R.Rodgers Will Be Much More Than Fine· Page 2

Barfarn
Senior Member Topic Starter

8 years ago

And still more info:

First, stop and think about it: the overly harsh critics of Rodgers have a problem with one issue his YPC. If he had 12 YPC there’d be nary a negative peep. As a rookie he was at 11.3 YPC; why did it drop to 8.8? Did he get less athletic or did the type of route he ran change or something else?

Here’s the problem with the “eyeball test.” Dakota says you can cover Rodgers with a LB; but 4 of 5 dentists and 2 of 3 defensive coordinators disagree. In 64 of Rodgers’ 85 targets charted he was covered by a LB a little more than 1/3 of the time. And in AZ PO game he was covered by a safety almost every play. The specific examples I gave above, on 5 plays Rodgers beat safety Quddus 3 times [once faked him out of his shorts] and safety Quinn once. I don’t think the ‘eyeball test” is very reliable. Scouts that I hear use “eyeball test” use it in the negative; EG, “he passes the eyeball test, but he just is not productive.” Ever hear of a player getting or losing playing time because of an “eyeball test?”

Of course not, because playing time goes to the guys that PRODUCE and production is defined by how well they execute their assignment on any given play [Not statistical productivity].

Just because a coach does not use a guy often does not mean he’s not good at it. In 2015, routinely Daniels was taken out on passing downs, does that mean he’s bad a rushing the passer or that Capers is stupid? Of course not, game plans are not designed to make a player’s stats pop, they’re designed to obtain max information and production over 50-60-70 plays. Interestingly in 2013 Daniels passed the “eyeball test” several times penetrating too deep into the backfield and leaving a vertical gap in the line on running plays and he lost playing time because of it.

Yes, at times Rodgers looks like a lumber wagon rolling on octagonal wheels. But what is important is his effective speed, his football speed, not his speed in shorts or whether he looks like Baryshnikov doing it.

So again, trying to reign in the topic’s focus; let’s discuss Rodgers’ abilities in real live FOOTBALL terms.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

8 years ago

#12

So again, trying to reign in the topic’s focus; let’s discuss Rodgers’ abilities in real live FOOTBALL terms.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn

I'm not sure what you're trying to do...the things you've asked for, I've obliged you with and you've not responded to them.

In live FOOTBALL terms. He has well below average playing speed. His yards after CONTACT have to be among the lowest in the NFL. He's abysmal in that category. No DC stays up an night formulating a plan to take Richard Rodgers away as they had to do back when Finley played for us. He has below average athleticism and one jump up for a ball in Detroit doesn't change the other games he's played for us.

Finley would've elevated the WR corps given what we saw this past season. RR was symptomatic of our WR struggles and dragged them down not up. When your WR's are performing poorly you would hope you'd have a TE who could overperform to raise everyone's level. This guy did the exact opposite. Richard Rodgers wasn't consistently open while the WR's were blanketed...he was as blanketed as the WR's with far less skilled guys taking on the task. If he was truly more than fine as you allege, he would be beating his lesser cover options with regularity but that didn't happen. If anything, that guys benefits by being a slug and having no attention paid to him much like Davante looked okay as a 3rd WR but absolutely BRUTAL with better DB's covering him. Finley could perform against more premium defenders. RR gets the bottom of the barrel.

Again, quoting a game at Detroit that we were dead in the water and using the Lions defensive performance as a litmus is misleading. Detroit was 14th against the pass but considering they face our offense, the Vikings bottom ranked pass offense and the Bears offense with no WR's all 2 times each it's little wonder why they finished better than they really are. Further, there were only 4 teams who allowed opposing passers a higher passer rating. New Orleans, Cleveland, Tampa an Tennessee. Blech. You haven't even acknowledged WHEN those plays were made at Detroit. We were offensively completely inept. Do you think Detroit was amped up all game defending against a castrated offense like ours, or do you think they laid back a bunch after getting the big lead? Their defensive approach was different once they were well ahead, I'm sure.

