PC Forums

General Category => Green Bay Packers News Talk => Topic started by: RT on May 15, 2019, 07:58:27 AM

Title: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 15, 2019, 07:58:27 AM
With the 90 man roster filled and for the most part is set until training camp (yes there will be a +/- or two along the way), I thought I would start a positional thread on a different position every few days and give people a chance to discuss each group. Starting this out with the QB's, well because everything in the NFL starts with the QB.

Depth Chart: Aaron Rodgers, DeShone Kizer, Tim Boyle, Manny Wilkins

Aaron Rodgers - Some of you may have heard of this guy before, ranks No. 1 in NFL history in career passer rating (103.79), interception percentage (1.59) and TD/INT ratio (4.01, 313/78). Two time NFL Most Valuable Player. Has a fair chance to make the roster.

DeShone Kizer - Was acquired by the Packers in a trade with the Cleveland Browns last year and ended up winning the back up QB spot coming out of training camp. Was a 15 game starter as a rookie for the Browns. Still a raw and developing player.

Tim Boyle - Signed by Green Bay as an undrafted free agent in 2018 and surprised most everyone by how well he played in the pre season. Showed to be a gritty and tough passer who was willing to stand in the pocket and make the tough throws. Year two should be interesting to watch.

Manny Wilkins - Signed as an undrafted free agent in 2019. Played in 40 games and was the starting quarterback for his final three seasons. He completed 704 of 1,114 pass attempts (63.2 pct.) for 8,624 yards and 52 touchdowns. Wilkins finished his career with the fifth-most passing yards in school history, the fourth-most completions and sixth-most touchdown passes. He also ran the ball for 1,035 yards and 20 TDs. Athletic QB who can make plays with both his arm and his legs.

The first question the Packers will face at cut down is do they keep 2 or 3 QB's on the 53 man roster? Last year the trade for Kizer locked him in for a year anyways to a roster spot and then Boyle played lights out for the first three pre season games, making Hundley available to trade. Does Boyle make a second year jump and now put Kizer in the trade market? Wilkins was a very effective QB in college, does he show enough to keep as a 3rd QB?

Does it end up,
A.) Rodgers and Kizer
B.) Rodgers and Boyle
C.) Rodgers, Kizer and Boyle
D.) Rodgers, Boyle and Wilkins
E.) Other

It is all yet to be determined and the players play will decide the end result, but it should be interesting to watch play out.       
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on May 15, 2019, 08:34:35 AM
This may be another deal where "getting used to new system" will be another reason ("excuse" has a negative pejorative ring to it) for not necessarily showing a big step, but still being accepted as "young", "learning".....

Kind of harder to draw conclusions and project to future performance based on present-camp-performance when adjusting to new system, and when all the other receivers in camp are doing the same. 

My guess is that Kizer and Boyle both stick, and that Wilkins is gunning for a practice-squad spot. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 15, 2019, 09:08:31 AM
This may be another deal where "getting used to new system" will be another reason ("excuse" has a negative pejorative ring to it) for not necessarily showing a big step, but still being accepted as "young", "learning".....

Kind of harder to draw conclusions and project to future performance based on present-camp-performance when adjusting to new system, and when all the other receivers in camp are doing the same. 

My guess is that Kizer and Boyle both stick, and that Wilkins is gunning for a practice-squad spot.

Agree it will be a little trickier waters to navigate with the new system be put in place, but in the end it will be players making plays that will make the end decision.

We are looking at new history to be made, but if past history means anything the Packers will only keep 3 QB's on the 63. If 3 on the 53 are kept, none have been kept on the practice squad. If 2 are kept on the 53, 1 has been kept on the practice squad. That is if the past history means anything.   
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on May 15, 2019, 09:13:59 AM
Question:  Did MM's Packers have unusual footwork coaching for QB's?  If so, will MLF and Getsy coach the possibly non-standard MM footwork, perhaps that Getsy is familiar with from his previous run as a quality-control coach with Packers? 

This Q comes to mind because last year when Kizer came in, he several times alluded to how the Packers coached different footwork than he'd been taught at Cleveland and Notre Dame.  So I'm kinda wondering how true or significant that is.  Was Cleveland and Notre Dame standard, and Packers had some unusual, perhaps innovative way?  Or did Cleveland and Notre Dame have something weird or old-fashioned, and the Packers way is perfectly normal and good and what most modern teams would teach?  Or is whatever difference there is really subtle, and Kizer was kind of exaggerating the magnitude of the adjustment? 

