How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? (1 Viewer)

[Challenge Everything]

He wont because there have been less targets out there. When you are running fewer 4 and 5 WR sets you will have the passing yards less spread out. RBs and TEs will get there share of due to check downs and screen passed. This year for a long stretch Lee was not getting looks in the offense but lately he has gotten them.

Do I need to show you the stats for TE's and RB's this year? He is not spreading the ball around as well as he could be.

Or they are simply not out in pass patterns as much because of the play of the oline.

And that partially falls back on Rodgers/QB. How many sacks has Rodgers taken for holding onto the ball too long? How many times has Rodgers taken off out of the pocket when he had another second to find a receiver? How many times Rodgers not dumped off a pass when he could have? Plenty of times for each. Read the defense, find the hot read, any number of things. The offensive line has played poorly, compared to last year, in run blocking but pass blocking they have not been bad.

Some of it is on Rodgers..plenty of it is on the oline.And how many times when he does get out of the pocket and mae something happen that favre could not do?pass blocking they have not been bad? are you kidding me?

Rodgers has decent stats... he needs protection... the O-line in pass protection has not been bad. Opening running holes they have not done so well. Either you are not giving the O-line enough credit or you are giving Rodgers way too much. I can recall many plays where Favre left the pocket and made a big play. Rodgers is agile but I don't see it where people are claiming he is that much better than Favre at moving around. Favre did not have to move around because the ball was out quickly. Rodgers holds onto that ball and thus the line breaks down sometimes and he has to move... that is on Rodgers. People are making him out to be some kind of Vick like QB because of his scrambling... he is not that either.

 

[sho nuff]

If you are not pointing at the defense being worse, you simply have not been watching.And i love your percentages where you claim teams will key on the packers wrs cause rodgers throws them 71% of the yardage (why not receptions) and Favre threw it to the wrs at 75%. Simply put...your pint is a bit out there.Yes...Favre put it out to a few others...newsflash, they are running less 5 WR sts cause the oline is not protecting aswell, meaning backs and tes are also now being kept in more to help keep rodgers upright.I sought more than a division title. Without winning it all, bringing him back was not the right move unless you like nostalgia.

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Favre throwing for 75% of his yards to WR's using 5 WR's is much more threatening than throwing for 71% of the yardage to 3 WR's. Do you understand this? The 75%/5 is more threatening and tougher to defend than 71%/3.

Basically you talked about how it was easier to key in on wrs...then posted how favre thre to his wrs for a higher percentage of yardage.I understand they are not running as many 4-5wr sets...so your complaint that Rodgers is not spreading it out as much is getting shot down quickly.

Do you not understand this? If I have an offense and I, as the QB, spread it out regularly to 5 guys... that is much more threatening to a defense than throwing 3 guys out there. Does this not compute?

I understand you are foolishly using yradage percentges and ignoring that they are using far fewer 4-5 wr sets.

 

[Challenge Everything]

And judging it based on a percentage of yards is a bit out there. Of course WRs will dominate that. They are more explosive.Look at receptions.favre's top 5 caught 57.2% of his passes.rodgers have caught 63.7%

This does not help your argument either. Rodgers throws to 5 WR's at a 63% clip. Where is that 63% distributed? That 6% is a huge difference because it keeps the defense guessing more. Either you are being really dense with this or you are just arguing to argue.

 

[hauser42]

If you are not pointing at the defense being worse, you simply have not been watching.And i love your percentages where you claim teams will key on the packers wrs cause rodgers throws them 71% of the yardage (why not receptions) and Favre threw it to the wrs at 75%. Simply put...your pint is a bit out there.Yes...Favre put it out to a few others...newsflash, they are running less 5 WR sts cause the oline is not protecting aswell, meaning backs and tes are also now being kept in more to help keep rodgers upright.I sought more than a division title. Without winning it all, bringing him back was not the right move unless you like nostalgia.

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Favre throwing for 75% of his yards to WR's using 5 WR's is much more threatening than throwing for 71% of the yardage to 3 WR's. Do you understand this? The 75%/5 is more threatening and tougher to defend than 71%/3.

Basically you talked about how it was easier to key in on wrs...then posted how favre thre to his wrs for a higher percentage of yardage.I understand they are not running as many 4-5wr sets...so your complaint that Rodgers is not spreading it out as much is getting shot down quickly.

Do you not understand this? If I have an offense and I, as the QB, spread it out regularly to 5 guys... that is much more threatening to a defense than throwing 3 guys out there. Does this not compute?

You are right. But this year the Packers are not putting the 4th and 5th WR on the field like they did last year This is the hole in your statement. Do you watch the Packers play on a regular basis or do you just look at stats?? Taking a look at amount of time that Jones, Martin, and Nelson have been on the field compared to last year when Martin, Jones, and Robinson were on the field will show you how much the offense changed this year.

 

[Challenge Everything]

If you are not pointing at the defense being worse, you simply have not been watching.And i love your percentages where you claim teams will key on the packers wrs cause rodgers throws them 71% of the yardage (why not receptions) and Favre threw it to the wrs at 75%. Simply put...your pint is a bit out there.Yes...Favre put it out to a few others...newsflash, they are running less 5 WR sts cause the oline is not protecting aswell, meaning backs and tes are also now being kept in more to help keep rodgers upright.I sought more than a division title. Without winning it all, bringing him back was not the right move unless you like nostalgia.

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Favre throwing for 75% of his yards to WR's using 5 WR's is much more threatening than throwing for 71% of the yardage to 3 WR's. Do you understand this? The 75%/5 is more threatening and tougher to defend than 71%/3.

Basically you talked about how it was easier to key in on wrs...then posted how favre thre to his wrs for a higher percentage of yardage.I understand they are not running as many 4-5wr sets...so your complaint that Rodgers is not spreading it out as much is getting shot down quickly.

Do you not understand this? If I have an offense and I, as the QB, spread it out regularly to 5 guys... that is much more threatening to a defense than throwing 3 guys out there. Does this not compute?

I understand you are foolishly using yradage percentges and ignoring that they are using far fewer 4-5 wr sets.

And? That is the timid play calling that McCarthy is calling. Why is he calling it that way? Part of the reason is Rodgers and his indecisiveness, lack of hot reading, quick out of the pocket, not spreading the ball around.

 

[sho nuff]

He wont because there have been less targets out there. When you are running fewer 4 and 5 WR sets you will have the passing yards less spread out. RBs and TEs will get there share of due to check downs and screen passed. This year for a long stretch Lee was not getting looks in the offense but lately he has gotten them.

Do I need to show you the stats for TE's and RB's this year? He is not spreading the ball around as well as he could be.

Or they are simply not out in pass patterns as much because of the play of the oline.

And that partially falls back on Rodgers/QB. How many sacks has Rodgers taken for holding onto the ball too long? How many times has Rodgers taken off out of the pocket when he had another second to find a receiver? How many times Rodgers not dumped off a pass when he could have? Plenty of times for each. Read the defense, find the hot read, any number of things. The offensive line has played poorly, compared to last year, in run blocking but pass blocking they have not been bad.

Some of it is on Rodgers..plenty of it is on the oline.And how many times when he does get out of the pocket and mae something happen that favre could not do?pass blocking they have not been bad? are you kidding me?

