Let’s use an example less emotionally charged for Packer fans. Bears beat Vikes because the OTs sucked. Sure Bradford missed a TD and a few other throws, yes the D gave up 20; but had the OTs been serviceable, Minny would have won. And actually if the OTs did their job, I bet Bradford doesn’t miss all those throws and the D doesn’t give up 20. Norv Turner quit because he knew he could not execute his offense once the trade deadline passed.
Did the OTs do some things correctly? Of course they did, each actually successfully blocked a lot more than they failed. So do we look at the 60-65% of the plays where they did their job and say, get off their case? Of course not, given their contract/draft capital status they should have performed on at least 90% of plays.
Now, if we apply these very principles to Rodgers’ play in Atl; then you’ll be in the proper position of understanding. Ask what % of plays can we afford our 22M QB to screw up before it costs us a game; in Atl Rodgers hit that mark! Other guys did do things wrong; but only 1 name fills in this blank:
Had _____________ performed up to his contractual value, GB would have “sealed the deal” v. Atl.
Originally Posted by: Barfarn
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.