Jump to content

Rodgers Disgruntled with Packers


Recommended Posts

Just now, Doc said:

 

Yeah they got better on offense, no thanks whatsoever to Love and Dillon.  But Tampa had some pretty good offensive weapons who were able to allow Winston to pass for over 5,100 yards, but still went out and got Gronk and then AB.  So there goes that theory that more offense wouldn't have helped.  The same applies to defense, again coming off a manhandling by the 49'ers.

 

Yes.  So what?  They got better because with another year in, the players they had got better.

 

You're left making the absurd argument that they (and Rodgers) suffered for a lack of "new weapons".  The year before AR threw only 26 TDs.  A year later, with no "new weapons", he tossed 48.  Your position is hopeless.

 

Somehow you left out the part where Winston's "offense" threw 30 ints.  lol.  shocking.  

 

And left out that they got Brady (before Gronk) and that's why they won the SB.  They replaced a bad QB with the GOAT on an already solid roster and presto...crazy right?

 

Let Rodgers show up on the Jets or Jags roster (n a trade, say) and let's see how that goes.

 

 

8 minutes ago, NewEra said:

No....my point is that a ROOKIE (not named Jordan Love and the other draft pick that they traded to move up for him) could’ve been the difference in them winning the super bowl).  It’s impossible to prove incorrect.....so you have, in essence, proven nothing.  Except that you enjoy writing the same things over and over and over and over again, 

 

 

Rodgers the rookie was no help to Favre and a Packers team that was desperate for weapons.  

 

But, come on!  I gave you a 1% possibility that a rookie makes a game changing play in that one game and they go to the SB.  I thought that was pretty big of me to concede that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Yes.  So what?  They got better because with another year in, the players they had got better.

 

You're left making the absurd argument that they (and Rodgers) suffered for a lack of "new weapons".  The year before AR threw only 26 TDs.  A year later, with no "new weapons", he tossed 48.  Your position is hopeless.

 

Somehow you left out the part where Winston's "offense" threw 30 ints.  lol.  shocking.  

 

And left out that they got Brady (before Gronk) and that's why they won the SB.  They replaced a bad QB with the GOAT on an already solid roster and presto...crazy right?

 

Let Rodgers show up on the Jets or Jags roster (n a trade, say) and let's see how that goes.

 

 

 

 

Rodgers the rookie was no help to Favre and a Packers team that was desperate for weapons.  

 

But, come on!  I gave you a 1% possibility that a rookie makes a game changing play in that one game and they go to the SB.  I thought that was pretty big of me to concede that.

What does this have to do with the 2020 packers not winning a super bowl?  That’s been my sticking point the entire time.  I’m not going to go off tangent because you prove me wrong.  Scratch that.  Don’t answer it. I couldn’t care less. 
 

You said that the packers were a fluke last season and that they had no chance to win 13 games this year.  You don’t really know anything about that team, let alone how a rookie could have helped them.  Two rookie helped the Bucs win the Super Bowl this year.  
 

Til next time weo.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Yes.  So what?  They got better because with another year in, the players they had got better.

 

You're left making the absurd argument that they (and Rodgers) suffered for a lack of "new weapons".  The year before AR threw only 26 TDs.  A year later, with no "new weapons", he tossed 48.  Your position is hopeless.

 

Somehow you left out the part where Winston's "offense" threw 30 ints.  lol.  shocking.  

 

And left out that they got Brady (before Gronk) and that's why they won the SB.  They replaced a bad QB with the GOAT on an already solid roster and presto...crazy right?

 

Let Rodgers show up on the Jets or Jags roster (n a trade, say) and let's see how that goes.

 

Ah yes, the Bucs' "offense" threw 30 INTs.  Good one. 

 

Stick to your silly notion that nothing would have helped them.  You're only doing it because you have nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NewEra said:

What does this have to do with the 2020 packers not winning a super bowl?  That’s been my sticking point the entire time.  I’m not going to go off tangent because you prove me wrong.  Scratch that.  Don’t answer it. I couldn’t care less. 
 

You said that the packers were a fluke last season and that they had no chance to win 13 games this year.  You don’t really know anything about that team, let alone how a rookie could have helped them.  Two rookie helped the Bucs win the Super Bowl this year.  
 

Til next time weo.  

I was wrong about the 2019 team.  Turns out they were fairly stacked on Offense and multiple guys had career years in 2020.  Loaded 

 

Bucs win SB because of Brady.  Not rookies.  Come on!