Rodgers has decent stats... he needs protection... the O-line in pass protection has not been bad. Opening running holes they have not done so well. Either you are not giving the O-line enough credit or you are giving Rodgers way too much. I can recall many plays where Favre left the pocket and made a big play. Rodgers is agile but I don't see it where people are claiming he is that much better than Favre at moving around. Favre did not have to move around because the ball was out quickly. Rodgers holds onto that ball and thus the line breaks down sometimes and he has to move... that is on Rodgers. People are making him out to be some kind of Vick like QB because of his scrambling... he is not that either.

Rodgers has held the ball too long some...but had not time at all in other instances.I dont believe im giving him too much credit...nor being too hard on the line.Its not all run blocking that had clifton working more in practice this year.The line has been ok at times...downright bad at others.And nobody is making him out to be cick like at all. Where are you getting that?Simply just more able to run than Favre.

 

[Challenge Everything]

But this year the Packers are not putting the 4th and 5th WR on the field like they did last year This is the hole in your statement. Do you watch the Packers play on a regular basis or do you just look at stats?? Taking a look at amount of time that Jones, Martin, and Nelson have been on the field compared to last year when Martin, Jones, and Robinson were on the field will show you how much the offense changed this year.

BINGO!! What changed on offense? What position changed and does that cause a dramatic effect on the offense? Answer = Yes.Again, injuries happen, not an excuse.

 

[hauser42]

If you are not pointing at the defense being worse, you simply have not been watching.And i love your percentages where you claim teams will key on the packers wrs cause rodgers throws them 71% of the yardage (why not receptions) and Favre threw it to the wrs at 75%. Simply put...your pint is a bit out there.Yes...Favre put it out to a few others...newsflash, they are running less 5 WR sts cause the oline is not protecting aswell, meaning backs and tes are also now being kept in more to help keep rodgers upright.I sought more than a division title. Without winning it all, bringing him back was not the right move unless you like nostalgia.

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Favre throwing for 75% of his yards to WR's using 5 WR's is much more threatening than throwing for 71% of the yardage to 3 WR's. Do you understand this? The 75%/5 is more threatening and tougher to defend than 71%/3.

Basically you talked about how it was easier to key in on wrs...then posted how favre thre to his wrs for a higher percentage of yardage.I understand they are not running as many 4-5wr sets...so your complaint that Rodgers is not spreading it out as much is getting shot down quickly.

Do you not understand this? If I have an offense and I, as the QB, spread it out regularly to 5 guys... that is much more threatening to a defense than throwing 3 guys out there. Does this not compute?

I understand you are foolishly using yradage percentges and ignoring that they are using far fewer 4-5 wr sets.

And? That is the timid play calling that McCarthy is calling. Why is he calling it that way? Part of the reason is Rodgers and his indecisiveness, lack of hot reading, quick out of the pocket, not spreading the ball around.

I am sorry but HOLY #@#@ you know what plays have been called and what has been changed at the line?? Tell me what the lottery numbers so I can retire this week. There is NO WAY you know this.

 

[sho nuff]

And judging it based on a percentage of yards is a bit out there. Of course WRs will dominate that. They are more explosive.Look at receptions.favre's top 5 caught 57.2% of his passes.rodgers have caught 63.7%

This does not help your argument either. Rodgers throws to 5 WR's at a 63% clip. Where is that 63% distributed? That 6% is a huge difference because it keeps the defense guessing more. Either you are being really dense with this or you are just arguing to argue.

Id say the same about you even attempting to use yardage. Biut no need for that.I just dont think you made your point nearly as strong as you think you did and have ignored several factors.

 

[sho nuff]

If you are not pointing at the defense being worse, you simply have not been watching.And i love your percentages where you claim teams will key on the packers wrs cause rodgers throws them 71% of the yardage (why not receptions) and Favre threw it to the wrs at 75%. Simply put...your pint is a bit out there.Yes...Favre put it out to a few others...newsflash, they are running less 5 WR sts cause the oline is not protecting aswell, meaning backs and tes are also now being kept in more to help keep rodgers upright.I sought more than a division title. Without winning it all, bringing him back was not the right move unless you like nostalgia.

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Favre throwing for 75% of his yards to WR's using 5 WR's is much more threatening than throwing for 71% of the yardage to 3 WR's. Do you understand this? The 75%/5 is more threatening and tougher to defend than 71%/3.

Basically you talked about how it was easier to key in on wrs...then posted how favre thre to his wrs for a higher percentage of yardage.I understand they are not running as many 4-5wr sets...so your complaint that Rodgers is not spreading it out as much is getting shot down quickly.

Do you not understand this? If I have an offense and I, as the QB, spread it out regularly to 5 guys... that is much more threatening to a defense than throwing 3 guys out there. Does this not compute?

I understand you are foolishly using yradage percentges and ignoring that they are using far fewer 4-5 wr sets.

And? That is the timid play calling that McCarthy is calling. Why is he calling it that way? Part of the reason is Rodgers and his indecisiveness, lack of hot reading, quick out of the pocket, not spreading the ball around.

That is your opinion. Though, it ignores the injuries to jones and martin and how both have been inactive for several games.

 

[sho nuff]

But this year the Packers are not putting the 4th and 5th WR on the field like they did last year This is the hole in your statement. Do you watch the Packers play on a regular basis or do you just look at stats?? Taking a look at amount of time that Jones, Martin, and Nelson have been on the field compared to last year when Martin, Jones, and Robinson were on the field will show you how much the offense changed this year.

BINGO!! What changed on offense? What position changed and does that cause a dramatic effect on the offense? Answer = Yes.Again, injuries happen, not an excuse.

When injuries keep wrs from being active..its a very valid reason, you just dont like it because it hurts your argument.

 

[Phase of the Game]

If you are not pointing at the defense being worse, you simply have not been watching.And i love your percentages where you claim teams will key on the packers wrs cause rodgers throws them 71% of the yardage (why not receptions) and Favre threw it to the wrs at 75%. Simply put...your pint is a bit out there.Yes...Favre put it out to a few others...newsflash, they are running less 5 WR sts cause the oline is not protecting aswell, meaning backs and tes are also now being kept in more to help keep rodgers upright.I sought more than a division title. Without winning it all, bringing him back was not the right move unless you like nostalgia.

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Favre throwing for 75% of his yards to WR's using 5 WR's is much more threatening than throwing for 71% of the yardage to 3 WR's. Do you understand this? The 75%/5 is more threatening and tougher to defend than 71%/3.

Basically you talked about how it was easier to key in on wrs...then posted how favre thre to his wrs for a higher percentage of yardage.I understand they are not running as many 4-5wr sets...so your complaint that Rodgers is not spreading it out as much is getting shot down quickly.

Do you not understand this? If I have an offense and I, as the QB, spread it out regularly to 5 guys... that is much more threatening to a defense than throwing 3 guys out there. Does this not compute?

I understand you are foolishly using yradage percentges and ignoring that they are using far fewer 4-5 wr sets.

And? That is the timid play calling that McCarthy is calling. Why is he calling it that way? Part of the reason is Rodgers and his indecisiveness, lack of hot reading, quick out of the pocket, not spreading the ball around.

That is your opinion. Though, it ignores the injuries to jones and martin and how both have been inactive for several games.

McCarthy's conversative play calling has little to do with Jones and Martin.

 

[sho nuff]

If you are not pointing at the defense being worse, you simply have not been watching.And i love your percentages where you claim teams will key on the packers wrs cause rodgers throws them 71% of the yardage (why not receptions) and Favre threw it to the wrs at 75%. Simply put...your pint is a bit out there.Yes...Favre put it out to a few others...newsflash, they are running less 5 WR sts cause the oline is not protecting aswell, meaning backs and tes are also now being kept in more to help keep rodgers upright.I sought more than a division title. Without winning it all, bringing him back was not the right move unless you like nostalgia.

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Favre throwing for 75% of his yards to WR's using 5 WR's is much more threatening than throwing for 71% of the yardage to 3 WR's. Do you understand this? The 75%/5 is more threatening and tougher to defend than 71%/3.

Basically you talked about how it was easier to key in on wrs...then posted how favre thre to his wrs for a higher percentage of yardage.I understand they are not running as many 4-5wr sets...so your complaint that Rodgers is not spreading it out as much is getting shot down quickly.

Do you not understand this? If I have an offense and I, as the QB, spread it out regularly to 5 guys... that is much more threatening to a defense than throwing 3 guys out there. Does this not compute?

I understand you are foolishly using yradage percentges and ignoring that they are using far fewer 4-5 wr sets.

And? That is the timid play calling that McCarthy is calling. Why is he calling it that way? Part of the reason is Rodgers and his indecisiveness, lack of hot reading, quick out of the pocket, not spreading the ball around.

That is your opinion. Though, it ignores the injuries to jones and martin and how both have been inactive for several games.

McCarthy's conversative play calling has little to do with Jones and Martin.

So he is supposed to play a 5 WR set when he only has 4 active WRs on the gameday roster?Some of it is on Rodgers sure (part of that expected dropoff)...though, at times, he gets too agressive with him too IMO rather than just running the ball when its working (the TN game and parts of the Minny and NO games come to mind).

 

[zDragon]

So the Packers score 31 points and lose and it's Rogers's fault? Is that really where people are trying to go with this?

Obviously, he should have led the Packers to a comeback victory, like Brett Favre always did.Like in this game from 2006:1-10-GB 41 (3:09) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to D.Martin to GB 48 for 7 yards (R.Harper, S.Fujita).2-3-GB 48 (2:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to D.Martin to NO 44 for 8 yards (S.Fujita).1-10-NO 44 (2:17) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to A.Green.2-10-NO 44 (2:10) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to D.Martin.3-10-NO 44 (2:07) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to G.Jennings.4-10-NO 44 (2:02) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to R.Ferguson. Yard marker changed due to change of possession. The Saints ran out the clock, and won 34-27.Ooops. Or maybe like this one:2-2-STL 20 (1:00) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short left to G.Jennings to STL 11 for 9 yards (O.Atogwe).1-10-STL 11 45) (No Huddle) B.Favre spiked the ball to stop the clock.2-10-STL 11 44) (Shotgun) B.Favre sacked at STL 18 for -7 yards (L.Little). FUMBLES (L.Little), touched at STL 15, RECOVERED by STL-J.Butler at STL 13. J.Butler to STL 13 for no gain (S.Wells). The Rams ran out the clock, and won 23-20.Oooops.1-10-BUF 39 (1:47) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to D.Martin (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 32.2-10-BUF 39 (1:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to N.Herron (L.Tripplett, L.Fletcher-Baker). Pass tipped at line, then tipped in coverage at BUF 35.3-10-BUF 39 (1:37) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to D.Driver (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 21.4-10-BUF 39 (1:32) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep middle to D.Driver [C.Kelsay]. The Bills ran out the clock, and won 24-10.Ooooops.1-15-GB 49 25) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to 88-B.Franks.2-15-GB 49 25) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass deep right to 80-D.Driver to SEA 27 for 24 yards (26-K.Hamlin, 59-J.Peterson). PENALTY on GB, Illegal Shift, 5 yards, enforced at GB 49 - No Play.2-20-GB 44 16) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass short middle to 23-N.Herron to SEA 45 for 11 yards (98-G.Wistrom, 59-J.Peterson).3-9-SEA 45 01) (No Huddle) 4-B.Favre sacked at 50 for -5 yards (55-D.Tapp). FUMBLES (55-D.Tapp), RECOVERED by SEA-93-C.Terrill at SEA 46. 93-C.Terrill, dead ball declared at GB 49 for 5 yards.The Seahawks ran out the clock, and won 34-24.Oooooops.Well, the hell with that. We know that Brett Favre led them to comeback victory, time after time.

Interesting you all the sudden bring Favre into it. Your last statement is correct though. Brett did lead a lot of comeback victories as have other QB's.Wohy is it so offensive to say that Rodgers lack of experience hurts them in those type of situations. Sure Brett might have thrown the same pick but until Rodgers get the experience close games are going to have the same statements made over and over.

All of a sudden bring Favre into it?Ummm...who else are we to compare Rodgers to in this thread?

I meant as in bashing Favre because someone mentioned Rodgers did not have experience in the situation.

Its not bashing him..its bringing up that recently he has struggled in these comebacks...he even mentioned it in retirement that people expecting it wore on him big time.

If that's the case then it make sense. I took it as a bash on what was said.

 

[Challenge Everything]

But this year the Packers are not putting the 4th and 5th WR on the field like they did last year This is the hole in your statement. Do you watch the Packers play on a regular basis or do you just look at stats?? Taking a look at amount of time that Jones, Martin, and Nelson have been on the field compared to last year when Martin, Jones, and Robinson were on the field will show you how much the offense changed this year.

BINGO!! What changed on offense? What position changed and does that cause a dramatic effect on the offense? Answer = Yes.Again, injuries happen, not an excuse.

When injuries keep wrs from being active..its a very valid reason, you just dont like it because it hurts your argument.

If a player gets injured does the team not replace them with a similar positional player? Have the Packers gone into games with only 3 active WR's? And, again, injuries are simply and excuse. Rodgers has not spread the ball around, this is not difficult to understand.

 

[Phase of the Game]

If you are not pointing at the defense being worse, you simply have not been watching.And i love your percentages where you claim teams will key on the packers wrs cause rodgers throws them 71% of the yardage (why not receptions) and Favre threw it to the wrs at 75%. Simply put...your pint is a bit out there.Yes...Favre put it out to a few others...newsflash, they are running less 5 WR sts cause the oline is not protecting aswell, meaning backs and tes are also now being kept in more to help keep rodgers upright.I sought more than a division title. Without winning it all, bringing him back was not the right move unless you like nostalgia.

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Favre throwing for 75% of his yards to WR's using 5 WR's is much more threatening than throwing for 71% of the yardage to 3 WR's. Do you understand this? The 75%/5 is more threatening and tougher to defend than 71%/3.

Basically you talked about how it was easier to key in on wrs...then posted how favre thre to his wrs for a higher percentage of yardage.I understand they are not running as many 4-5wr sets...so your complaint that Rodgers is not spreading it out as much is getting shot down quickly.

