seemed to me that in this game AR was under the most psychological pressure since the earlier MN games. Like both of those games his shaky start was part of the reason they fell behind, not so much the game in MN but certainly the Lambeau rematch.

    In his early days #4 seemed to choke when up against teams with elite or outstanding QBs, like he felt he personally had to match them play for play in order to win. Lots of times it wound up costing GB the game as he would force bad throws or lose his pocket awareness.

    AR may have felt similarly going up against a first-ballot HOF QB like Warner & it took until the 2nd half before he settled down. The team responded with outstanding efforts to get open downfield. They deserve as much credit for the comeback as AR.
     
  16. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    Slow start is a problem for him, but mainly for McCarthy. His teams have started slowly almost every single game since he's been here.

    As far as having to match everything Warner did, well, he did. Warner played the best game a QB ever had in post season. That by qb ratings. Rodgers was just about the same.

    He failed in the key play, no doubt about it, but it was because of him we were in OT.

    It's not the same with Favre and the Giants. Yes, Favre had an amazing REGULAR SEASON. But he has a mediocre post season. And then chocked.

    That game, the defense also played mediocre, and the running game was terrible.

    In the AZ game, the running game was terrible, and the defense was abismal.

    The only bright spot was the passing attack.

    That's the difference I see between both situations.

    While in 2007, Favre failed, but he didn't play well, and the defense and running game didn't help.

    Last game, Rodgers failed, but he played very well, and it's not that the defense and running game didn't help; he plain had to overcome them, to even keep us in the game.
     
  17. NYPacker

    NYPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,582
    Ratings:
    +38
    I don't think these issues were prevalent only in the later parts of the season. In fact these problems preexisted in both MN games and the steelers game. Do you remember that 8 seconds in the pocket that BF had in the first MN game? Where was Jolly, Pickett, Jenkins then?
     
  18. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    So you disregard the fact that the defense was new to the team?

    It's not only that. Matthews wasn't playing the way he was late. No Atary Bigby. Barnett still recovering. Aaron Kampman.

    In my mind it's pretty clear the separation before and after the TB game. I don't think it's possible to relate what happened in those games to what happened late in the season. Other than that we can't generate pass rush out of vanilla calls, that we can't collapse the pocket, or cover zone when the opposing qb is getting rid of the ball quickly, and that Capers didn't adjust to those weakness, calling for bump and run coverages...

    I saw it pretty clear that the only DL that generated pass rush was Jenkins. Jolly has tremenduous instincts, and Pickett is one of the best NT IN THE LEAGUE, but they don't get pass rush.

    Jenkins does, but he needs to be fresh...

    And I'm not counting on Raji, who played so so. I still expect him to become dominant. If he's able to do so, it'll go miles towards our team's pass rush, specially when going vanilla.

    I'd still like a second OLB to get anything going. Then, Matthews, Jenkins, Raji and the guy will be a monstruous nickel and dime formation.
     

Share This Page