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Ah yes, the Bucs' "offense" threw 30 INTs.  Good one. 

 

Stick to your silly notion that nothing would have helped them.  You're only doing it because you have nothing else.


Not the Offense, the QB.  Why did you leave that out?

 

And not “nothing”-/I’ve already conceded there is a theoretical chance a rookie would have made such an impact in that one game that the Packers go to the SB.  I gave you 1% chance that was true, 99% not.

Edited by Mr. WEO
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

I was wrong about the 2019 team.  Turns out they were fairly stacked on Offense and multiple guys had career years in 2020.  Loaded 

 

Bucs win SB because of Brady.  Not rookies.  Come on!


Not the Offense, the QB.  Why did you leave that out?

 

And not “nothing”-/I’ve already conceded there is a theoretical chance a rookie would have made such an impact in that one game that the Packers go to the SB.  I gave you 1% chance that was true, 99% not.

Sure.  Not that I read it

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Packers could have drafted Winfield instead of Love at 26, which would have meant the Bucs would have been without him for both the season and the NFC Championship Game. How much of an impact would that switch have had on the outcome? No one knows, except more of an influence than Love had for sure. 

 

One gripe from Rodgers appears to be the lack of communication with him, though. On NFL Network tonight the hosts asked Bruce Arians whether Tom Brady had been made aware of the plan to pick Kyle Trask at 64 - Arians made it clear he had been. This wasn’t a even a first round pick, let alone one where the front office traded up especially; this was at the end of the second.

 

I think Rodgers is a pain in the backside who can be very difficult to get on with but, rightly or wrongly, he feels let down by the Packers front office and does not want to work with them anymore. He’s basically said them or me but at the moment the front office are holding firm. I can see him retiring early just to get way rather than go back on his threats which, whatever you think of him, would be a shame for the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

The Packers could have drafted Winfield instead of Love at 26, which would have meant the Bucs would have been without him for both the season and the NFC Championship Game. How much of an impact would that switch have had on the outcome? No one knows, except more of an influence than Love had for sure. 

 

One gripe from Rodgers appears to be the lack of communication with him, though. On NFL Network tonight the hosts asked Bruce Arians whether Tom Brady had been made aware of the plan to pick Kyle Trask at 64 - Arians made it clear he had been. This wasn’t a even a first round pick, let alone one where the front office traded up especially; this was at the end of the second.

 

I think Rodgers is a pain in the backside who can be very difficult to get on with but, rightly or wrongly, he feels let down by the Packers front office and does not want to work with them anymore. He’s basically said them or me but at the moment the front office are holding firm. I can see him retiring early just to get way rather than go back on his threats which, whatever you think of him, would be a shame for the game.


Where else is going to go and get back to a Conference Championship Game this year? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:


Where else is going to go and get back to a Conference Championship Game this year? 


Rodgers apparently previously stated he’d want a move to the 49ers, Broncos or the Raiders. I would suggest the first option would be off the table after the Lance pick but the latter two could be possibilities. The Broncos have a decent roster but lack of strength when it comes to the QB; it wouldn’t be easy but with a bit of luck I think they could make the Championship game. They would certainly be competitive and the Broncos would probably treat him the same way as the Bucs treated Brady - give him anything to help get the franchise over the line.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:


Rodgers apparently previously stated he’d want a move to the 49ers, Broncos or the Raiders. I would suggest the first option would be off the table after the Lance pick but the latter two could be possibilities. The Broncos have a decent roster but lack of strength when it comes to the QB; it wouldn’t be easy but with a bit of luck I think they could make the Championship game. They would certainly be competitive and the Broncos would probably treat him the same way as the Bucs treated Brady - give him anything to help get the franchise over the line.


49ers weren’t an option.  Broncos with Rodgers wouldn’t get past KC or Buffalo.  Their D stinks.  Their running game was 13th last year.  Raiders are not even close.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. WEO said:


49ers weren’t an option.  Broncos with Rodgers wouldn’t get past KC or Buffalo.  Their D stinks.  Their running game was 13th last year.  Raiders are not even close.  


49ers contacted the Packers prior to the draft to query if they were willing to trade - due to the rumours probably number three, a punch of other picks and Garoppolo. They were an option but not now.

 

The weaknesses of the Raiders and Broncos would be the huge risk of moving into the AFC; it’s the toughest conference between the two by far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UKBillFan said:


49ers contacted the Packers prior to the draft to query if they were willing to trade - due to the rumours probably number three, a punch of other picks and Garoppolo. They were an option but not now.