I'll reframe...walks like a duck, talks like a duck, is a duck...is not a pretty peacock because you say he is based on things that NOBODY sees but you. You've done the same thing with Davante. You've taken two very non descript Packers offensive players and spun them into things they aren't. Had they been half of what you now contend they REALLY were we wouldn't have had the terrible offensive season we had because both of those slugs were contributing factors and that's as real as it gets.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

Barfarn
Senior Member Topic Starter

8 years ago

#13

More info:

In last game of the season Rodgers ran 4 routes through the middle. He had 2 targets, 2 catches, 34 yards with 16 YAC. Incidentally, I think Rodgers often goes down too easy; but he broke 3 tackles in Minn and Det. games referenced herein; don’t know how many he had for the season but in 2014 Gregg Olsen, Gates and Calvin Johnson all broke 1 tackle in 2014 [Gronk led TEs with 24].

The plays through the middle is not an extrapolation; it’s a representative sample of a pattern of the great success, incredible YAC and effective production that occurred when Rodgers was allowed to run his patterns through the middle, like most other TEs.

Said 4 Minn. Routes:

1stQ 5:55. Rodgers runs a slant from left TE inline position. He beats Barr by 3-4 yards made the catch at 9 yards and was tackled at 18.

1st Q 2:55. Rodgers runs a post [They were at Minn. 12 yrd line] from right TE position. Rodgers makes a little swim move to get off jam, clear LBs and is open at 2 yard line. Aaron Rodgers rolled left and threw it away toward left corner of EZ.

4th Q at 15:00. Rodgers is lined up in trips right and runs a 2 line dig. Couldn’t see if Rodgers was open, as pressure was great and Aaron Rodgers scrambled; but I’m guessing he was because they ran the exact same play 2 plays later for 16 yards and TD.

4Q 13:27.. Rodgers is lined up in trips right and runs 2 line dig, is wide open by 5 yards [Minn was in zone, I’m guessing Harrison had responsibility] catches ball 9 yards, runs the last 7 yards for TD, he scored though he was contacted at 2 by Smith.

Again, the topic debate is about NOT using vague, ill-defined an unformulated "Football terms." 😂 It's evaluating players in real live FOOTBALL terms, that is, not by broad generalization or statistical output; but by watching a guy PLAY in PLAYS an grading those plays, ya know, like the pros do it. That's why the Hail Mary and other nice catches were never mentioned by me, they have ZERO evaluation purpose on the topic.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

8 years ago

#14

More info:

In last game of the season Rodgers ran 4 routes through the middle. He had 2 targets, 2 catches, 34 yards with 16 YAC. Incidentally, I think Rodgers often goes down too easy; but he broke 3 tackles in Minn and Det. games referenced herein; don’t know how many he had for the season but in 2014 Gregg Olsen, Gates and Calvin Johnson all broke 1 tackle in 2014 [Gronk led TEs with 24].

The plays through the middle is not an extrapolation; it’s a representative sample of a pattern of the great success, incredible YAC and effective production that occurred when Rodgers was allowed to run his patterns through the middle, like most other TEs.

Said 4 Minn. Routes:

1stQ 5:55. Rodgers runs a slant from left TE inline position. He beats Barr by 3-4 yards made the catch at 9 yards and was tackled at 18.

1st Q 2:55. Rodgers runs a post [They were at Minn. 12 yrd line] from right TE position. Rodgers makes a little swim move to get off jam, clear LBs and is open at 2 yard line. Aaron Rodgers rolled left and threw it away toward left corner of EZ.

4th Q at 15:00. Rodgers is lined up in trips right and runs a 2 line dig. Couldn’t see if Rodgers was open, as pressure was great and Aaron Rodgers scrambled; but I’m guessing he was because they ran the exact same play 2 plays later for 16 yards and TD.

4Q 13:27.. Rodgers is lined up in trips right and runs 2 line dig, is wide open by 5 yards [Minn was in zone, I’m guessing Harrison had responsibility] catches ball 9 yards, runs the last 7 yards for TD, he scored though he was contacted at 2 by Smith.

Again, the topic debate is about NOT using vague, ill-defined an unformulated "Football terms." 😂 It's evaluating players in real live FOOTBALL terms, that is, not by broad generalization or statistical output; but by watching a guy PLAY in PLAYS an grading those plays, ya know, like the pros do it. That's why the Hail Mary and other nice catches were never mentioned by me, they have ZERO evaluation purpose on the topic.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn

So, basically, he's defined by YOU in a vacuum? The only legit evaluation you could provide would be for you to chronicle ALL of his plays. Of course, just like with any UDFA, you can go to YouTube and find a highlight reel that makes them look like a world beater. Tavarus Dantzler? Can I get an amen?

We ALL watched this kid for TWO FULL SEASONS. What we've seen has not been impressive or even remotely skewing that way. However, you've picked out a HANDFUL of plays and have built an institution out of them.

Honestly, I'm going to guess you've looked at ALL of his plays and the overwhelming majority of them gives you no reason for optimism. However, if you speak to a few ones that you pick ala carte then you can create a theory of imminent "much more than fine" for next season.

You also have to factor your personal desire for the statement you made to be true. You pushed this agenda before last season with the exact same type of things you're doing this offseason leading guys like Nerd to believe RR was ready to break out in Year 2. That did ... not... happen. Now, you're doing the exact same thing, again.

Fool me once...

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

nerdmann
Premier Member

8 years ago

#15

So, basically, he's defined by YOU in a vacuum? The only legit evaluation you could provide would be for you to chronicle ALL of his plays. Of course, just like with any UDFA, you can go to YouTube and find a highlight reel that makes them look like a world beater. Tavarus Dantzler? Can I get an amen?

We ALL watched this kid for TWO FULL SEASONS. What we've seen has not been impressive or even remotely skewing that way. However, you've picked out a HANDFUL of plays and have built an institution out of them.

Honestly, I'm going to guess you've looked at ALL of his plays and the overwhelming majority of them gives you no reason for optimism. However, if you speak to a few ones that you pick ala carte then you can create a theory of imminent "much more than fine" for next season.

You also have to factor your personal desire for the statement you made to be true. You pushed this agenda before last season with the exact same type of things you're doing this offseason leading guys like Nerd to believe RR was ready to break out in Year 2. That did ... not... happen. Now, you're doing the exact same thing, again.

Fool me once...

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

He's gone through the actual plays. Wtf more do you want?

RR didn't "break out." He only set the all time Packers record for receptions by a TE. You're saying that's not good enough, because he didn't get enough YAC to satisfy you. Damn, dude. Take a look at this offense this season. None of these guys were up to par. The whole offense shit itself from week 6 on.

FACT. RR showed what he CAN do. It's just that he was rarely given that assignment. Plus he's gonna drop some weight, hopefully to improve speed and quickness. He's done that before too, played WR in college.

It sounds like there is a focus for all these younger guys from Eddie to Davante to RR to report back in better shape after this offseason.

And btw, THIS is why you get hyena'd too. YOU'RE JUST TOO BIASED, SO YOU'RE MAKING STUFF UP TO DISAGREE WITH ME. I PROVE YOU WRONG, YOU'RE JUST CHERRY PICKING PLAYS bla bla bla.

Get over it, man.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

8 years ago

#16

He's gone through the actual plays. Wtf more do you want?

RR didn't "break out." He only set the all time Packers record for receptions by a TE. You're saying that's not good enough, because he didn't get enough YAC to satisfy you. Damn, dude. Take a look at this offense this season. None of these guys were up to par. The whole offense shit itself from week 6 on.

FACT. RR showed what he CAN do. It's just that he was rarely given that assignment. Plus he's gonna drop some weight, hopefully to improve speed and quickness. He's done that before too, played WR in college.

It sounds like there is a focus for all these younger guys from Eddie to Davante to RR to report back in better shape after this offseason.

And btw, THIS is why you get hyena'd too. YOU'RE JUST TOO BIASED, SO YOU'RE MAKING STUFF UP TO DISAGREE WITH ME. I PROVE YOU WRONG, YOU'RE JUST CHERRY PICKING PLAYS bla bla bla.

Get over it, man.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

What more do I want? How about a legit threat at TE instead of rolling out this slop year after year. It's not good enough for me. Sorry. It isn't. He isn't a person who is a redzone threat...has no speed...can't break tackles, lacks athleticism... yes, again, I'm sorry that I want more than just barely average.

