NFC North Q&A: How much longer can Aaron Rodgers keep playing at his current level?

Continue Reading @ ESPN 

ESPN wrote:

Disingenuous article.

First of all just how well IS Aaron playing? Let's recall the past two years. 2015, he goes 6-0, thhen the wheels came off until Mike McCarthy took back play calling duties in a desperate attempt to right the ship. Then in 2016, Aaron was back to his old stat whoring ways, passing up the open guy to heave it deep all thhe time, until we were 4-6 and forced to run the table just to make the post season. Fortunately Aaron was able to start "really trying" by executing the offense most of the time, and we were able to do so, until the NFCCG.

Second of all, as the article points out, Aaron's mobility is a large part of his game. Brady is able to play well at 40, because he hits the open guy and functions wihin the confines of the offense. He's not scrambling around trying to make the highlight reel, holding the ball for 8 seconds or more and taking unnecessary hits. Aaron is.

FACT. If Aaron really wants to emulate Brady by playing well until he is 40, perhaps he could do more than merely adhere to Brady's dietary protocols.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

Speaking of being disingenuous . How do you go from something is wrong with him when he's not racking up amazing stats and then when he is, he's a stat whore?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Speaking of being disingenuous . How do you go from something is wrong with him when he's not racking up amazing stats and then when he is, he's a stat whore?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I don't necessary get the constant comparisons to Brady. What QB in history will look as good as Brady has in terms of overall successes?

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

Brady 6th round draft pick.
Bart 17th round.
Give Bart the softer passing league rules, 16 games a season and he would have comp stats.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

lol, touche. But my point is the top 2-3 QBs in the history of football can't necessarily be the metric of a successful, good, or even great QB. Those 2-3 are the best 2-3 for a reason. Most will never be that good, but that doesn't mean they still aren't great QBs.

Although I still contend everyone would think differently about Aaron Rodgers if he had the defenses Brady has often had.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

Your right about successful QB's , they are usually part of a successful TEAM . Starr and the 60's Packers , Bradshaw and his 70's Steelers , Montana and the 80's 49ers , Aikman and the 90's Cowboys , and Brady with the Belicheck Patriots played on great Teams.

When I see just how talented Aaron Rodgers is , I get frustrated that he is not surrounded by such players. He and Coach McCarthy must settle for what Ted Thompson provides them . Sometimes it feels like throwing Darts while being blindfolded , your lucky if you make a bulls-eye . [twocents]

Originally Posted by: Smokey 

When I see just how talented Aaron Rodgers is , I get frustrated that he is not surrounded by such players. He and Coach McCarthy must settle for what Ted Thompson provides them . Sometimes it feels like throwing Darts while being blindfolded , your lucky if you make a bulls-eye . [twocents]

Originally Posted by: Smokey 

Moreover, I still say Rodgers career would have been much different up to this point if he had both the coaching and especially the defenses that Brady has had....

Rodgers may not play his best in the biggest moments (except of course for his amazing Super Bowl run and Super Bowl MVP).

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

Have the Patriots really had that much more talent? I don't think they have. This is where I think it is more a coaching difference.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

Another example of somebody pretending they know what plays are called, what the pre-snap reads were and what the actual progressions are, what the defensive tendencies are. Just because a player is open at a certain time when looking at a video or picture doesn't mean he was open or even an option in the play.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

Pretty arrogant argument assuming that what you know or have the acumen to understand and observe is the limit for everyone else. Explains a lot!

We’ll start simple. With some football knowledge, intellectual acumen and an OPEN mind, one can see a RB run left, see every O player accounting for a D player doing something that contributes to a run left, and then state in a forum the play called for the RB to run left. Ya know because it was a run left. You don’t need to know the play, what the pass option was or presnap reads or defensive tendencies. But, you do have to open your eyes, your mind and OBSERVE what occurred and probably watch the play in slow mo several times.

If you study for example the adjustments, the influencing objectives of each route, the progressions, hot reads and so forth in the queen right pair fuzz fox 600 solid u quick poco Z corner or the west flop vr t hound 6 hot all cross U shoot; and pair this with some of the stuff above you too can make some pretty damn strong educated guesses as to what the progressions were on any given Mike McCarthy designed play you just observed.

Or you can keep blaming the coaching, 😂; god, if you only knew how silly that is! McCarthy is the best coach we’ve ever had and it’s not even close.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn