ImageImage

Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC

Moderators: paulpressey25, MickeyDavis, humanrefutation

User avatar
JimmyTheKid
General Manager
Posts: 9,056
And1: 5,448
Joined: Feb 10, 2009

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#461 » by JimmyTheKid » Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:06 pm

Bernman wrote:
JimmyTheKid wrote:Well I've never said "Love sucks" in my life. This has never been about Jordan Love, at least not to me. It was always about Aaron Rodgers being an open book with the organization. Telling them straight up "I want to play well into my 40's." And then watching the organization trade up for a 1st round QB 8 years before Rodgers is "well into his 40's." F***ing amateur hour.


That's actually very professional. Amateur hour would be to not set yourself up for life after your star QB, as the Packers did 15 years ago to create the stability you enjoy, & the Patriots sort of had w/ Jimmy G. These weren't professional organizations?

Speaking of the Patriots, they probably regret now not re-popping on the qb transition plan a few years before Brady left too. And the Packers could just end up trading Love like the Pats did Jimmy G, if Rodgers is still firing on all cylinders, + Love doesn't appear near his level for the future.

It's ironic Rodgers playing well now would be used as ammo against the strategy to draft a QB 2 years ago. Because beforehand Rodgers was underachieving. He almost doubled his TD total the year after Love was drafted. Don't think it's a coincidence he's found some new motivation. Plays well w/ a chip on his shoulder. You don't need to have one for him.

And well into your 40's was not 8 years. It was five. Plans change too. He could be physically or mentally beaten by then. Brady is an anomaly. Manning broke down before he was 40. And then it didn't matter if he wanted to continue or not.

The only mistake the Packers made is with communication. And it's not neglecting to relay this was a possibility beforehand, because it may have not come to fruition. Afterward everything I said, and more, could have been explained to Rodgers. He'd still heavily control if he was here long-term, based on his play. The rest is Love's, but Rodgers himself 15 years ago set a high standard.


"Set yourself up for life after your star QB" is all fine and dandy when your star QB is nearing the end of his career. Not all NFL lifetimes are created equal. At age 35, Rodgers stated he wanted to play, again, "well into his 40's." Its disingenuous to say 41 years old is "well into someone's 40's."

And, again, comparing the Rodgers situation to the Favre situation continues to be so, so lazy. Favre waffled for three years about retirement, holding the organization hostage with the draft and free agency. Rodgers flat out told the organization his long term intentions.

You say the communication is only mistake the Packers made. Which, yeah, that was a big one. But the colossal mistake was betting against a guy they watch play football more than anyone else. Its almost as if they looked at the stats on the back of Rodgers' football card and said, "he's done, time to find another QB" instead of asking more nuanced questions. "Is the arm talent still there?" "The ability to navigate the pocket and extend plays?" "The accuracy?" "The mobility?" "Might it be the offense thats getting stale?" Again, embarrassing isn't even the right word. Humiliating is closer.
stillgotgame
Analyst
Posts: 3,526
And1: 2,320
Joined: May 27, 2005
     

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#462 » by stillgotgame » Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:42 pm


He’s usually an idiot but he’s right on this time.
Bucks in 6
User avatar
M-C-G
RealGM
Posts: 23,524
And1: 9,849
Joined: Jan 13, 2013
     

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#463 » by M-C-G » Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:45 pm

JimmyTheKid wrote:At age 35, Rodgers stated he wanted to play, again, "well into his 40's." Its disingenuous to say 41 years old is "well into someone's 40's."
*******
Favre waffled for three years about retirement, holding the organization hostage with the draft and free agency. Rodgers flat out told the organization his long term intentions.


At age 35 he wanted to play into his 40s. At age 37.5 he was thinking about retiring. At age 7 I wanted to be an astronaut lawyer, at age 41 I work for a big corporation.

Rodgers LITERALLY contemplated retirement very seriously THIS OFFSEASON. They even said on the game last night he wanted to make sure he could give the team the full effort and attention that the team deserves.

If it was that seriously considered by Rodgers based on what Rodgers told them, how valuable is him wanting to play into his forties? How smart would be it to prepare in case he had decided to retire, which again, by his own words was being contemplated just a few months ago?

Or is it easier to just ignore this or wish it away?


During and interview with Dan Le Batard, Aaron Rodgers said he felt he was about “50/50” on the retirement decision. And didn’t make up his mind until the week before camp.

“I mean, I felt going into the weekend before camp that I was 50/50,” Aaron Rodgers told Dan Le Batard. “I don’t care if people don’t believe that. That’s true.
User avatar
Kerb Hohl
RealGM
Posts: 35,657
And1: 4,476
Joined: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Hmmmm...how many 1sts would Jason Richardson cost...?

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#464 » by Kerb Hohl » Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:47 pm

I mean, let's also not make this more than it is.

Most of the picks that went around Love amounted to very little unless we reached for Winfield there. Queen graded out poorly last year but I guess is supposed to be improving?

I would take another solid/good WR or another body on defense, no doubt, but we'd have had to shell out a few million for a backup QB, anyways.

Long story short, we can try to eviscerate the organization for either trying to pivot to Love or just trying to grab an insurance policy/value QB at that pick, but it's not like we completely lost Rodgers due to this or that it cost us the NFC Championship in all likelihood. We can still back up the dump truck and give Rodgers one more 4-year deal so he can retire with 4 more playoff losses where we give up 35+ points if we want to.
User avatar
Bernman
RealGM
Posts: 27,901
And1: 8,404
Joined: Aug 05, 2004
     

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#465 » by Bernman » Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:51 pm

JimmyTheKid wrote:"Set yourself up for life after your star QB" is all fine and dandy when your star QB is nearing the end of his career. Not all NFL lifetimes are created equal. At age 35, Rodgers stated he wanted to play, again, "well into his 40's." Its disingenuous to say 41 years old is "well into someone's 40's."


It's disingenuous to say he was 35 when this decision was made, because it was at 36, and he'd turn 37 during that next season. 8 years is gross hyperbole.

And who says we should want him to play that long for us, or that he will. He can state his intentions now, but plans change based on circumstance. He's not a slave because he signed a contract or made a declaration in his past. Franchise decisions should be based on empiricism. Empirically, the vast majority of qb's are declining at that point.

And, again, comparing the Rodgers situation to the Favre situation continues to be so, so lazy. Favre waffled for three years about retirement, holding the organization hostage with the draft and free agency. Rodgers flat out told the organization his long term intentions.


You're being lazy to ignore drafting Rodgers was the right decision regardless because of the value, Favre's play, and age. Similar variables apply here. Actually, Rodgers was a year older.

You say the communication is only mistake the Packers made. Which, yeah, that was a big one. But the colossal mistake was betting against a guy they watch play football more than anyone else. Its almost as if they looked at the stats on the back of Rodgers' football card and said, "he's done, time find another QB" instead of asking more nuanced questions. "Is the arm talent still there?" "The ability to navigate the pocket and extend plays?" "The accuracy?" "The mobility?" "Might it be the offense thats getting stale?" Again, embarrassing isn't even the right word. Humiliating is closer.


2018: 25 tds
2019: 26 tds
Draft Love
2020: 48 tds

What a mistake. Properly bet on what motivates Rodgers, while creating a long-term contingency plan in case Rodgers declines or leaves. If he doesn't then they have a trade chip. Pretty damn competent decision-making, then.
User avatar
LikeABosh
RealGM
Posts: 19,172
And1: 8,891
Joined: Jun 15, 2011
     

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#466 » by LikeABosh » Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:57 pm

JimmyTheKid wrote:
Read on Twitter


:D


Jennings: Remember that one time Aaron teased me about free agency?
stillgotgame
Analyst
Posts: 3,526
And1: 2,320
Joined: May 27, 2005
     

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#467 » by stillgotgame » Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:58 pm

Kerb Hohl wrote:I mean, let's also not make this more than it is.

Most of the picks that went around Love amounted to very little unless we reached for Winfield there. Queen graded out poorly last year but I guess is supposed to be improving?

I would take another solid/good WR or another body on defense, no doubt, but we'd have had to shell out a few million for a backup QB, anyways.

