Packers 2022 Offseason Thread - Adams Traded to Raiders for 2022 1st and 2nd Rd Picks

[coolhandluke121]

He seems to have played against a lot of teams with vicious pass rush capabilities in the NFCCG's. Not that that's an excuse, but I'm sure every great QB has had some bad games against such defenses. Guys like Brady can still win multiple titles with their fair share of games like that, whereas Rodgers hasn't had that luxury, other than 2010 of course.

That's been the issue. When you get deep into the Playoffs you are going to face tough defenses. Problem has always been that the
Packer defenses have been sh*t. So even mediocre offenses would put up 30+ and Rodgers was forced to keep pace against much tougher defenses. In most cases it can't be done. And with MLF's offenses being a bit more conservative, it's impossible. The offense has gone from 4 WR (Jennings, Nelson, Cobb, Jones) under MM to Adams and a blocking WR with MLF. Expecting the same results from Rodgers is idiotic thinking.

It's just much easier for morons to point at a screen shot from a single play and scream about how Rodgers lost the game and how trading him for 3 draft picks would solve all the problems

The D was outstanding this past loss. After a disaster start they settled down and gave them a shot last year against Tampa. The D played plenty well enough to beat Seattle in that stupid ass game.

That's why I say it's complicated when judging his playoff career. It's neither all or none of his fault.

Someone on here had a comment that Rodgers has played just well enough to lose close in a lot of these games. It's a harsh comment but kind of true.

There is some truth to that, but it doesn't refute the underlying reality that "playing just well enough to lose" has still usually been a bar that's set by the defense. Other star QB's have exceeded a lower bar many times, but that says more about the bar than the QB. I also agree completely about his bad timing for mediocre games, but again it underscores the fact that the defense has really only given him a few chances where one should expect him to get to the SB in his career, so I prefer to judge him relative to his margin of error.

I don't think Brady would be much better. Maybe he would have one more title from not tightening up like Rodgers has a couple times, but his overall playoff record and rating in Rodgers's shoes would probably be worse overall IMO.

[UWM_Brew_Buck]

Keeping Rodgers is the choice if you want to maximize the chance you'll win 12 or 13 games during the next couple of seasons.
The thing is, past history tells us 13 wins doesn't even assure us of one playoff win. So if the point is to win a Super Bowl, the last 11 years suggests we should move on. Is it that much more enjoyable to win 13 instead of 10 games if you don't go anywhere in the playoffs?
So I would have taken the Broncos offer if it was equal or greater than what the Seahawks got. I might structure it differently (not the same players, go for more 2022 picks, ideally all of their 1-3rd round picks), but I'd take that quality of package.

Why cut it off at 11? Why not 12 or 30? I'm pretty sure the Bears or the Vikings would have loved back to back 15 years of HOF QB play, how many Superbowl rings do they have in that time? Its just dumb to apply NBA tanking logic to the NFL, doesn't work that way. If this organization can't win with Aaron Rodgers at QB then I'm not that confident that they'd be able to "reset" into anything besides a perennial loser, suddenly they're going to start nailing picks when he's gone? Implying Rodgers is the main reason this org hasn't won a Superbowl the last decade is the epitome of being disingenuous, go grind that axe elsewhere.

I think for sure we have the best chance of winning a SB next year (and maybe the best in a while) with Rodgers on the roster. I think the ones that wanted Rodgers traded for future assets wanted to keep the defense, reload with picks, see Lafleur’s system without a HOF qb, see the FO with a ton of assets and room. If Love flopped high draft pick next year, if he looks good even better.

As for Rodgers’ playoffs the last decade yeah he has had his ups and downs but he is definitely a part of the equation for our losses. It took me until the last playoff loss for me to feel that way.

[JayMKE]

If Rodgers was as good as you guys think he should be and overcame all the difficult circumstances when he wasn't able to impose his against the most stingy playoff defenses then he'd legitimately be the GOAT QB. That's a lot to demand out of a guy and I think delusional to expect to be able to find someone better, that's why I find the criticism of his play hollow and more just a vehicle for frustration. It's a lot easier imagining better coaching, better defense, more weapons on offense, than it is for Rodgers being even better than he was.

How many rings does Bellichek get out of Rodgers?

[M-C-G]

If Rodgers was as good as you guys think he should be and overcame all the difficult circumstances when he wasn't able to impose his against the most stingy playoff defenses then he'd legitimately be the GOAT QB. That's a lot to demand out of a guy and I think delusional to expect to be able to find someone better, that's why I find the criticism of his play hollow and more just a vehicle for frustration. It's a lot easier imagining better coaching, better defense, more weapons on offense, than it is for Rodgers being even better than he was.

How many rings does Bellichek get out of Rodgers?

Matt Stafford put up 340 yards and 2 TD against the 49ers a week after Rodgers put up 225 yards and 0 TD.

I get it, it isn't apples to apples, it was cold, but let's not pretend this defense was the 86 Bears.

[M-C-G]

There is a weird thought process that doesn't quite compute to me;
1. Packers should have drafted a WR, because one more weapon could have been the difference between winning and losing
2. Stop talking about Rodgers taking less money so we can bring back more weapons and pieces, that's somehow laughable

[ggatski1]

Hey Everyone, I am new to posting here however been reading Packer threads for years. I really have enjoyed all the updates and links when things are happening or about to happen. I have to say, I am on the side of us just being too negative in these posts about keeping Rodgers. He has driven me nuts and after the playoff loss I was contemplating moving on from him too. All the drama and keeping us waiting was rough as well however I have came to my senses. There is just not many good QBs out there (maybe 10-12 total). Look at Washington and how they just traded for Wentz Yes, Rodgers needs to prove it in the playoffs but I have a lot of Bears fans and they will tell you how it is not having a good QB. They have had a great defense the last 3-4 years and where has that gotten them. Lets Go Pack and see what Gute and Ball can do to keep most of the team intact. We have a great shot this year and every year is different. Hopefully we break through this year

G

[M-C-G]

Hey Everyone, I am new to posting here however been reading Packer threads for years. I really have enjoyed all the updates and links when things are happening or about to happen. I have to say, I am on the side of us just being too negative in these posts about keeping Rodgers. He has driven me nuts and after the playoff loss I was contemplating moving on from him too. All the drama and keeping us waiting was rough as well however I have came to my senses. There is just not many good QBs out there (maybe 10-12 total). Look at Washington and how they just traded for Wentz Yes, Rodgers needs to prove it in the playoffs but I have a lot of Bears fans and they will tell you how it is not having a good QB. They have had a great defense the last 3-4 years and where has that gotten them. Lets Go Pack and see what Gute and Ball can do to keep most of the team intact. We have a great shot this year and every year is different. Hopefully we break through this year

G

I respect everything you said and they realized you are a celtic fan, probably from a troll farm in Bangladesh.

Welcome

[ggatski1]

LMAO, Nice one. No actually I live in Las Vegas and been here for the past 35 yrs. We had no professional sports teams until the Golden Knights. So we had to make do. I have been a Packer fan since 77, lol. When I became a Packer fan as a kid, little did I know we would sniff the playoffs for like 15 yrs. lol. I remember back in the day when we had Lynn Dickey and Brent Fullwood .

G

[Ron Swanson]

I don't remember anyone being overly critical of Rodgers from the 2008-2018 period. Pretty sure most people realize it was a combination of untalented and overall **** Dom Capers defenses, unlucky injuries, and Fat Mac becoming stubborn and running an antiquated offense for years after the league figured him out.

In the MLF era though? Yeah, Rodgers deserves plenty of blame for the playoff failures. He's had awesome talent put around him and one of the best play-callers in the league making his life easy, essentially doing what we've all harped on for years, i.e. constantly scheming guys open as opposed to having him run around and improvise. Now, fresh off one of the best defensive performances in postseason franchise history, I just don't know where the excuses are anymore. It was just the final nail in the coffin of his "GOAT" argument or whatever. But people act like it's some crazy unfair criticism.

[MoMM]

1. Packers should have drafted a WR, because one more weapon could have been the difference between winning and losing

Exactly, had we have drafted a WR instead of Love we could have been in the last two SBs.

Just check the next 3 WRs taken after Love: Tee Higgins, Pittman Jr and Claypool. All of them had around 900 yards last season, now compare it with ours WRs except Adams? That's the difference between winning and losing a close game.

[M-C-G]

1. Packers should have drafted a WR, because one more weapon could have been the difference between winning and losing

Exactly, had we have drafted a WR instead of Love we could have been in the last two SBs.

Just check the next 3 WRs taken after Love: Tee Higgins, Pittman Jr and Claypool. All of them had around 900 yards last season, now compare it with ours WRs except Adams? That's the difference between winning and losing a close game.

Ok, so let's play out the other side, so had Rodgers left 10M or so on the table (let's not even factor in how much Cobb cost us), we could have had Ertz, which might have been the difference between winning and losing a close game.

I don't see why people only argue the first one and give Rodgers a giant free pass on the second, it becomes more laughable when they keep pulling the Brady comps in, because Brady always left money on the table to keep extra pieces around.

EDIT: And I was absolutely on board with Justin Jefferson and Bateman in the last couple of drafts. So I am saying this as someone that wanted to add a WR / weapon

[RRyder823]

There is a weird thought process that doesn't quite compute to me;
1. Packers should have drafted a WR, because one more weapon could have been the difference between winning and losing
2. Stop talking about Rodgers taking less money so we can bring back more weapons and pieces, that's somehow laughable

Because simultaneously Rodgers needs more help and can't be faulted for anything

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[MoMM]

1. Packers should have drafted a WR, because one more weapon could have been the difference between winning and losing

Exactly, had we have drafted a WR instead of Love we could have been in the last two SBs.

Just check the next 3 WRs taken after Love: Tee Higgins, Pittman Jr and Claypool. All of them had around 900 yards last season, now compare it with ours WRs except Adams? That's the difference between winning and losing a close game.

Ok, so let's play out the other side, so had Rodgers left 10M or so on the table (let's not even factor in how much Cobb cost us), we could have had Ertz, which might have been the difference between winning and losing a close game.

I don't see why people only argue the first one and give Rodgers a giant free pass on the second, it becomes more laughable when they keep pulling the Brady comps in, because Brady always left money on the table to keep extra pieces around.

EDIT: And I was absolutely on board with Justin Jefferson and Bateman in the last couple of drafts. So I am saying this as someone that wanted to add a WR / weapon

You are right about Cobb, but let's be fair, Brady is an exception, no other top QB accepts to earn less than their true value.

We can argue that having an uber model who gets paid more than him might help or not about his decision, but he is the exception anyway. Who else does it in any league?

[raysbookclub]

I could talk about how many SBs the Packers should have won between 2010-2022 for the rest of my life and not come to any conclusions about that number nor about who's to blame for failures: defense, ST, Rodgers, injuries, coaches, homefield advantage, matchups, weather, and so on.

But one thing I do feel pretty good about saying is that if we swapped Rodgers for Brady during those 12 years, GB would have won multiple SBs.

[PintSizedBox10]

God, you guys act like the QB is the only player on the entire roster. It's so nauseating. Rodgers has played poorly in some playoff games, no doubt. So has literally every player in existence, including some of my favorite Packers. This franchise has failed to win a Super Bowl because they always have a massive black hole weakness that leaves them with little margin for error (more so under Ted).

[LittleRooster]

I could talk about how many SBs the Packers should have won between 2010-2022 for the rest of my life and not come to any conclusions about that number nor about who's to blame for failures: defense, ST, Rodgers, injuries, coaches, homefield advantage, matchups, weather, and so on.

But one thing I do feel pretty good about saying is that if we swapped Rodgers for Brady during those 12 years, GB would have won multiple SBs.

Is BB and his defense coming with him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[th87]

For those that are angry the Packers didn't trade Rodgers for draft picks that could very well end up being busts, look at the Colts. A very well run organization, with a very good GM, and a solid foundation of players, and they are dead in the water. Three years since Luck's retirement, and they are very lucky to have dumped Wentz to Washington, another team dead in the water who can't find a QB. A first and a third round pick flushed down the toilet in that desperation trade. Before that, it was a desperation signing in Rivers. So the Colts are left with Sam Ehlinger and James Morgan just ahead of a terrible QB draft, no first round pick, and no answers in sight after 3 years. Be careful what you wish for.

