Barfarn
8 years ago

He had like 30 seconds and two timeouts to drive for a field goal, and lost one timeout on an injury. That's asking a lot. It's more reasonable to ask the defense to play a little better than to ask Aaron Rodgers to constantly bail them out and generate some heroics. Mike Daniels said it well. The Packers scored enough points to win. None of those points were scored by the defense. Aaron Rodgers played well enough for the Packers to win. The Packers defense has to be better against franchise QBs, or they will never win another Super Bowl under this administration.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 



If Rodgers played up to his salary, we would have won. If Rodgers' salary equaled his play, maybe 12M, we'd have House and/or Hayward on the roster instead of Goodson and Whitehead and Atl may not have scored 33.

Also we only had 2 TOs because Rodgers stupidly blew the first TO in a game that EVERYONE knew at the time might come down to who had the ball last. And the second TO would not have been called had a poised Rodgers stayed in the pocket, instead of back peddling scared. He delivered an inaccurate throw [high and not far enough outside] to Nelson, who was open; but less open than the wide open Adams or Allison.

Rodgers got us in scoring position [the 31] at end of 1st half with in 18 seconds using only 1 time out. The difference between the 2 drives is in the 4th Q Rodgers felt the pressure and reacted to the pressure he felt; that is, he choked.

Rodgers could have played flawlessly the entire game while rescuing a baby from a burning building; but it doesn't change the fact that in the last drive he CHOKED!
Porforis
8 years ago

If Rodgers played up to his salary, we would have won. If Rodgers' salary equaled his play, maybe 12M, we'd have House and/or Hayward on the roster instead of Goodson and Whitehead and Atl may not have scored 33.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



Again, different standards for different players. Clay's not even on the field and he's not playing up to his contract. If we don't have his dead weight, maybe we have House or Hayward. You're also assuming neither of them would get injured (We ARE down our top 3 CBs), would play better than Goodson or Whitehead, and that it would have had enough of an impact on this particular game. What about Peppers? He's barely on the field and hasn't been doing much. But, since Rodgers has the largest salary, he's your only target. Is it fair to be a target? Sure! But it's not an all or nothing thing.

So yes, pretty much the "That call cost up the game!" nonsense. You're tied 14-14 at the beginning of the fourth quarter. You're driving down the field at the opponent's 30 and an incomplete pass is called an interception return for a touchdown, and the review misses it. You end up losing the game by 3, and people whine and complain about how the call cost them the game. Criticism of officiating in general like blown calls has happened since the beginning of time. This relies on the assumptions that, had it been called an incomplete pass, that...

1. You would have scored points
2. You wouldn't have done the same thing again a different play
3. You wouldn't have turned the ball over and had the opposing team go down and score
4. That even if you did score a TD and go up 7, that the rest of the game would have played out identically and you would have won.

The assumption is that if Rodgers plays better, the Packers win. You want to criticize one drive or play? Perfectly fair and I agree with parts of your argument. Where this starts going into loony-town is when you start making these kinds of silly assumptions. What if Rodgers plays like Tom Brady having the best game of his life but a WR fumbles the ball, the OL collapses on one play and he's hit within two seconds (which, they weren't able to block three people with 6 on that last drive), or he drives into FG range before running out of time and Crosby shanks it? Assumptions assumptions assumptions.
Barfarn
8 years ago

I'm not applying different standards out of some sort of emotional connection to the Packers. Your logic is so laughably easily used to counter your own conclusion I'm not even sure how to approach this.

Bears beat Vikes because the the defense sucked. Sure Bradford missed a TD and a few other throws, yes the OTs suck and put the D in a position to win; but had the defense been serviceable, Minny would have won. And actually if the defense did their job, I bet Bradford scores more points because they get better field position and are controlling the clock.

Now, I'm not pretending there's different degrees of blame. Yes, the OL shoulders more blame than any one component of the team. But yet again, you're laser focused on ONE person who you choose to assign all the blame on. Sure, when people repeatedly hammer you for it you'll give a "Yeah I suppose other people could have played better but RODGERS RODGERS RODGERS". Are you one of those guys that complains about legitimately bad calls in the 3rd quarter and say it cost your team the game? No, it didn't. Yes, they got screwed. Yes, it probably cost points. But if you want to win in this league you need to be able to get beyond these issues because they happen every single week.

Rogers should have played better which would have made it easier on the defense and his receivers
The RBs should have played better which would have made it easier on Rodgers and the WRs
McCarthy should have called better plays and run the ball more to make it easier on the offense
The offense as a whole should have played better so the defense wasn't on the field as much
The defense should have played better which would have made it easier on the offense

You want to nitpick about percentages? Fine. You want to say it's 80/5/5/5 blame? I don't necessarily agree but I'm not going to not respect your reasoning because of it and I'll be more interested in what you have to say. But yet again, you're fixating on one singular player and in some cases, twisting things to make it appear to be entirely or almost entirely one player's fault when your logic can easily be turned around to counter your own conclusions. I don't get it. You keep going back to his salary every time you start trying to justify why anything that's even partially his fault is entirely his fault. Yes, if you're talking about his value to his team he's relevant. But if you're talking about what makes teams win and lose individual football games, that's not the way that works.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



You're strawmanning when you say I put 100% blame on Rodgers; never have; never will [Did you even read what I wrote?]. I'm just staying he is the one guy that BUT FOR his failures in performance at critical times, GB seals the deal in Atl. And you say that you're reversing the logic on the Minny example; you're not; your reversing the facts by changing the degree to which players messed up. EG, giving up 20 points is a little better than league average [22], but quite good when O has constant 3 and outs.

Everything is about the Money! Ted and Belichek are much better that the other 30 GMs at this understanding. Fans need to come up to speed. Rodgers making $5M is one value to the team; the same Rodgers at $22M has a much diminished value; Doppelganger Rodgers [the guy wearing #12 over the last year] is a franchise buster.

And there is a huge difference between physical mistakes and more intentional mistakes. Allison dropping a ball, Tretter failing to block Clayburn; or Rodgers being off target even though his fundamentals are good or fumbling because a DLman put his helmut on or made a great swat at the ball; are much different than Lacy destroying more food in his mouth than Sherman did on his march to the sea; or Rodgers refusing coaching on his fundamentals, refusing to execute plays as designed, or indulging his lack of trust in his mates.

Greg Jennings is right, Rodgers is in denial. And Rodgers INDULGES his propensity to blame others. The press conference tossing Adams under the bus on the last play was 100% classless. But worse, blaming others is the crutch Rodgers INDULGES in to remain in denial and reject getting better. Like the alcoholic, he needs to admit that he choked to understand why he choked. So, next time he can focus on executing the play instead of thinking before the snap, "oh god oh god, this our last chance, oh my god oh my god...ya know what, Im superman, I'm gonna put this team on my back, they all suck, and WIN because they cant win without me."
warhawk
8 years ago
Well, he didn't choke on the previous drive when it was absolutely a drive and score they had to have at that time. IMO calling what he was left with after the D couldn't make the stop a "drive" is really stretching it. He WAS the running game for them with the injuries and the double dip loss of Montgomery both running and receiving. No Cobb, no Montgomery, no Cook, no Lacey or Starks, and throwing to guys like Davis and Geronimo who he probably hasn't had more than 5% of reps with in practice since the season started and they score 32?...I'll take how Rodgers played any day.

Not having Shields in a game like this really hurts. He goes straight up with JJ and it changes the entire coverage schemes for the rest of the corners and DB's. With Randle and Rollins in there Capers calls that last drive differently too. He said he didn't blitz due to the lack of experience back there and we all know Capers loves to blitz and this speaks volumes of the overall affect losing those three has had.

We had eight guys out of this game and will get 7 back at some point (having to choose between Shields and Lacey) and I have no problem if we end up back in Atlanta because we will kick their ass.
"The train is leaving the station."
Barfarn
8 years ago


The assumption is that if Rodgers plays better, the Packers win. You want to criticize one drive or play? Perfectly fair and I agree with parts of your argument. Where this starts going into loony-town is when you start making these kinds of silly assumptions. What if Rodgers plays like Tom Brady having the best game of his life but a WR fumbles the ball, the OL collapses on one play and he's hit within two seconds (which, they weren't able to block three people with 6 on that last drive), or he drives into FG range before running out of time and Crosby shanks it? Assumptions assumptions assumptions.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



You speak of logic, but then you abandon it. To test a hypothesis you need to control all other variables not wildly imagine how other variables could have changed. When testing the hypothesis that Rodgers CHOKED on last drive and on the 3rd down of each of the first two 2nd half drives, we look at what each player actually did on those drives/plays and determine who if any screwed up. Clearly, we see Rodgers did. We next test whether those failures caused GB to fail to "seal the deal" by controlling all other variables, that is, assuming that all the players would have performed as they did.

Now certainly there would be merit in exploring the idea that if Rodgers did score a TD on the 1st drive on 2nd half that the rest of the game may have changed. Of course, it would have meant a more wide open playbook for Capers, the D being more rested at the end of the game, if Rodgers kept scoring it'd be IMPOSSIBLE for Atl. to win regardless of who had ball last, etc.

But, to reject the foregoing hypotheses because Gunter could have reacted a split second sooner and INT'd Ryan's pass on Atl's last drive is pure folly.

So yes, Rodgers could have done his job, got us to the 25 and Crosby misses the FG. But, that has nothing to do with evaluating Rodgers' performance or evaluating the affect his performance had on the game that actually occurred as opposed to an imagined game.
Porforis
8 years ago

You're strawmanning when you say I put 100% blame on Rodgers; never have; never will [Did you even read what I wrote?]. I'm just staying he is the one guy that BUT FOR his failures in performance at critical times, GB seals the deal in Atl. And you say that you're reversing the logic on the Minny example; you're not; your reversing the facts by changing the degree to which players messed up. EG, giving up 20 points is a little better than league average [22], but quite good when O has constant 3 and outs.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



Kind of like how you're changing the degree to which players messed up by equating choking on the final drive and otherwise having a good but not great game to a group of players that are atrocious 75% of the time (Minnesota's offensive line).

And again, I'm just sitting back and hearing you accuse me of setting up a strawman... Then you continue blabbing on and on and on about Rodgers in a topic about... Mike McCarthy. Do you see why I say you're fixated on Rodgers? You can't stop talking about him for one single post. Glad in your next post you actually brought up some other players and coaches in an almost non-trivial way... But still found a way to tie it back to Rodgers.

You speak of logic, but then you abandon it. To test a hypothesis you need to control all other variables not wildly imagine how other variables could have changed. When testing the hypothesis that Rodgers CHOKED on last drive and on the 3rd down of each of the first two 2nd half drives, we look at what each player actually did on those drives/plays and determine who if any screwed up. Clearly, we see Rodgers did. We next test whether those failures caused GB to fail to "seal the deal" by controlling all other variables, that is, assuming that all the players would have performed as they did.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



Speaking of strawmen, please explain where I indicated that Rodgers didn't screw up on the final drive. Note: Putting primary blame on Rodgers and partial blame on someone else does not equate to me saying he didn't screw up.
mi_keys
8 years ago

If Rodgers played up to his salary, we would have won. If Rodgers' salary equaled his play, maybe 12M, we'd have House and/or Hayward on the roster instead of Goodson and Whitehead and Atl may not have scored 33.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



I'm not going to bother responding to all the other issues others have replied to. I'm just going to point out that $12M, if you honestly think that's fair for Rodgers, is utterly delusional, even as disappointing as Rodgers has been for long stretches this year.

There are 23 quarterbacks in the league on $16M per year or more including such stellar quarterbacks as Brock Osweiller ($18M), Tyrod Taylor ($18M), Colin Kaepernick ($19M), and Ryan Tannehill ($19.25M). 12 of those are on $20M per year or more.

$12M is what Ryan Fitzpatrick is getting. Just about the only starting quarterbacks on less than $12M per year are on rookie deals or they play for Cleveland.

$12M. Delusional.
Born and bred a cheesehead
The_Green_Ninja
8 years ago

If Rodgers played up to his salary, we would have won.If Rodgers' salary equaled his play, maybe 12M, we'd have House and/or Hayward on the roster instead of Goodson and Whitehead and Atl may not have scored 33.

Originally Posted by: Barnfan 



I'm certain that some other teams around the league would give the money for Rodgers just encase the Packers wouldn't. Good thing they wouldn't know they're getting ripped off like you know they would, Barnfan.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
8 years ago
When someone brings up a players salary, it's obvious they have some agenda to belittle the player by any means necessary and they lack the informational fortitude to provide analysis to support why the player is bad. Thus, they fall back onto the whole "salary" criteria.