 

The weaknesses of the Raiders and Broncos would be the huge risk of moving into the AFC; it’s the toughest conference between the two by far.

 

 

That's why he has no leverage here.   It's a bluff I would think.  Why would he leave a contender to run out his string on a team like Broncos or Raiders----and for the reason of issues with the FO??  Elway and Mayock/Davis are a chronic freak show. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:


49ers weren’t an option.  Broncos with Rodgers wouldn’t get past KC or Buffalo.  Their D stinks.  Their running game was 13th last year.  Raiders are not even close.  


the Denver D stinks? It would immediately be a 3 way log jam. Honestly with a hof qb, the raiders wouldn’t be too far behind either 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Yes, great QBs make others around them better.  Breaking news right?  

 

And was it a great shock to you that the Colts went 2-14 with Curtis Painter?  Impossible to see that coming, right?  Note that the Broncos won a SB despite awful QBing by Manning.

 

The Packers would be crazy not to ride Rodgers til he's retired....specifically because they see how good this team is right now.  Your comment makes no sense.

 

It's easy to see (and I've shown you)...that Offense got significantly better this season, just by each player getting better.  Several of them were drafts within the past 2-5 years. 

 

 

 

 

No, I'm not.  You made that up.

 

The GM's first year, they were 6-9 with Rodgers.  Then. 2 13-3 seasons/Division wins/NFCC games--and the GM's gotta go.  Again, well argued....

 

They have nothing behind Devante Adams and Aaron Jones production automatically slips due to no threat of Rodgers behind center.  The offensive line also suffers from no Rodgers. 

 

I stand by my statement. You could put a bridge guy like Teddy Bridgewater on the Packers and they'd be lucky to win 6 games.

 

As for that Broncos team, they were led by an elite defense, with solid game managing play from Manning when it counted.

Edited by Chicken Boo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I’m up to date on the facts:

- Rodgers is mad at the Packers for a variety of reasons including drafting his replacement instead of getting him more offensive help and stupidly electing to kick a FG in the NFCCG which effectively ended their chances to win that game and advance to the SB.
- He told the team months ago that he would not play for them again and kept that behind closed doors.

- The Packers told him they’d trade him but have yet to engage in trade talks with any suitors.

- Rodgers went public with his ultimatum just before the draft 
 

If I have that all correct, then the Pack looks like a total cluster F.  They have had time to try to make Rodgers happy in GB or to decide to move on and trade him for value.  Either seems defensible, but instead they’ve lied to him about trading him and have created a situation where they might not have him or any of the massive compensation they could’ve gotten for him.

 

As for Rodgers, he’s 37.  He’s at the end of his career and it looks like he either wants to play for a team that can win it all (and that he trusts) or he’d rather retire.  That’s reasonable for a 37 year old elite QB.

 

I really don’t want him in the AFC and I doubt he gets traded to another NFC team so I’m rooting for him to retire and host Jeopardy! or go to the booth or something.  

Edited by BarleyNY
  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2021 at 8:22 PM, NoSaint said:


the Denver D stinks? It would immediately be a 3 way log jam. Honestly with a hof qb, the raiders wouldn’t be too far behind either 

 

They gave up 446 points last year.  Can Rodgers score 500+ points on that team in that division?  Raiders D gave up 478.  Their 3rd leading rusher is David Carr. 

 

I don't see Rodgers getting either team past KC.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2021 at 11:10 PM, Chicken Boo said:

 

They have nothing behind Devante Adams and Aaron Jones production automatically slips due to no threat of Rodgers behind center.  The offensive line also suffers from no Rodgers. 

 

I stand by my statement. You could put a bridge guy like Teddy Bridgewater on the Packers and they'd be lucky to win 6 games.

 

As for that Broncos team, they were led by an elite defense, with solid game managing play from Manning when it counted.

 

 

No one here is arguing otherwise, so why bring it up?

 

Nothing behind Adams and Jones?  With Adams, Jones, Williams, Valdes-Scantling, Tonyan Rodgers had only managed  26 TDs passing in 2019.  With the same lineup, he had 48.  Tonyun had more TDs than any Bills did--more than Knox, Brown and Beasely-combined....and he was Rodger's 3rd-4th option.   

 

In fact, with the same "nothing" guys, Rodgers had the 2nd best season of his career.    Did he make them better or did they make him even better?  Likely both.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...