So succession planning at the QB position is important, especially once your QB get up there in age. I concur.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not in the way you think. You most likely will need to find a franchise QB via a high pick, or a trade of assets.

How many other times have we seen a lower pick QB go the Rodgers route of sitting and growing into a franchise QB? This is a rarity.

The better move after Rodgers retires is to tank and if you can draft a franchise QB, do it, and if not, build a monster defense and trade for your QB down the road.

[th87]

Keeping Rodgers is the choice if you want to maximize the chance you'll win 12 or 13 games during the next couple of seasons.
The thing is, past history tells us 13 wins doesn't even assure us of one playoff win. So if the point is to win a Super Bowl, the last 11 years suggests we should move on. Is it that much more enjoyable to win 13 instead of 10 games if you don't go anywhere in the playoffs?
So I would have taken the Broncos offer if it was equal or greater than what the Seahawks got. I might structure it differently (not the same players, go for more 2022 picks, ideally all of their 1-3rd round picks), but I'd take that quality of package.

You win 13 games, all you need are some lucky bounces to win a SB. Pettine's ineptitude cost 2 NFCCGs, and in this one, despite Rodgers sucking, we might have won if Aaron Jones' brain didn't fart before half. And who knows after that.

This isn't as simple as "well Rodgers was the common denominator in 10 years of futility, so he must be the reason we lose, and if we replace him, we might win." No. Just no. The formula is you get to the playoffs and not suffer mental meltdowns, and hope for a bit of luck on 50/50 plays. Stafford was a loser until he was a winner. Rodgers can also get over the hump with a little more luck.

We'd be wise to go that well until we can't anymore.

[th87]

He seems to have played against a lot of teams with vicious pass rush capabilities in the NFCCG's. Not that that's an excuse, but I'm sure every great QB has had some bad games against such defenses. Guys like Brady can still win multiple titles with their fair share of games like that, whereas Rodgers hasn't had that luxury, other than 2010 of course.

That's been the issue. When you get deep into the Playoffs you are going to face tough defenses. Problem has always been that the
Packer defenses have been sh*t. So even mediocre offenses would put up 30+ and Rodgers was forced to keep pace against much tougher defenses. In most cases it can't be done. And with MLF's offenses being a bit more conservative, it's impossible. The offense has gone from 4 WR (Jennings, Nelson, Cobb, Jones) under MM to Adams and a blocking WR with MLF. Expecting the same results from Rodgers is idiotic thinking.

It's just much easier for morons to point at a screen shot from a single play and scream about how Rodgers lost the game and how trading him for 3 draft picks would solve all the problems

The D was outstanding this past loss. After a disaster start they settled down and gave them a shot last year against Tampa. The D played plenty well enough to beat Seattle in that stupid ass game.

That's why I say it's complicated when judging his playoff career. It's neither all or none of his fault.

Someone on here had a comment that Rodgers has played just well enough to lose close in a lot of these games. It's a harsh comment but kind of true.

Sent from my SM-G986U using RealGM mobile app

That was me. I will remain concerned about his ability to put together a late go-ahead score when down.

So I advocate for additional offensive talent that would take the pressure off him in these situations. Sure, he can throw lasers to Lazard in the first 3 quarters, but we need someone who can get more open in the 4th, so Rodgers doesn't have to be perfect to orchestrate the comeback.

People can talk all they want about "top ranked offense" and whatnot. These games are won in situations, and when you absolutely need to have a play, I'd rather not have to rely on the EQSBs of the world to make it.

[JayMKE]

To me its all just axe grinding and sour grapes from the people who wanted to ship Rodgers out for one or several other reasons which is the crux of this whole argument about how much “blame” Rodgers should get. The implication being what? The only reason anybody could conceivably think this organization should have won more in the last decade was because of how great Rodgers was to begin with, you get how contradictory that is? Also if one of those times Rodgers played above and beyond someone actually had stepped up and they moved on and got another ring all this criticism then rings hollow because he’d have 2?