I know you're hurt about the highlighted portion stuff earlier in this thread but I can't apologize for it. There is no twisting. You post inaccurate statements thread after thread after thread. That isn't bias...that is fact, as is exposed by actual facts like direct testimony from Richard Rodgers not from you telling us that he was really slow because he was supposed to be out by the 10. His lack of speed paid off for us on that play. If he had legit speed he's not making that play. He was late to the party and received a last person to arrive gift.

It is cherry picking plays, Nerd. How is it not? You level crazy allegations but if you would only be honest you'd see that what I'm asking is fair. Studies done by science are all the time focusing on just one aspect of their findings while completely ignoring weightier parts that completely contradict those reported publicly findings. This is no different. Barfarn has built RR up on this board for a couple of years now and I have no idea why? There is no good reason to do this. Yet, you swoon with his posting of a handful of plays from the season and use his reception numbers as validation he really was tremendous last year or do I have what you're saying all wrong? You tell me?

Finally, we all know what Richard Rodgers CAN'T do...run fast, display athleticism, break tackles, be a redzone threat, challenge the middle of a defense, keep DC's up all night gameplanning. He's a run of the mill, at best, TE that happens to play for the Packers so that means he's not really that? Yes, that is exactly what he is no matter who he plays for. I can see our players as if they don't play for us can you?

I've been consistent, from the beginning, in saying both of these guys are ordinary for their positions. I maintained this in the face of reports from MM, Aaron Rodgers, beat guys, etc. Why? I saw them play. I don't need someone else who also saw them play tell me what it is I should be seeing. I already see for myself.

What did Richard Rodgers do all season outside of the hail mary that ever got you excited? I could take that further...IN HIS CAREER outside of the hail mary? What is it? What Barfarn typed that you didn't see yourself and needed him to tell you so you could latch on?

Get ready to lather rinse repeat for next offseason as you will just shake off the fact he does nothing, again, and claim that because someone watched a few plays and told he was actually much more than fine you'll believe? I'd love to sell you my '07 Dodge Nitro...it's really better than any of these new SUV's out on the road. Don't worry about the fact the gas mileage sucks and it has one of the worst car ratings ever...let me tell you what I saw that you didn't see and then hand me over your money. It's really about the same thing as what is happening here.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

Pack93z
Select Member

8 years ago

#17

Without paging through the back and forth in the thread... I think RR is part of the solution, but probably not the total solution. I think if he worked in a tandem with a Tight End that can apply pressure to the seams of a defense would be ideal.

This year really exposed the Packers tight ends because we lacked players on the edges that could beat coverage consistently... thus not putting pressure on the safeties and backers to fill voids... and without a threat from the tight end position to place vertical pressure on the defense, you had what we seen... very small or non existent throwing lanes. He didn't scare anyone into paying him anymore attention than to single cover him.

RR is a fine player... but there are fundamental deficiencies in his game, the Packers would benefit from a tight end that could provide that vertical threat which would benefit the second tight end as well and the edges of the offense.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

DoddPower
Veteran Member

8 years ago

#18

I'll differ to Barfan for the actual quantitative analysis in this case, because I don't have time to chart plays like that. But my qualitative analysis of Richard Rodgers is that he will never be anything more than an average-to-decent #2 TE, or a low end (possibly very low end) #1 TE. I've seen every snap of his professional career, and I just don't see anything impressive from him. It's mostly all average. Does that mean he's a useless player? No, absolutely not. He's a very useful #2 TE and utility player. But the Packers need to do better at that position.

If I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet any money on Richard Rodgers being a good #1 TE. That's for sure.

Barfarn
Senior Member Topic Starter

8 years ago

#19

I’ll give it one more try and MORE INFO [Denver game-our worst]:

At the season ending press conference Mike McCarthy said to a reporter, you think you know what you’re seeing, but you don’t know what your looking at and that stats are for losers.

What Mike McCarthy means is that reporters are 100% clueless about the reality that a good player is defined by performing his assignment well in the scheme, not stats. Sometimes a player’s assignment harms his stats. Those that think Guion was over paid [this includes me] only think that because they are CLUELESS as to what Guion’s assignments were and therefore misjudged his performance.

Example: If a TE runs a brilliant 1 line hook, he STOPS in between 2 hook-zone defenders. As the ball arrives those 2 defenders close and maybe a third from behind. To expect a TE to get YAC or break a tackle under these conditions is ludicrous even if the TE is Gronk.

If Gronk runs and catches a 1 line hook for 5 yards; it’s silly to say he cant threaten the middle. To evaluate Gronk’s ability to threaten the middle; we need to look at the plays he runs through the middle and its stupefyingly silly to call this cherry-picking.

Rodgers was allowed to run through the middle on only 4 plays in Denver game.

1st Q 9:50 [see replay just before start of 3rd Q-they’re supposedly showing how none of the GB receivers are open-BUT WATCH THIS] Rodgers lines up 3 yards right of RT and ran a 3 line drag. He had CB Webster beat by a full 2 yards; this was right in AR’s line of sight but he threw over Rodgers and deep and INC to Jones.

2nd Q at 3:38. From Denver 7 Rodgers lined up about 3 yards right of RT and ran a post and beat safety TJ Ward by 1-1.5 yrds. Aaron Rodgers threw of back foot and falling backward, he did not get enough velocity on ball and under-threw it allowing Ward to knock it down.

3rd Q 5:20. Rodgers lined up 3 yards right of RT ran a 2 line drag was Blanketed by Ward as Rodgers was running half speed. Rodgers at half speed? LOL, how effing slow is that? This was a shameful bullshit route; in this offense the receivers MUST run all routes 100% hard or it sabotages the play [Note: this is why Moss wouldn’t work in this offense] . Rodgers also gave a half-assed blocking effort that caused a strip sack of Aaron Rodgers and a fumble for the safety in 4th Q.

3rd Q 14:17. Rodgers lined up right as one of the trips right about 3 yards off right tackle. He ran a 3 line drag and put a great move on TJ Ward, Ward just grabbed him around the waste for a 14 yard PI.

Incidentally, earlier in the game [11:38; 1Q] Rodgers ran a wheel off that 0 line out route he runs and beat Marshall [one of the best coverage LBs] by 5 yards, 5 yards , and Aaron Rodgers missed the throw to a wide open Rodgers [this happened at least 4 times on the year].

Not athletic or fast enough?...can be covered by a LB?...Sorry, not I, but the tape says otherwise. AND HE’LL BE BETTER IN THIRD YEAR as no GB receiver has been accomplished by year 2 under MM!

Rockmolder
Honored Member

8 years ago

#20

I'll differ to Barfan for the actual quantitative analysis in this case, because I don't have time to chart plays like that. But my qualitative analysis of Richard Rodgers is that he will never be anything more than an average-to-decent #2 TE, or a low end (possibly very low end) #1 TE. I've seen every snap of his professional career, and I just don't see anything impressive from him. It's mostly all average. Does that mean he's a useless player? No, absolutely not. He's a very useful #2 TE and utility player. But the Packers need to do better at that position.

If I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet any money on Richard Rodgers being a good #1 TE. That's for sure.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower

I agree. He seems to join a long line of somewhat average receiving TEs we've had in the last couple of years. Nothing that really stands out, besides having decent height/weight. Donald Lee, David Martin, Andrew Quarless...

Without paging through the back and forth in the thread... I think RR is part of the solution, but probably not the total solution. I think if he worked in a tandem with a Tight End that can apply pressure to the seams of a defense would be ideal.

This year really exposed the Packers tight ends because we lacked players on the edges that could beat coverage consistently... thus not putting pressure on the safeties and backers to fill voids... and without a threat from the tight end position to place vertical pressure on the defense, you had what we seen... very small or non existent throwing lanes. He didn't scare anyone into paying him anymore attention than to single cover him.

RR is a fine player... but there are fundamental deficiencies in his game, the Packers would benefit from a tight end that could provide that vertical threat which would benefit the second tight end as well and the edges of the offense.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z

I agree. The two problems I see right now are that every 2nd team seems to be looking for a guy like that and this draft doesn't contain a Gronkowski (but really, how many drafts do?)

A part from Hunter Henry, though, this TE class looks weak as can be. Maybe Austin Hooper is an upgrade over Rodgers, but the other TEs in this draft will be nothing more than average, either.

Important Information: