Aaron Rodgers could have played better, absolutely. The entire team could have. But considering the defense he was facing and the fact that he was injured, he played decently. But order to be champions a team generally has to play great, and the Packers didn't. I still say he played a better game than Russell Wilson, but that obviously didn't matter. It's much more than just the QB, even if the QB is often the largest single contributor to a teams success.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

I am so tired of hearing look at the defense he was playing, So lets take a look at the 4th quarter defense for the Seahawks.

The great Richard Sherman playing with one arm and can't play his bump and run (hint attack him) and lets look at the other side you have the 3rd and the 4th cb's ( but lets not attack them either) and finally they have a backup safety in the game and guess what we don't attack that either. Either their backups are better than any other teams starters are we should have rolled down the field. You know like we did for the game tying FG lol. Rodgers folds in the big games

Originally Posted by: dhazer 

Eh, I can understand the sentiment, but the Seahawks defense is very, very good. They shut down opposing offenses more often than not. I'm perfectly OK with the team having a more aggressive approach, but one should not minimize the quality of their defense.

I said that Rodgers could play better. I don't think he "folded" though. The team "folded" as a whole. Offense, defense, and special teams. As good as the defense played for the first 55 minutes, the horrible play the last five minutes and in overtime pretty much nullifies that, imo. They should have played well the entire game if they wanted to win. The offense can undoubtedly be better. If the Packers could have scored from the one yard line by running the ball like they should be able to on multiple occasions, the game is entirely different. Special Teams should have been better. It was just an all-around loss. There's no other way to put it. It's not a single player or units fault.

The majority of QBs "fold" in the big games. Look at Peyton Manning. Tom Brady has been struggling to get his team over the hump again for years now, but at least he has won three times. The clutch Andrew Luck was horrible against the Patriots in the AFC Championship game. Dan Marino couldn't get his team a championship. Brett Favre only got one. There are very few QBs that consistently perform at a high level in the playoffs. Not surprisingly, most QBs like that also have great teams around them. The Packers have a good team around Aaron Rodgers. It's definitely not great. It could be argued that it's average or worse with Aaron Rodgers. It's obvious Aaron Rodgers needs to play better, but I've said he needs more help for years now. He can only do so much. The Packers need to continue improving their entire TEAM if they want to win another Super Bowl. They are close, but need to be a better.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

This is kind of a rhetorical question but if it applies to you and you want to answer that's OK. For all of those people who thinks Rodgers folds in the big games what do you propose we do with him? Do we really want a QB who gets us to the playoffs every year then chokes it away? Is that what we have to look forward to for the next 5-7 years. NFC north championships and a playoff loss. If so why not trade him for a ton of picks and get a QB who can win the big games.

Obviously I am being a bit facetious here as I really don't think anyone is suggesting we get rid of Rodgers but in all seriousness if you don't think he can get the job done why wouldn't you want to look for someone who can? If you do think he can get the job done then lay off the "he folds in big games" bullshit.

I'm not directing this towards anyone in particular so please don't think I am singling you out. Its just that this thread has appeared in several forums I frequent and I am really curious as to how those who feel he chokes think we should proceed with him.

I guess it could be likened to the question who would you rather have in their prime Peyton Manning or Joe Flacco.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

Thats an easy answer I would take Flacco over Manning. Flacco seems to wn with less

Originally Posted by: dhazer