Long story short, we can try to eviscerate the organization for either trying to pivot to Love or just trying to grab an insurance policy/value QB at that pick, but it's not like we completely lost Rodgers due to this or that it cost us the NFC Championship in all likelihood. We can still back up the dump truck and give Rodgers one more 4-year deal so he can retire with 4 more playoff losses where we give up 35+ points if we want to.


Problem is not only did Gute try to pivot away from Rodgers but he ignored the defense. If Gute can’t fix the defense he needs to go. Period.
In 4 drafts he’s not taken a defensive lineman above the 5th round. Inexcusable. He’s shown he can draft offensive lineman and be successful, how about the defense?
Bucks in 6
User avatar
JimmyTheKid
General Manager
Posts: 9,056
And1: 5,448
Joined: Feb 10, 2009

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#468 » by JimmyTheKid » Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:20 pm

M-C-G wrote:
JimmyTheKid wrote:At age 35, Rodgers stated he wanted to play, again, "well into his 40's." Its disingenuous to say 41 years old is "well into someone's 40's."
*******
Favre waffled for three years about retirement, holding the organization hostage with the draft and free agency. Rodgers flat out told the organization his long term intentions.


At age 35 he wanted to play into his 40s. At age 37.5 he was thinking about retiring. At age 7 I wanted to be an astronaut lawyer, at age 41 I work for a big corporation.

Rodgers LITERALLY contemplated retirement very seriously THIS OFFSEASON. They even said on the game last night he wanted to make sure he could give the team the full effort and attention that the team deserves.

If it was that seriously considered by Rodgers based on what Rodgers told them, how valuable is him wanting to play into his forties? How smart would be it to prepare in case he had decided to retire, which again, by his own words was being contemplated just a few months ago?

Or is it easier to just ignore this or wish it away?


During and interview with Dan Le Batard, Aaron Rodgers said he felt he was about “50/50” on the retirement decision. And didn’t make up his mind until the week before camp.

“I mean, I felt going into the weekend before camp that I was 50/50,” Aaron Rodgers told Dan Le Batard. “I don’t care if people don’t believe that. That’s true.


I'm sure Rodgers was exploring every single available avenue to end up on a different team for this year. His pettiness and grudge holding knows no bounds. But he loves football and his legacy too much to retire and throw away a full season. Threatening retirement? Sure. Actually retiring? No way.

But, again, he wasn't mad just to be mad. He was mad because the organization made a terrible misstep betting against him. Hopefully Gutey and company can figure out how to make it all right.

Have fun rooting for your Packers ("but not Aaron *effin* Rodgers) this season! I bet last night was a confusing bag of mixed emotions, but I'm sure you'll figure out how to internally make it make sense.
User avatar
JimmyTheKid
General Manager
Posts: 9,056
And1: 5,448
Joined: Feb 10, 2009

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#469 » by JimmyTheKid » Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:26 pm

Bernman wrote:
JimmyTheKid wrote:"Set yourself up for life after your star QB" is all fine and dandy when your star QB is nearing the end of his career. Not all NFL lifetimes are created equal. At age 35, Rodgers stated he wanted to play, again, "well into his 40's." Its disingenuous to say 41 years old is "well into someone's 40's."


It's disingenuous to say he was 35 when this decision was made, because it was at 36, and he'd turn 37 during that next season. 8 years is gross hyperbole.

And who says we should want him to play that long for us, or that he will. He can state his intentions now, but plans change based on circumstance. He's not a slave because he signed a contract or made a declaration in his past. Franchise decisions should be based on empiricism. Empirically, the vast majority of qb's are declining at that point.

And, again, comparing the Rodgers situation to the Favre situation continues to be so, so lazy. Favre waffled for three years about retirement, holding the organization hostage with the draft and free agency. Rodgers flat out told the organization his long term intentions.


You're being lazy to ignore drafting Rodgers was the right decision regardless because of the value, Favre's play, and age. Similar variables apply here. Actually, Rodgers was a year older.