32 points would have beat 22 of the 25 teams (Packers excluded) that played last week. Only the Titans, Patriots and Falcons scored more than 32 points. In other words, 32 points is more than enough to win you the game if your DEFENSE DOES ITS DAMN JOB.

Bottom line, Aaron Rodgers led offense put up 32 points and the defense gave up 33. The defense is why they lost. Get the over it already.

UserPostedImage
Porforis
8 years ago
Can we at least all agree that the Bears suck? All this bickering (that I'm balls deep in, to be fair) is wearing me out! Make fun of the Bears, not war!
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (50m) : We can say it. We don't play.
    Mucky Tundra (2h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
    Mucky Tundra (2h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
    Mucky Tundra (2h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
    buckeyepackfan (2h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
    Mucky Tundra (11h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
    beast (12h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
    bboystyle (12h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
    Mucky Tundra (15h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
    Mucky Tundra (15h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
    Mucky Tundra (15h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch
    buckeyepackfan (15h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?
    Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks
    Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.
    Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak
    beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other
    beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)
    Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.
    beast (21-Dec) : I think a great running game will do that for most QBs
    packerfanoutwest (21-Dec) : Coach Matt LaFleur has said quarterback Jordan Love is playing the best football of his career.
    beast (21-Dec) : Oh, that's how you keep beating buckeye, with cheating
    Zero2Cool (20-Dec) : There is a rule that if your name starts with 'b' you lose 15 points. Hey, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them!
    wpr (20-Dec) : and then there is Beast. Running away with it all.
    beast (20-Dec) : As of tonight, 3 way tie for 2nd in Pick'em, that battle is interesting!
    beast (20-Dec) : Lions vs Vikings could be the main last game as it could determine division winners or #1 vs #2 seed
    Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : Or if KC needs to win for the #1 seed
    Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : Right now it looks like the only prime worthy games are Det-Minny and KC-Denver (if Denver can clinch a wild card spot)
    Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : The entirety of week 18 being listed as flex is weird
    Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Matt LaFleur today says unequivocally "Ted Thompson had nothing to do with the drafting of Jordan Love."
    Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Apparently, the editing is what pieces comments together. That Ted thing ... fake news.
    Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : LaFleur "opportunity that Ted Thompson thought was too good to pass up"
    Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Jordan Love pick was Ted Thompson's idea.
    Mucky Tundra (19-Dec) : Kyle Shanahan on signing De'Vondre Campbell as a FA last offseason: “We obviously made a mistake.”
    packerfanoutwest (19-Dec) : Alexander’s last season with GB
    Martha Careful (18-Dec) : if I were a professional athlete, I would probably look to see who the agent is for Kirk Cousins and then use him
    beast (18-Dec) : $100 million fully guaranteed Kirk Cousins gets benched for rookie
    Mucky Tundra (18-Dec) : a lower case b
    Mucky Tundra (18-Dec) : The real lie is how beast capitalized his name in his message while it's normally spelled with
    packerfanoutwest (18-Dec) : haha that's a lie
    beast (17-Dec) : Despite what lies other might tell, Beast didn't hate the Winter Warnings, it felt refreshing to Beast for some reason.
    Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : whiteout uniforms in general are pretty lame and weak. NFL greed at it's worst
    Martha Careful (17-Dec) : The Viking uniforms, the whiteout uniforms specifically absolutely suck
    beast (17-Dec) : Thanks Zero2Cool, looks a lot better now
    beast (17-Dec) : Seems like someone has a crush on me, can't stop talking about me
    Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : Should be gooder now. The forum default theme went to goofy land.
    Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : What the hell
    packerfanoutwest (17-Dec) : yeah beast hates the Winter Warning Unies
    Mucky Tundra (16-Dec) : Okay I'm glad to know it's not just something happening to me lol
    Mucky Tundra (16-Dec) : Zero, did you copy the Packers uniforms from last night and white out the board?
    beast (16-Dec) : Oh crap, is the board going to the Winter Warning Uniforms too?!? It's all white on white right now!
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    29 - 34
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    16 - 10
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    30 - 14
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    29 - 31
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    24 - 19
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    34 - 13
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    24 - 22
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    30 - 27
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    14 - 24
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    20 - 19
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    38 - 10
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    30 - 17
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    31 - 34
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    30 - 13
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
    Vikings
    Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

    19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.