Do you not understand this? If I have an offense and I, as the QB, spread it out regularly to 5 guys... that is much more threatening to a defense than throwing 3 guys out there. Does this not compute?

I understand you are foolishly using yradage percentges and ignoring that they are using far fewer 4-5 wr sets.

And? That is the timid play calling that McCarthy is calling. Why is he calling it that way? Part of the reason is Rodgers and his indecisiveness, lack of hot reading, quick out of the pocket, not spreading the ball around.

That is your opinion. Though, it ignores the injuries to jones and martin and how both have been inactive for several games.

McCarthy's conversative play calling has little to do with Jones and Martin.

So he is supposed to play a 5 WR set when he only has 4 active WRs on the gameday roster?Some of it is on Rodgers sure (part of that expected dropoff)...though, at times, he gets too agressive with him too IMO rather than just running the ball when its working (the TN game and parts of the Minny and NO games come to mind).

Again.....it doesn't matter if he has 4 or 5 active WRs. If you would wake up you would know that has nothing to do with how McCarthy has called games. The main reason is how he is handling Rodgers and he needs to take the noose off him just like Holmgren did early in Favre's career. Do you remember how we both commented that it was nice to see McCarthy get creative against the Bears. He needs to go back to that.One prime example of being conservative is the 3 running plays called near the end of the game against the Panthers. That was just terrible not trying to bootleg Rodgers or having him try one pass.

 

[sho nuff]

But this year the Packers are not putting the 4th and 5th WR on the field like they did last year This is the hole in your statement. Do you watch the Packers play on a regular basis or do you just look at stats?? Taking a look at amount of time that Jones, Martin, and Nelson have been on the field compared to last year when Martin, Jones, and Robinson were on the field will show you how much the offense changed this year.

BINGO!! What changed on offense? What position changed and does that cause a dramatic effect on the offense? Answer = Yes.Again, injuries happen, not an excuse.

When injuries keep wrs from being active..its a very valid reason, you just dont like it because it hurts your argument.

If a player gets injured does the team not replace them with a similar positional player? Have the Packers gone into games with only 3 active WR's? And, again, injuries are simply and excuse. Rodgers has not spread the ball around, this is not difficult to understand.

They have gone in several times with 4 WRs. And with one of them dinged up, they don't play him unless they need him.Injuries are a very valid reason to not be playing 4-5 WR sets...again, you don't like it because it hurts your argument.Its a total of 6% difference between he and Favre on how much they gave the ball to their WRs.Rodgers is skewed a little more towards the top 3...as they have been active far more than the other 2. Shocking how that would happen huh?

 

[sho nuff]

If you are not pointing at the defense being worse, you simply have not been watching.

And i love your percentages where you claim teams will key on the packers wrs cause rodgers throws them 71% of the yardage (why not receptions) and Favre threw it to the wrs at 75%. Simply put...your pint is a bit out there.

Yes...Favre put it out to a few others...newsflash, they are running less 5 WR sts cause the oline is not protecting aswell, meaning backs and tes are also now being kept in more to help keep rodgers upright.

I sought more than a division title. Without winning it all, bringing him back was not the right move unless you like nostalgia.

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Favre throwing for 75% of his yards to WR's using 5 WR's is much more threatening than throwing for 71% of the yardage to 3 WR's. Do you understand this? The 75%/5 is more threatening and tougher to defend than 71%/3.

Basically you talked about how it was easier to key in on wrs...then posted how favre thre to his wrs for a higher percentage of yardage.I understand they are not running as many 4-5wr sets...so your complaint that Rodgers is not spreading it out as much is getting shot down quickly.

Do you not understand this? If I have an offense and I, as the QB, spread it out regularly to 5 guys... that is much more threatening to a defense than throwing 3 guys out there. Does this not compute?

I understand you are foolishly using yradage percentges and ignoring that they are using far fewer 4-5 wr sets.

And? That is the timid play calling that McCarthy is calling. Why is he calling it that way? Part of the reason is Rodgers and his indecisiveness, lack of hot reading, quick out of the pocket, not spreading the ball around.

That is your opinion. Though, it ignores the injuries to jones and martin and how both have been inactive for several games.

McCarthy's conversative play calling has little to do with Jones and Martin.

So he is supposed to play a 5 WR set when he only has 4 active WRs on the gameday roster?Some of it is on Rodgers sure (part of that expected dropoff)...though, at times, he gets too agressive with him too IMO rather than just running the ball when its working (the TN game and parts of the Minny and NO games come to mind).

Again.....it doesn't matter if he has 4 or 5 active WRs. If you would wake up you would know that has nothing to do with how McCarthy has called games. The main reason is how he is handling Rodgers and he needs to take the noose off him just like Holmgren did early in Favre's career. Do you remember how we both commented that it was nice to see McCarthy get creative against the Bears. He needs to go back to that.One prime example of being conservative is the 3 running plays called near the end of the game against the Panthers. That was just terrible not trying to bootleg Rodgers or having him try one pass.

We were specifically discussing 4-5 WR sets. You might want to keep up with that. I bolded it for you so you realize that is what was being referred to when the question was asked why is McCarthy calling it that way.I agree that Id like to see him let Rodgers loose a bit more.

And I agree the goalline set there was bad...as was the set right before the Crosby FG attempt in Minny.

But for the sake of what was being said here...there was a direct reference to 4-5 WR sets.

 

[hauser42]

But this year the Packers are not putting the 4th and 5th WR on the field like they did last year This is the hole in your statement. Do you watch the Packers play on a regular basis or do you just look at stats?? Taking a look at amount of time that Jones, Martin, and Nelson have been on the field compared to last year when Martin, Jones, and Robinson were on the field will show you how much the offense changed this year.

BINGO!! What changed on offense? What position changed and does that cause a dramatic effect on the offense? Answer = Yes.Again, injuries happen, not an excuse.

When injuries keep wrs from being active..its a very valid reason, you just dont like it because it hurts your argument.

If a player gets injured does the team not replace them with a similar positional player? Have the Packers gone into games with only 3 active WR's? And, again, injuries are simply and excuse. Rodgers has not spread the ball around, this is not difficult to understand.

No they have gone in with only 4 WRs. There are no simple excuses as you say. But to blatanly deny that the Packers have not run the same sets as last year and thus not allowing the chances for the lower WRs to gain yardage is being bullheaded.Packers have also tried to run the ball more than they did earlier last year, but that doens't even get consideration in this thread?? How about last year 388 carries this year already with 4 games left 333. This shows there have been less chances to spread the ball around to the WRs, but the RBs have had chances with carries.

 

[hauser42]

If you are not pointing at the defense being worse, you simply have not been watching.And i love your percentages where you claim teams will key on the packers wrs cause rodgers throws them 71% of the yardage (why not receptions) and Favre threw it to the wrs at 75%. Simply put...your pint is a bit out there.Yes...Favre put it out to a few others...newsflash, they are running less 5 WR sts cause the oline is not protecting aswell, meaning backs and tes are also now being kept in more to help keep rodgers upright.I sought more than a division title. Without winning it all, bringing him back was not the right move unless you like nostalgia.