You say the communication is only mistake the Packers made. Which, yeah, that was a big one. But the colossal mistake was betting against a guy they watch play football more than anyone else. Its almost as if they looked at the stats on the back of Rodgers' football card and said, "he's done, time find another QB" instead of asking more nuanced questions. "Is the arm talent still there?" "The ability to navigate the pocket and extend plays?" "The accuracy?" "The mobility?" "Might it be the offense thats getting stale?" Again, embarrassing isn't even the right word. Humiliating is closer.


2018: 25 tds
2019: 26 tds
Draft Love
2020: 48 tds

What a mistake. Properly bet on what motivates Rodgers, while creating a long-term contingency plan in case Rodgers declines or leaves. If he doesn't then they have a trade chip. Pretty damn competent decision-making, then.


:lol:

There is no way you typed that with a straight face. Instead of drafting a player to potentially help get you over the hump of an NFC Championship loss you opt to trade up and draft a QB knowing it will motivate Rodgers to return to MVP form? Talk about genius!

And you took my "back of the football card stats" to an entirely different level of simpleton by posting those TD numbers. I'm sure the improvement had nothing to do with getting more comfortable in LaFleur's offense, and everything to do with Jordan Love breathing down his neck.
User avatar
M-C-G
RealGM
Posts: 23,524
And1: 9,849
Joined: Jan 13, 2013
     

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#470 » by M-C-G » Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:32 pm

JimmyTheKid wrote:
M-C-G wrote:
JimmyTheKid wrote:At age 35, Rodgers stated he wanted to play, again, "well into his 40's." Its disingenuous to say 41 years old is "well into someone's 40's."
*******
Favre waffled for three years about retirement, holding the organization hostage with the draft and free agency. Rodgers flat out told the organization his long term intentions.


At age 35 he wanted to play into his 40s. At age 37.5 he was thinking about retiring. At age 7 I wanted to be an astronaut lawyer, at age 41 I work for a big corporation.

Rodgers LITERALLY contemplated retirement very seriously THIS OFFSEASON. They even said on the game last night he wanted to make sure he could give the team the full effort and attention that the team deserves.

If it was that seriously considered by Rodgers based on what Rodgers told them, how valuable is him wanting to play into his forties? How smart would be it to prepare in case he had decided to retire, which again, by his own words was being contemplated just a few months ago?

Or is it easier to just ignore this or wish it away?


During and interview with Dan Le Batard, Aaron Rodgers said he felt he was about “50/50” on the retirement decision. And didn’t make up his mind until the week before camp.

“I mean, I felt going into the weekend before camp that I was 50/50,” Aaron Rodgers told Dan Le Batard. “I don’t care if people don’t believe that. That’s true.


I'm sure Rodgers was exploring every single available avenue to end up on a different team for this year. His pettiness and grudge holding knows no bounds. But he loves football and his legacy too much to retire and throw away a full season. Threatening retirement? Sure. Actually retiring? No way.

But, again, he wasn't mad just to be mad. He was mad because the organization made a terrible misstep betting against him. Hopefully Gutey and company can figure out how to make it all right.

Have fun rooting for your Packers ("but not Aaron *effin* Rodgers) this season! I bet last night was a confusing bag of mixed emotions, but I'm sure you'll figure out how to internally make it make sense.


So when Rodgers says he wants to play more years, it suits your argument, you don't stop talking about it. When Rodgers says something, which he literally says 'I don't care if people don't believe that. That's true', you ignore it and wish it away.

I love the Packers and enjoy Aaron Rodgers playing for them. It is all the other diva stuff that happens off the field I don't care for and I have no problem moving on from a guy that doesn't want to be here any longer. Divorces don't just happen in marriages. The fact that you are imagining me some how not enjoying watching the packers is pretty laughable, tells me that you are projecting some kind of weird persona on anyone that disagrees with you, which just makes you wrong, but let's you pretend you are zinging people that wanted to trade him and move on. I guess whatever makes you happy, live in an alternate reality of your own creation, where you selective pick and choose which things you accept Rodgers telling you are true or false and everyone else pouts and cries when the Packers do great. You know what would really chap my hide, if Rodgers really stuck it to me by winning another Super bowl, o man that would really grind my gears as a Packer fan!
User avatar
JimmyTheKid
General Manager
Posts: 9,056
And1: 5,448
Joined: Feb 10, 2009

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#471 » by JimmyTheKid » Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:41 pm

M-C-G wrote:
JimmyTheKid wrote:
M-C-G wrote:
At age 35 he wanted to play into his 40s. At age 37.5 he was thinking about retiring. At age 7 I wanted to be an astronaut lawyer, at age 41 I work for a big corporation.

Rodgers LITERALLY contemplated retirement very seriously THIS OFFSEASON. They even said on the game last night he wanted to make sure he could give the team the full effort and attention that the team deserves.

If it was that seriously considered by Rodgers based on what Rodgers told them, how valuable is him wanting to play into his forties? How smart would be it to prepare in case he had decided to retire, which again, by his own words was being contemplated just a few months ago?

Or is it easier to just ignore this or wish it away?




I'm sure Rodgers was exploring every single available avenue to end up on a different team for this year. His pettiness and grudge holding knows no bounds. But he loves football and his legacy too much to retire and throw away a full season. Threatening retirement? Sure. Actually retiring? No way.

But, again, he wasn't mad just to be mad. He was mad because the organization made a terrible misstep betting against him. Hopefully Gutey and company can figure out how to make it all right.

Have fun rooting for your Packers ("but not Aaron *effin* Rodgers) this season! I bet last night was a confusing bag of mixed emotions, but I'm sure you'll figure out how to internally make it make sense.


So when Rodgers says he wants to play more years, it suits your argument, you don't stop talking about it. When Rodgers says something, which he literally says 'I don't care if people don't believe that. That's true', you ignore it and wish it away.

I love the Packers and enjoy Aaron Rodgers playing for them. It is all the other diva stuff that happens off the field I don't care for and I have no problem moving on from a guy that doesn't want to be here any longer. Divorces don't just happen in marriages. The fact that you are imagining me some how not enjoying watching the packers is pretty laughable, tells me that you are projecting some kind of weird persona on anyone that disagrees with you, which just makes you wrong, but let's you pretend you are zinging people that wanted to trade him and move on. I guess whatever makes you happy, live in an alternate reality of your own creation, where you selective pick and choose which things you accept Rodgers telling you are true or false and everyone else pouts and cries when the Packers do great. You know what would really chap my hide, if Rodgers really stuck it to me by winning another Super bowl, o man that would really grind my gears as a Packer fan!


I didn't take the retirement stuff seriously when it first came out. I don't take the retirement stuff seriously today. I do believe he threatened retirement in a failed attempt to get the Packers to trade him. The simple fact of the matter is he had no leverage and that was his last hailmary before returning to the team.

Glad to see we're rooting for the same thing. I just hope its harder for the "F**k Rodgers" contingent to enjoy Packers victories this year because of how wrong there are about the entire situation, thats all. Nothing personal.
User avatar
Kerb Hohl
RealGM
Posts: 35,657
And1: 4,476
Joined: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Hmmmm...how many 1sts would Jason Richardson cost...?

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#472 » by Kerb Hohl » Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:41 pm

stillgotgame wrote:
Kerb Hohl wrote:I mean, let's also not make this more than it is.

Most of the picks that went around Love amounted to very little unless we reached for Winfield there. Queen graded out poorly last year but I guess is supposed to be improving?

I would take another solid/good WR or another body on defense, no doubt, but we'd have had to shell out a few million for a backup QB, anyways.

Long story short, we can try to eviscerate the organization for either trying to pivot to Love or just trying to grab an insurance policy/value QB at that pick, but it's not like we completely lost Rodgers due to this or that it cost us the NFC Championship in all likelihood. We can still back up the dump truck and give Rodgers one more 4-year deal so he can retire with 4 more playoff losses where we give up 35+ points if we want to.


Problem is not only did Gute try to pivot away from Rodgers but he ignored the defense. If Gute can’t fix the defense he needs to go. Period.
In 4 drafts he’s not taken a defensive lineman above the 5th round. Inexcusable. He’s shown he can draft offensive lineman and be successful, how about the defense?


He did not ignore the defense. Yes, it could be better, but the last 3 years have been arguably the best defense we've had with Rodgers other than 2010...and yes, that is kind of sad to consider because the bar is low, but they spent picks on Gary, Savage, Jaire, Stokes and locked up Kenny and brought in the Smiths. Also, they just unearthed Campbell which may be the best ILB since Bishop.
User avatar
Ron Swanson
RealGM
Posts: 25,906
And1: 29,826
Joined: May 15, 2013

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#473 » by Ron Swanson » Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:51 pm

Speaking of:

Read on Twitter


Campbell looks like a keeper. Issue is who is your other guy? Even before the concussion, Barnes wasn't exactly looking like a world-beater. Ty Summers is an ok depth and plus athleticism guy, but it's painful watching him out there trying to shed blocks while playing the run. I think you seriously need to consider bringing Savage down in the box more and playing single high safety should be your base 1st and 2nd down formation.
User avatar
MickeyDavis
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 104,466
And1: 56,619
Joined: May 02, 2002
Location: The Craps Table
     

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#474 » by MickeyDavis » Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:33 pm

Campbell has looked good.
I'm against picketing but I don't know how to show it.
stillgotgame
Analyst
Posts: 3,526
And1: 2,320
Joined: May 27, 2005
     

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#475 » by stillgotgame » Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:38 pm

Kerb Hohl wrote:
stillgotgame wrote:
Kerb Hohl wrote:I mean, let's also not make this more than it is.

Most of the picks that went around Love amounted to very little unless we reached for Winfield there. Queen graded out poorly last year but I guess is supposed to be improving?

I would take another solid/good WR or another body on defense, no doubt, but we'd have had to shell out a few million for a backup QB, anyways.

Long story short, we can try to eviscerate the organization for either trying to pivot to Love or just trying to grab an insurance policy/value QB at that pick, but it's not like we completely lost Rodgers due to this or that it cost us the NFC Championship in all likelihood. We can still back up the dump truck and give Rodgers one more 4-year deal so he can retire with 4 more playoff losses where we give up 35+ points if we want to.


Problem is not only did Gute try to pivot away from Rodgers but he ignored the defense. If Gute can’t fix the defense he needs to go. Period.
In 4 drafts he’s not taken a defensive lineman above the 5th round. Inexcusable. He’s shown he can draft offensive lineman and be successful, how about the defense?


He did not ignore the defense. Yes, it could be better, but the last 3 years have been arguably the best defense we've had with Rodgers other than 2010...and yes, that is kind of sad to consider because the bar is low, but they spent picks on Gary, Savage, Jaire, Stokes and locked up Kenny and brought in the Smiths. Also, they just unearthed Campbell which may be the best ILB since Bishop.


So you think we're going to give up 35 a game in the playoffs but yet Gute has done a good job? Which is it?

He's clearly got an eye for talent in the draft. How about he spend some of it on our d-line.
Bucks in 6
User avatar
MissKhriddleton
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,324
And1: 3,628
Joined: Nov 03, 2015
 

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#476 » by MissKhriddleton » Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:40 pm

Am I the only one that didn’t think it was grounding before the half? Thought if you get hit while you throw then it doesn’t matter if it wasn’t close to anyone because there’s no way to tell where the QB was actually trying to throw.
RRyder823
General Manager
Posts: 9,015
And1: 5,071
Joined: May 06, 2014
   

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#477 » by RRyder823 » Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:26 pm

MissKhriddleton wrote:Am I the only one that didn’t think it was grounding before the half? Thought if you get hit while you throw then it doesn’t matter if it wasn’t close to anyone because there’s no way to tell where the QB was actually trying to throw.
That is not a rule at all. At least not that I know of. Most grounding calls are QBs going to the ground just trying to unload it (just like last night)

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app
RRyder823
General Manager
Posts: 9,015
And1: 5,071
Joined: May 06, 2014
   

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#478 » by RRyder823 » Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:32 pm

JimmyTheKid wrote:
M-C-G wrote:
JimmyTheKid wrote:
I'm sure Rodgers was exploring every single available avenue to end up on a different team for this year. His pettiness and grudge holding knows no bounds. But he loves football and his legacy too much to retire and throw away a full season. Threatening retirement? Sure. Actually retiring? No way.

But, again, he wasn't mad just to be mad. He was mad because the organization made a terrible misstep betting against him. Hopefully Gutey and company can figure out how to make it all right.

Have fun rooting for your Packers ("but not Aaron *effin* Rodgers) this season! I bet last night was a confusing bag of mixed emotions, but I'm sure you'll figure out how to internally make it make sense.


So when Rodgers says he wants to play more years, it suits your argument, you don't stop talking about it. When Rodgers says something, which he literally says 'I don't care if people don't believe that. That's true', you ignore it and wish it away.

I love the Packers and enjoy Aaron Rodgers playing for them. It is all the other diva stuff that happens off the field I don't care for and I have no problem moving on from a guy that doesn't want to be here any longer. Divorces don't just happen in marriages. The fact that you are imagining me some how not enjoying watching the packers is pretty laughable, tells me that you are projecting some kind of weird persona on anyone that disagrees with you, which just makes you wrong, but let's you pretend you are zinging people that wanted to trade him and move on. I guess whatever makes you happy, live in an alternate reality of your own creation, where you selective pick and choose which things you accept Rodgers telling you are true or false and everyone else pouts and cries when the Packers do great. You know what would really chap my hide, if Rodgers really stuck it to me by winning another Super bowl, o man that would really grind my gears as a Packer fan!


I didn't take the retirement stuff seriously when it first came out. I don't take the retirement stuff seriously today. I do believe he threatened retirement in a failed attempt to get the Packers to trade him. The simple fact of the matter is he had no leverage and that was his last hailmary before returning to the team.

Glad to see we're rooting for the same thing. I just hope its harder for the "F**k Rodgers" contingent to enjoy Packers victories this year because of how wrong there are about the entire situation, thats all. Nothing personal.


Sorry to break it to you but no one is having an issue being happy when the team wins.

You seem to be the one having an issue simply enjoying a victory though.

(As a side note Mods can there be a separate thread that this Rodgers talk can get moved to so every post game thread doesn't devolve?)



Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
LikeABosh
RealGM
Posts: 19,172
And1: 8,891
Joined: Jun 15, 2011
     

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#479 » by LikeABosh » Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:14 pm

stillgotgame wrote:
Kerb Hohl wrote:
stillgotgame wrote:
Problem is not only did Gute try to pivot away from Rodgers but he ignored the defense. If Gute can’t fix the defense he needs to go. Period.
In 4 drafts he’s not taken a defensive lineman above the 5th round. Inexcusable. He’s shown he can draft offensive lineman and be successful, how about the defense?


He did not ignore the defense. Yes, it could be better, but the last 3 years have been arguably the best defense we've had with Rodgers other than 2010...and yes, that is kind of sad to consider because the bar is low, but they spent picks on Gary, Savage, Jaire, Stokes and locked up Kenny and brought in the Smiths. Also, they just unearthed Campbell which may be the best ILB since Bishop.


So you think we're going to give up 35 a game in the playoffs but yet Gute has done a good job? Which is it?

He's clearly got an eye for talent in the draft. How about he spend some of it on our d-line.


Both. He doesn't have an infinite amount of resources. You don't want me to post the defensive players he inherited in 2017-18. It's ugly. Almost everyone is out of the league. So far he's had to replace both starting OLB's, both starting ILB's, both starting corners, and both starting safeties. He's done an amazing job filling the defense with talent in a very short timespan despite having to pick at the back end of drafts and having to pay a QB $40 million a year

Whether Barry can put it all together is another issue tho.
skones
RealGM
Posts: 37,108
And1: 17,267
Joined: Jul 20, 2004

Re: Game 3: Pack at Niners - 7:20 - NBC 

Post#480 » by skones » Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:20 am

MissKhriddleton wrote:Am I the only one that didn’t think it was grounding before the half? Thought if you get hit while you throw then it doesn’t matter if it wasn’t close to anyone because there’s no way to tell where the QB was actually trying to throw.


He threw it to no one in order to avoid the sack. That's what grounding is.

Return to Green Bay Packers