Eagles, Vikings show Packers how they could've won without Aaron Rodgers· Page 2

Cheesey
Preferred Member

7 years ago

Rodgers money isn't the problem. We HAVE the money to sign guys. Ted just didn't use all the cap to get it done.
Maybe now we will spend what's necessary to build up the weak spots on the team. Hopefully the new GM will use the cap to get it done.
Rodgers IS the star player on the team. Can you blame him for trying to get all he can?
Otherwise he may bolt to a team that will go all out for a championship.

nerdmann
Premier Member

7 years ago

#12

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

We spend all the cap money every year. If Ted has money left over, it goes to prorate extentions, like Davante’s this year.

Rodgers can demand all the money he wants. But if he does so, he has no business crying about how the franchise is letting him down.

“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.”

bboystyle
Member

7 years ago

#13

.500.

I mean let's face it, that Pittsburgh game was just a damn lightning bolt. Ben does that to alot of teams. I mean, Hundley is what he is. He needs to work in his accuracy mid to deep, and he needs to anticipate better. Know the routes, know the WRs, throw them open by leading them with the ball. Know when the dude is gonna make his move to separate. Put the ball on the dime.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

in other words, he's a terrible QB that doesnt belong in the NFL.

bboystyle
Member

7 years ago

#14

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

He has every right to cry about the franchise letting him down as they have had over 7 years to field a decent D, a good run game, a solid consistent O line, and a legit TE but failed horribly to do so.

going on 8 years since the SB, now he doesnt have the right to cry when he deserves every last penny in the cap? lol

wpr
Preferred Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

#15

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

.500 what? Face it Hundley failed to meet even the most modest standards. He wasn't even close.
I another post I suggested that expecting him to have the stats of a starting QB may not have been fair but it doesn't change the fact that he failed to meet them.

Just suck it up and admit it.

Cheesey
Preferred Member

7 years ago

#16

Look at the facts. Take away Rodgers, and we SUCK with NO chance to even SMELL the playoffs.
Get ready for a trip back in time to the 1970s and 1980s after Rodgers is gone.
Some take so much for granted.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

7 years ago

#17

Look at the facts? Oh, hell yeah, let us look at the FACTS.

Yeah, we sure did suck didn't we?? Won enough games to be in the playoff hunt until Aaron Rodgers threw the damn season away against the Panthers while he tried playing hero instead of taking what the defense gave him.

The thing is, you CANNOT take away Aaron Rodgers. That's like saying "well that RB wouldn't have had more than 40 yards if you take away his 89 yard touchdown run". Can we be more absurd?

Aaron Rodgers IS part of the Packers and he IS the best player on the team and one of the best in the league. No freaking kidding your team is going to be DIFFERENT without him. Did we expect Brett Hundley, a player who was starting his third NFL season and making his for NFL starts to be the same as Aaron Rodgers? Are we really that clueless of a fan base?

No doubt, we got holes, like every damn team out there, but we're far from "suck". You wanna see suck, go watch teams like the Colts, Giants, Broncos, etc.

Sorry, but that's just bullshit to take without Rodgers anything because Rodgers is part of the team. You can't go and take players away arbitrarily to suffice alleged "fact" dropping.

WE ARE NOT THAT FAR OFF PEOPLE!!

Cheesey
Preferred Member

7 years ago

#18

It's NOT BS. We wouldn't have won as many games had AR not been healthy until the Vikings knocked him out.
How about the Vikings as an example? They lost their starting QB (Bridgewater) then their second QB (Bradford) then have their 3rd QB taking them maybe to the SB.
We couldn't get past losing our QB, and the team goes to the toilet.
7-9.
And it would have been a lot worse if AR would have been lost sooner in the year.
A few years ago we went 15-1 in the regular season. But our defense SUCKED. How else can you explain getting bounced out of the playoffs then, and in 2014? Our defense blew it. Had we even had a middle of the road D, we possibly could have had 2 or 3 SB appearances since SB45.
GREAT teams have players that can hold the fort when their best goes down. Ours can hardly keep up when we HAVE AR.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

7 years ago

#19

It would also have helped to have had a head coach who didn't instantly become conservative and tentative as soon as his team had a two-score lead. If there is one thing I love about Bill Belichick, it's that he has his starters out there even if they're up by 30 or 40 points. The game isn't over until every digit on the time clock reads zero. I ran the numbers a few years back, and the only score that is truly "safe" is 50. Anything less than that, and you're playing with fire to take your foot off the pedal.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

7 years ago

#20

It's NOT BS. We wouldn't have won as many games had Aaron Rodgers not been healthy until the Vikings knocked him out.

How about the Vikings as an example? They lost their starting QB (Bridgewater) then their second QB (Bradford) then have their 3rd QB taking them maybe to the SB.

We couldn't get past losing our QB, and the team goes to the toilet.

7-9.

And it would have been a lot worse if Aaron Rodgers would have been lost sooner in the year.

A few years ago we went 15-1 in the regular season. But our defense SUCKED. How else can you explain getting bounced out of the playoffs then, and in 2014? Our defense blew it. Had we even had a middle of the road D, we possibly could have had 2 or 3 SB appearances since SB45.

GREAT teams have players that can hold the fort when their best goes down. Ours can hardly keep up when we HAVE AR.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

Your first blurb there has so many negatives, I can't tell what you're saying. Are you saying the Packers wouldn't have won more games had Aaron Rodgers played all 16 regular season games? Or are you saying without Aaron Rodgers we wouldn't have went 4 - 1? If that's the route you're taking, why are you removing the QB? Are you saying Packers should get rid of Aaron Rodgers to build a better team? What makes you think you can remove Aaron Rodgers and then grade the team without its best player? I don't understand that at all. My truck would be crap if I removed one of the wheels. Should I then say my truck is a pile of shit because without one tire it's useless? I know that comes off very prick, but it just doesn't make any sense to me how someone can grade a team while removing the best piece. I mean, no shit the team is different. What the hell do you expect? You think the Packers should still win 10+ games even with one of the BEST PLAYERS IN THE NFL? Sorry, I am just not following the train of thought.

Yes, 2011 the offense set records, sadly, so did the defense, just not the records you want to set.
Yes, 2014 we should have been representing the NFC in the Super Bowl. I put that firmly on the coaching staff.

We should really stop taking the Packers success for granted and appreciate what we have with the Packers.

Anyhow, Vikings and Eagles built teams through upper half draft selections and actually DEVELOPED the draft picks. The Packers do the draft thing great, they just aren't developing the talent. Eagles traded for Jay Ajayi (actually Dolphins contacted them, but still) and he's now their starting RB.

Maybe Packers fans wouldn't be such spoiled jerks if Packers had missed the playoffs seasons like Vikings (except 2012, 2015) and Eagles (except 2010, 2013) did.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Martha Careful (2h) : meh

Zero2Cool (6h) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026

Zero2Cool (6h) : It's so awesome.

Zero2Cool (6h) : new site fan shout post fast

wpr (9h) : Slow posting in Fan shout.

wpr (9h) : Only 4

Zero2Cool (12h) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!

dfosterf (12h) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am

wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days

beast (18-Apr) : 6 days

wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep

dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire

dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that

dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.

dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move

dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what

Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife

Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately

Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.

dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.

Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not

Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.

Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?

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

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24