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Favre throwing for 75% of his yards to WR's using 5 WR's is much more threatening than throwing for 71% of the yardage to 3 WR's. Do you understand this? The 75%/5 is more threatening and tougher to defend than 71%/3.

Basically you talked about how it was easier to key in on wrs...then posted how favre thre to his wrs for a higher percentage of yardage.I understand they are not running as many 4-5wr sets...so your complaint that Rodgers is not spreading it out as much is getting shot down quickly.

Do you not understand this? If I have an offense and I, as the QB, spread it out regularly to 5 guys... that is much more threatening to a defense than throwing 3 guys out there. Does this not compute?

I understand you are foolishly using yradage percentges and ignoring that they are using far fewer 4-5 wr sets.

And? That is the timid play calling that McCarthy is calling. Why is he calling it that way? Part of the reason is Rodgers and his indecisiveness, lack of hot reading, quick out of the pocket, not spreading the ball around.

That is your opinion. Though, it ignores the injuries to jones and martin and how both have been inactive for several games.

McCarthy's conversative play calling has little to do with Jones and Martin.

So he is supposed to play a 5 WR set when he only has 4 active WRs on the gameday roster?Some of it is on Rodgers sure (part of that expected dropoff)...though, at times, he gets too agressive with him too IMO rather than just running the ball when its working (the TN game and parts of the Minny and NO games come to mind).

Again.....it doesn't matter if he has 4 or 5 active WRs. If you would wake up you would know that has nothing to do with how McCarthy has called games. The main reason is how he is handling Rodgers and he needs to take the noose off him just like Holmgren did early in Favre's career. Do you remember how we both commented that it was nice to see McCarthy get creative against the Bears. He needs to go back to that.One prime example of being conservative is the 3 running plays called near the end of the game against the Panthers. That was just terrible not trying to bootleg Rodgers or having him try one pass.

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

 

[Challenge Everything]

They have gone in several times with 4 WRs. And with one of them dinged up, they don't play him unless they need him. Injuries are a very valid reason to not be playing 4-5 WR sets...again, you don't like it because it hurts your argument. Its a total of 6% difference between he and Favre on how much they gave the ball to their WRs. Rodgers is skewed a little more towards the top 3...as they have been active far more than the other 2. Shocking how that would happen huh?

Why are you making this personal?

 

[sho nuff]

They have gone in several times with 4 WRs. And with one of them dinged up, they don't play him unless they need him. Injuries are a very valid reason to not be playing 4-5 WR sets...again, you don't like it because it hurts your argument. Its a total of 6% difference between he and Favre on how much they gave the ball to their WRs. Rodgers is skewed a little more towards the top 3...as they have been active far more than the other 2. Shocking how that would happen huh?

Why are you making this personal?

Im not actually.Im discussing the topic.But nice try.Maybe you should again post about how many times I have posted in that thread.That always makes me laugh.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Maybe you should again post about how many times I have posted in that thread.

352 ... a good 3.5:1 over 2nd place. That is not even funny but rather sad.

 

[Sabertooth]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Anyone who thinks the Packers haven't been impacted by the loss of Favre have not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Anyone who thinks that anyone is saying that the Packers haven't been impacted by the Prima Donna doesn't know anything about football.

 

[Sabertooth]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

 

[hauser42]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

I have heard this also and should come at very little suprise to anyone. He was a running QB in high school, partied most of the time in college, and stayed out late in his younger years.Over time I think he figured out what defensed tried to throw at him.I would agree that there has been an effect by Favre being gone from the Packers this year, but it is a lot less than most think. Rodgers has played very well and better than most fans would have thought.If Brett stayed at home and retired there would be so less talk of this and no thread on the forum this long. Now these are both assumptions of mine.

 

[sho nuff]

Maybe you should again post about how many times I have posted in that thread.

352 ... a good 3.5:1 over 2nd place. That is not even funny but rather sad.

What is sad is that you keep track of that and think it means anything more than that I have posted alot.

 

[sho nuff]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

How long did Manning live with the choke in the big game or choke with the game on the line label?Not even one full season in, people already trying to label Rodgers with that. Pretty funny.NOTE: Please people don't spin this into thinking I am comparing Aaron Rodgers with Peyton Manning.As for the Detmer thing...it was on the special the NFL network did with a few of Brett's former backups...and yes it was Detmer who said it.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

Not even one full season in, people already trying to label Rodgers with that.

You are really a piece of work, sho. NO ONE HAS TRIED TO LABEL RODGERS AS A CHOKER!And you claim you never spin!

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

If you would have payed attention during Favre's career with the Packers you would have heard every NFL expert state that reading defenses was a strength of Favre's.

 

[Phase of the Game]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

Where did I write that he didn't keep the reins tight? I acknowledged that Holmgren had a noose around Favre early in his career.

 

[Sabertooth]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

If you would have payed attention during Favre's career with the Packers you would have heard every NFL expert state that reading defenses was a strength of Favre's.

Link please?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

If you would have payed attention during Favre's career with the Packers you would have heard every NFL expert state that reading defenses was a strength of Favre's.

Link please?

I'll give you a few but I know it won't matter because you are biased against Favre. For those that have followed the Packers and Favre they know that he made a lot of strides under Holmgren learning how to read defenses since he came from a run based offense. As his career progressed it was well known how much Favre improved at reading defenses and that progressed into becoming one of his strengths.http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/articl...0636/1058/PKR01

"He emitted a country bumpkin persona, yet was sharp as a tack and a genius in reading defenses and people."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/155066_hawk02.html

"He's great at reading defenses. He's great at seeing whether the defense is tipping that they're coming or not," Okeafor said. "He's got savvy and he's played a long time. So it's not like we're going to give him a look he hasn't seen before."

Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren, who coached Favre for seven seasons early in the quarterback's Hall of Fame career, concedes as much.

 

[sho nuff]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

Not even one full season in, people already trying to label Rodgers with that.

You are really a piece of work, sho. NO ONE HAS TRIED TO LABEL RODGERS AS A CHOKER!And you claim you never spin!

What do you think people who are bringing up him being 0-4 in the close games are saying?What do you think people saying he needs to show he can bring them back from behind late in a game are saying?They have not used the word choker...but the sentiment still applies. Not everyone used the word choker with Manning.But said he could not win the big game or come up big in the clutch.THe point stands, not even a full season in and people are trying to say the same things about Rodgers.Deny it all you want...but why else is the 0-4 number being thrown out there several times now?

 

[sho nuff]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

If you would have payed attention during Favre's career with the Packers you would have heard every NFL expert state that reading defenses was a strength of Favre's.

I agree...after a solid tutoring he learned these things well.When he started...he did not care...his thought was "nickel...5 DBs...who cares, is the WR open or not".He matured big time for sure under holmgren with guys like Mooch and McCarthy coaching him as well as QB coach.Some of that seemed to get away under Rhodes and Sherman as they just let him do whatever.McCarthy again brought him back in a bit and he looks to be doing that more now in the past few games with the Jets too.I thought he may have lost his shot at an MVP with his performance Sunday but Warner, Brees, and Portis did nothing to help their cases.ADP may just sneak up and take it if he keeps up and helps the VIkings overcome losing the Williams boys.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

Not even one full season in, people already trying to label Rodgers with that.

You are really a piece of work, sho. NO ONE HAS TRIED TO LABEL RODGERS AS A CHOKER!And you claim you never spin!

What do you think people who are bringing up him being 0-4 in the close games are saying?What do you think people saying he needs to show he can bring them back from behind late in a game are saying?They have not used the word choker...but the sentiment still applies. Not everyone used the word choker with Manning.But said he could not win the big game or come up big in the clutch.THe point stands, not even a full season in and people are trying to say the same things about Rodgers.Deny it all you want...but why else is the 0-4 number being thrown out there several times now?

You are beyond pathetic. Just because it has been pointed out he is 0-4 in close games DOES NOT IMPLY HE IS A CHOKER! You want to read it that way due to your blind homerism.The fact is he is playing well but is 0-4 in crunch time. Does that make him a choker? HELL NO! All is shows is that he is a young QB that hopefully can learn from the adversity and take a step to the next level in his career. As a Packer fan I hope he does that. At this EARLY POINT in his career he hasn't. No one is ready to proclaim Rodgers as a choker after only 12 starts. You are the only one that is trying to spin that. Please, please take the homer glasses off for one day.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

Not even one full season in, people already trying to label Rodgers with that.

You are really a piece of work, sho. NO ONE HAS TRIED TO LABEL RODGERS AS A CHOKER!And you claim you never spin!

What do you think people who are bringing up him being 0-4 in the close games are saying?What do you think people saying he needs to show he can bring them back from behind late in a game are saying?They have not used the word choker...but the sentiment still applies. Not everyone used the word choker with Manning.But said he could not win the big game or come up big in the clutch.THe point stands, not even a full season in and people are trying to say the same things about Rodgers.Deny it all you want...but why else is the 0-4 number being thrown out there several times now?

You are beyond pathetic. Just because it has been pointed out he is 0-4 in close games DOES NOT IMPLY HE IS A CHOKER! You want to read it that way due to your blind homerism.The fact is he is playing well but is 0-4 in crunch time. Does that make him a choker? HELL NO! All is shows is that he is a young QB that hopefully can learn from the adversity and take a step to the next level in his career. As a Packer fan I hope he does that. At this EARLY POINT in his career he hasn't. No one is ready to proclaim Rodgers as a choker after only 12 starts. You are the only one that is trying to spin that. Please, please take the homer glasses off for one day.

sho....enough on trying to spin this one. It hurts you even more in this thread.

 

[sho nuff]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

Not even one full season in, people already trying to label Rodgers with that.

You are really a piece of work, sho. NO ONE HAS TRIED TO LABEL RODGERS AS A CHOKER!And you claim you never spin!

What do you think people who are bringing up him being 0-4 in the close games are saying?What do you think people saying he needs to show he can bring them back from behind late in a game are saying?They have not used the word choker...but the sentiment still applies. Not everyone used the word choker with Manning.But said he could not win the big game or come up big in the clutch.THe point stands, not even a full season in and people are trying to say the same things about Rodgers.Deny it all you want...but why else is the 0-4 number being thrown out there several times now?

You are beyond pathetic. Just because it has been pointed out he is 0-4 in close games DOES NOT IMPLY HE IS A CHOKER! You want to read it that way due to your blind homerism.The fact is he is playing well but is 0-4 in crunch time. Does that make him a choker? HELL NO! All is shows is that he is a young QB that hopefully can learn from the adversity and take a step to the next level in his career. As a Packer fan I hope he does that. At this EARLY POINT in his career he hasn't. No one is ready to proclaim Rodgers as a choker after only 12 starts. You are the only one that is trying to spin that. Please, please take the homer glasses off for one day.

You are stuck on the word choker.But thanks for saying its because of blind homerism. There is nothing blind about it.Read these threads...the 0-4 number has been getting thrown up there...as in he has not shown the ability to come through.Thanks for also calling me "beyond pathetic"...good to know that you want to sling insults even when you try discussing the topic.Its not spin, its not homer glasses. Its what I have seen on multiple boards now after this last game. Sorry you don't see it or can't handle it.And you know why I say its not homer? Because I defended Peyton Manning from the same crap too. Last time I checked, I am no Indy fan.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

Not even one full season in, people already trying to label Rodgers with that.

You are really a piece of work, sho. NO ONE HAS TRIED TO LABEL RODGERS AS A CHOKER!And you claim you never spin!

What do you think people who are bringing up him being 0-4 in the close games are saying?What do you think people saying he needs to show he can bring them back from behind late in a game are saying?They have not used the word choker...but the sentiment still applies. Not everyone used the word choker with Manning.But said he could not win the big game or come up big in the clutch.THe point stands, not even a full season in and people are trying to say the same things about Rodgers.Deny it all you want...but why else is the 0-4 number being thrown out there several times now?

You are beyond pathetic. Just because it has been pointed out he is 0-4 in close games DOES NOT IMPLY HE IS A CHOKER! You want to read it that way due to your blind homerism.The fact is he is playing well but is 0-4 in crunch time. Does that make him a choker? HELL NO! All is shows is that he is a young QB that hopefully can learn from the adversity and take a step to the next level in his career. As a Packer fan I hope he does that. At this EARLY POINT in his career he hasn't. No one is ready to proclaim Rodgers as a choker after only 12 starts. You are the only one that is trying to spin that. Please, please take the homer glasses off for one day.

You are stuck on the word choker.

YOU BROUGHT IT UP!!!!!!

 

[sho nuff]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

Not even one full season in, people already trying to label Rodgers with that.

You are really a piece of work, sho. NO ONE HAS TRIED TO LABEL RODGERS AS A CHOKER!And you claim you never spin!

What do you think people who are bringing up him being 0-4 in the close games are saying?What do you think people saying he needs to show he can bring them back from behind late in a game are saying?They have not used the word choker...but the sentiment still applies. Not everyone used the word choker with Manning.But said he could not win the big game or come up big in the clutch.THe point stands, not even a full season in and people are trying to say the same things about Rodgers.Deny it all you want...but why else is the 0-4 number being thrown out there several times now?

You are beyond pathetic. Just because it has been pointed out he is 0-4 in close games DOES NOT IMPLY HE IS A CHOKER! You want to read it that way due to your blind homerism.The fact is he is playing well but is 0-4 in crunch time. Does that make him a choker? HELL NO! All is shows is that he is a young QB that hopefully can learn from the adversity and take a step to the next level in his career. As a Packer fan I hope he does that. At this EARLY POINT in his career he hasn't. No one is ready to proclaim Rodgers as a choker after only 12 starts. You are the only one that is trying to spin that. Please, please take the homer glasses off for one day.

sho....enough on trying to spin this one. It hurts you even more in this thread.

Thanks for the support stinger...though, coming from someone who tried denying something someone said earlier, you don't have much credibility on this.Do you deny people have been bringing up the 0-4 number?Don't get stuck on the word choker, I admit that was strong language and a mistake.Take that word out...the point still remains.

 

[sho nuff]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

Not even one full season in, people already trying to label Rodgers with that.

You are really a piece of work, sho. NO ONE HAS TRIED TO LABEL RODGERS AS A CHOKER!And you claim you never spin!

What do you think people who are bringing up him being 0-4 in the close games are saying?What do you think people saying he needs to show he can bring them back from behind late in a game are saying?They have not used the word choker...but the sentiment still applies. Not everyone used the word choker with Manning.But said he could not win the big game or come up big in the clutch.THe point stands, not even a full season in and people are trying to say the same things about Rodgers.Deny it all you want...but why else is the 0-4 number being thrown out there several times now?

You are beyond pathetic. Just because it has been pointed out he is 0-4 in close games DOES NOT IMPLY HE IS A CHOKER! You want to read it that way due to your blind homerism.The fact is he is playing well but is 0-4 in crunch time. Does that make him a choker? HELL NO! All is shows is that he is a young QB that hopefully can learn from the adversity and take a step to the next level in his career. As a Packer fan I hope he does that. At this EARLY POINT in his career he hasn't. No one is ready to proclaim Rodgers as a choker after only 12 starts. You are the only one that is trying to spin that. Please, please take the homer glasses off for one day.

You are stuck on the word choker.

YOU BROUGHT IT UP!!!!!!

It was not the whole point. Read the whole thing and get the point I was making rather than hung up on one word.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

Not even one full season in, people already trying to label Rodgers with that.

You are really a piece of work, sho. NO ONE HAS TRIED TO LABEL RODGERS AS A CHOKER!And you claim you never spin!

What do you think people who are bringing up him being 0-4 in the close games are saying?What do you think people saying he needs to show he can bring them back from behind late in a game are saying?

They have not used the word choker...but the sentiment still applies. Not everyone used the word choker with Manning.

But said he could not win the big game or come up big in the clutch.

THe point stands, not even a full season in and people are trying to say the same things about Rodgers.

Deny it all you want...but why else is the 0-4 number being thrown out there several times now?

You are beyond pathetic. Just because it has been pointed out he is 0-4 in close games DOES NOT IMPLY HE IS A CHOKER! You want to read it that way due to your blind homerism.The fact is he is playing well but is 0-4 in crunch time. Does that make him a choker? HELL NO! All is shows is that he is a young QB that hopefully can learn from the adversity and take a step to the next level in his career. As a Packer fan I hope he does that. At this EARLY POINT in his career he hasn't. No one is ready to proclaim Rodgers as a choker after only 12 starts. You are the only one that is trying to spin that. Please, please take the homer glasses off for one day.

:whoosh: sho....enough on trying to spin this one. It hurts you even more in this thread.

Do you deny people have been bringing up the 0-4 number?Don't get stuck on the word choker, I admit that was strong language and a mistake.Take that word out...the point still remains.

Of course 0-4 has been brought up in here and the media because it is a fact. It is a fact that sends you in a complete frenzy, however. What.....you can't handle is someone writes something negative about Rodgers or Grant?You really need to get a grip, bud!

 

[sho nuff]

Of course 0-4 has been brought up in here and the media because it is a fact. It is a fact that sends you in a complete frenzy, however. What.....you can't handle is someone writes something negative about Rodgers or Grant?You really need to get a grip, bud!

THe point is the 0-4 is brought up in reference to one person. Rather than this team. I did not like it when it had been done in the past with other QBs either.The fact is...he had the lead with under 2 minutes left.That does not mean he can't do it. The point is, its early in his career and people are starting the label. Some of you may wan to deny it and think its just my homerism. But its there.Anything negative about Rodgers? No...there is plenty negative. He has held the ball too long at times. Has opted for a longer pass with a shorter option open. Missed some open guys...gotten a bit wild missing open receivers and made some errors.Grant...same thing...he missed holes earlier in the year, I was simply not ready to write him off for the season. I don't think early on he was right health wise and it showed in how he ran. I defended him from some pretty ridiculous criticism about pedigree and people claiming he just was average at best. I did the same thing with people saying things about Addai. Jackson is a Packer...youd think if I was just a homer Id jump on the bandwagon of people thinking he looks so much better and those who thought it would be RBBC early in the year. There is plenty negative to talk about on this team...IMO, Rodgers is not even close to the top priority of any negative talk.I have defended plenty of other players on this board who are not Green Bay Packers.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Of course 0-4 has been brought up in here and the media because it is a fact. It is a fact that sends you in a complete frenzy, however. What.....you can't handle is someone writes something negative about Rodgers or Grant?You really need to get a grip, bud!

THe point is the 0-4 is brought up in reference to one person. Rather than this team. I did not like it when it had been done in the past with other QBs either.The fact is...he had the lead with under 2 minutes left.That does not mean he can't do it. The point is, its early in his career and people are starting the label. Some of you may wan to deny it and think its just my homerism. But its there.Anything negative about Rodgers? No...there is plenty negative. He has held the ball too long at times. Has opted for a longer pass with a shorter option open. Missed some open guys...gotten a bit wild missing open receivers and made some errors.Grant...same thing...he missed holes earlier in the year, I was simply not ready to write him off for the season. I don't think early on he was right health wise and it showed in how he ran. I defended him from some pretty ridiculous criticism about pedigree and people claiming he just was average at best. I did the same thing with people saying things about Addai. Jackson is a Packer...youd think if I was just a homer Id jump on the bandwagon of people thinking he looks so much better and those who thought it would be RBBC early in the year. There is plenty negative to talk about on this team...IMO, Rodgers is not even close to the top priority of any negative talk.I have defended plenty of other players on this board who are not Green Bay Packers.

like I said......frenzy! Is this where you tell us "I don't spin"?

 

[zDragon]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

Not even one full season in, people already trying to label Rodgers with that.

You are really a piece of work, sho. NO ONE HAS TRIED TO LABEL RODGERS AS A CHOKER!And you claim you never spin!

I have not seen anyone label rodgers as a choker. This is getting to funny to even read.ing.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Reasons for me why they should have kept Favre for at least one more year...

1. The Packers were 13-3 last year.

2. They were the second ranked offense

3. They did this with constant shuffling around at RB and Oline for much of the season.

4. Favre had just had his highest completion % ever

5. Favre had the 3rd most yards he had ever had his highest YPA

6. This was the youngest team in the NFL and had great chemistry.

7. Favre was second in MVP voting.

8. Rodgers was still under contract through 2009.

9. The offense was returning all 11 starters.

How would Favre have been able to stop people from getting injured?

Obviously he can't stop people from getting injured. However if Favre was QB this year, every situation would have been different. The whole path would have been different. Players are not predestined to get injured. Injuries happen because of a players exact location on the field causing such an injury. Now of course other people could have been injured. We could have lost AJ Hawk for the year instead of Barnett. Or woodson instead of Harris for a while, or both of them, or neither. Lets also not forget about the injuries during Favre's super bowl year. Remember the riff raff we had at wr for a bunch of games that year? Thank god for Andre Rison being on the scrap heap. But I would say he handled that pretty well.

How would Favre have helped the defense?

Again obviously he cant make tackles. What he brings to the defense is attitude. I think Rodgers is starting to get that. Leroy Butler was on the radio last week and said he thinks Rodgers is showing signs of developing a bit of swagger and confidence. He said the defense always loved that about Favre. Made you want to play harder when you saw Favre tangling with the defense. This was mentioned on the Fox broadcast as well where the announcer showed all of these clips of Rodgers "acting like Favre". I thought it was lame, but it did back up what Butler had said. I think Favre and the defense always had each other's backs in spirit as well. If the defense screwed up a play, they had confidence Favre could bring them back. If Favre threw a bad pick, he had confidence the defense would hook him up.

Again this is all hypothetical. Rodgers could still turn this thing around this year and take the Pack to the playoffs. I dont think it will happen, but it certainly could. The giants, steelers, and patriots are proof that getting in the playoffs is the first necessary step for some magic to come together. We look back at those teams and say well they were different, they proved to be great teams. Well nobody said that before they won it all.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Late comeback eludes Rodgers

Final drive frustrates quarterback

By Tom Silverstein of the Journal Sentinel

Some notes.....and I hope sho's head doesn't explode...

Green Bay - His statistics are outstanding, his throws are more often than not on the money and his scrambling ability has given the Green Bay Packers an offensive instrument they haven't had for many years.

But what Aaron Rodgers hasn't been able to add this season is the ability to overcome all else and lead his team to victory.

Every great quarterback has done it many times over during his career, sometimes three or four times in a single season, and over the years Packers fans got used to seeing it regularly from Brett Favre. In his first season as the Packers' starting quarterback, Rodgers has not generated a fourth-quarter winning drive and hasn't made a magical play that can be considered a defining moment.

With 1 minute 48 seconds left Sunday at Lambeau Field, Carolina Panthers quarterback Jake Delhomme looked left, didn't like what he saw and then found receiver Steve Smith deep down the middle for a 54-yard gain that set up the winning points. Smith made a Hall of Fame catch, but it was Delhomme who found him one-on-one with a safety and took the shot.

Rodgers got the ball back at Green Bay's 17 with 1:24 to go and two timeouts, but on first down he sailed a pass to wide-open receiver Greg Jennings that would have given the Packers at first down at their 40-yard line and stopped the clock. On the next play, he scrambled away from the pressure of defensive end Julius Peppers and underthrew an open Donald Driver for an interception.

His opportunity for greatness ended in two plays.

"To be honest with you, I'm getting kind of tired of learning from experiences like this," Rodgers said. "It's pretty frustrating when you lose games like that. You've got to be critical of yourself. I feel like I competed today but I didn't throw the ball as well as I wanted to at times.

"As a quarterback, you want the ball in your hands under 2 minutes with a chance to lead your team to victory."

This was not Rodgers' first opportunity at leading the Packers all the way back from a deficit late in the game. He couldn't do it against Tampa Bay, he couldn't do it against Tennessee and he couldn't do it against Minnesota.

Rodgers started the game uncharacteristically wild, overthrowing receivers on his first two attempts and nearly throwing an interception on another high throw on his third. By the time the half was over, he had completed 12 of 20 for 88 yards and a touchdown, completing just two passes of 10 or more yards and none for more than 17.

With 2 minutes to go, Rodgers had led the offense to 285 yards and 21 points in the second half. His 21-yard scoring strike to Greg Jennings at the start of the fourth quarter gave the Packers their first lead at 28-21.

After Carolina tied the score a short while later, Rodgers took the Packers from their 20 all the way to the Carolina 9, throwing completions of 17, 17 and 13 yards to Ruvell Martin, Jennings and Donald Driver, respectively.

On first and goal at the Carolina 9, however, Rodgers made a critical mistake. He lost track of the play clock and let it expire, causing the Packers to take a 5-yard delay-of-game penalty. There's no telling what could have happened on the play Rodgers didn't get off, but the penalty easily could have prevented a touchdown.

"I'm not exactly sure what happened," Philbin said of the delay of game. "You hope not to get a delay of game in that situation."

The Packers got to the 1 on the drive and given the success Rodgers had throwing near the end zone earlier in the half and the six-man defensive line the Panthers were using, a play-action pass seemed logical. But McCarthy also had success last week running it up the middle on the goal line. He chose to give it to his running back instead of his quarterback.

The Packers settled for a field goal and after Carolina scored to take the lead, the stage was set for Rodgers to score his first winning drive in the final 2 minutes. But it was over almost as fast as it started.

 

[Phase of the Game]

The entertainment value that sho brings to this thread is priceless!

 

[zDragon]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

Not even one full season in, people already trying to label Rodgers with that.

You are really a piece of work, sho. NO ONE HAS TRIED TO LABEL RODGERS AS A CHOKER!And you claim you never spin!

What do you think people who are bringing up him being 0-4 in the close games are saying?What do you think people saying he needs to show he can bring them back from behind late in a game are saying?They have not used the word choker...but the sentiment still applies. Not everyone used the word choker with Manning.But said he could not win the big game or come up big in the clutch.THe point stands, not even a full season in and people are trying to say the same things about Rodgers.Deny it all you want...but why else is the 0-4 number being thrown out there several times now?

That he needs experience in the situations presented to him.Because that is expected and will continue to be expected of all QB's.So you added the spin for effect. Everyone I've talked to thinks he needs experience. Never heard the work choker or the sentiment used.The majority used the word choker with manning or had the sentiment. Most just flat out called him a choker.Spin and more spin. Could it be because people are claiming no drop-off or very little at QB? The lack of experience is a big issue for Rodgers right now. Hence the drop-off I have been talking about at QB.

 

[zDragon]

Holmgren kept the reins tight on Favre, dont kid yourself. Brett threw a lot of bad passed that drove Holmgren nuts because he did not read the defense correctly. Holmgren was ready to bench Brett in year two because of his carelessness with the ball.

I've read that Favre had to ask Ty Detmer what Nickel meant. Mind you this was his second year as a pro. I don't know that he ever really learned to read defenses properly in the sense that a Manning or Montana did. Or that he could.

Not even one full season in, people already trying to label Rodgers with that.

You are really a piece of work, sho. NO ONE HAS TRIED TO LABEL RODGERS AS A CHOKER!And you claim you never spin!

What do you think people who are bringing up him being 0-4 in the close games are saying?What do you think people saying he needs to show he can bring them back from behind late in a game are saying?They have not used the word choker...but the sentiment still applies. Not everyone used the word choker with Manning.But said he could not win the big game or come up big in the clutch.THe point stands, not even a full season in and people are trying to say the same things about Rodgers.Deny it all you want...but why else is the 0-4 number being thrown out there several times now?

You are beyond pathetic. Just because it has been pointed out he is 0-4 in close games DOES NOT IMPLY HE IS A CHOKER! You want to read it that way due to your blind homerism.The fact is he is playing well but is 0-4 in crunch time. Does that make him a choker? HELL NO! All is shows is that he is a young QB that hopefully can learn from the adversity and take a step to the next level in his career. As a Packer fan I hope he does that. At this EARLY POINT in his career he hasn't. No one is ready to proclaim Rodgers as a choker after only 12 starts. You are the only one that is trying to spin that. Please, please take the homer glasses off for one day.

As a Cowboys fan I hope he doesn't but assume he will.