**IF** there is a real and non-trivial difference, then I'm again curious what MLF and Getsy will want to do, and if there is a shift whether that will help or hurt Rodgers, Kizer, and Boyle?   I could imagine for Kizer, doing things one way, then spending a year under MM trying to adjust to a different way, then readjusting to another way again might be kind of awkward. 

May also be that Getsy understands the pros and cons, and a real guy can use a variety of footwork in a variety of conditions.  Any NBA basketball player or NFL pass rusher has a bunch of footwork variations.  So, maybe it's both, rather than one of the other?  MM and the Packers have some great ideas that Rodgers and Kizer/Boyle and Getsy are all familiar with, for certain situations; and maybe they are all good with normal stepping-into-the-throw footwork that works when you've got a secure pocket and a receiver getting open in a predictable zone? 

Anyway, will be interesting if we here any references to this issue. 

We all know that Rodgers has emphasized the importance of practicing quick real-time-real-game-speed throwing, on the run, off-balance, back-foot, etc., since he realizes how few of his throws really are classic stepping-into-it footwork throws. 

Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: B on May 15, 2019, 11:03:58 AM
My predictions:

Kiser and Boyle battle for #2 spot on 53
 -- I think Kiser wins, but it will be a real competition.

Assuming Boyle loses above

Boyle and Wilkens battle for #3 practice squad QB
 -- winner will be whoever the staff believes has the most upside, not necessarily who performs best - which one may expect to be Boyle.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 15, 2019, 12:50:49 PM
Question:  Did MM's Packers have unusual footwork coaching for QB's?  If so, will MLF and Getsy coach the possibly non-standard MM footwork, perhaps that Getsy is familiar with from his previous run as a quality-control coach with Packers? 

This Q comes to mind because last year when Kizer came in, he several times alluded to how the Packers coached different footwork than he'd been taught at Cleveland and Notre Dame.  So I'm kinda wondering how true or significant that is.  Was Cleveland and Notre Dame standard, and Packers had some unusual, perhaps innovative way?  Or did Cleveland and Notre Dame have something weird or old-fashioned, and the Packers way is perfectly normal and good and what most modern teams would teach?  Or is whatever difference there is really subtle, and Kizer was kind of exaggerating the magnitude of the adjustment? 

**IF** there is a real and non-trivial difference, then I'm again curious what MLF and Getsy will want to do, and if there is a shift whether that will help or hurt Rodgers, Kizer, and Boyle?   I could imagine for Kizer, doing things one way, then spending a year under MM trying to adjust to a different way, then readjusting to another way again might be kind of awkward. 

May also be that Getsy understands the pros and cons, and a real guy can use a variety of footwork in a variety of conditions.  Any NBA basketball player or NFL pass rusher has a bunch of footwork variations.  So, maybe it's both, rather than one of the other?  MM and the Packers have some great ideas that Rodgers and Kizer/Boyle and Getsy are all familiar with, for certain situations; and maybe they are all good with normal stepping-into-the-throw footwork that works when you've got a secure pocket and a receiver getting open in a predictable zone? 

Anyway, will be interesting if we here any references to this issue. 

We all know that Rodgers has emphasized the importance of practicing quick real-time-real-game-speed throwing, on the run, off-balance, back-foot, etc., since he realizes how few of his throws really are classic stepping-into-it footwork throws.

Good points craig about footwork. I believe MM was forward thinking with his work with QB's and minimizing wasted motions though footwork. I am only guessing here like all of us, but I would think the current work being done on footwork is play specific to MLF playbook and minimizing wasted motion also. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: dannobanano on May 15, 2019, 01:29:25 PM
Question:  Did MM's Packers have unusual footwork coaching for QB's?  If so, will MLF and Getsy coach the possibly non-standard MM footwork, perhaps that Getsy is familiar with from his previous run as a quality-control coach with Packers? 

MLF was on staff at Notre Dame when Kizer was a freshman (I believe), so he has some/limited knowlwdge about Kizer already.

Getsy started with GB as offensive quality control, but the 2016-2017 seasons he was the WR's coach. Not sure if that matters when it comes to QB's and there footwork, but he will coach "what" and "how" MLF wants him to coach.

So, it's all a wait-n-see thing that has yet to unfold.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: ricky on May 15, 2019, 02:33:19 PM
Is Gurekunst going to effectively his trade for Kizer was not a good move? If so, then perhaps Boyle could be backup and Wilkins could be stashed on the practice squad, If Gutekunst and MLF believe that Kizer can become an effective backup, and can design a game plan that plays to his strengths, then they'll again probably keep Kizer. Also, if MLF prefers Boyle as a backup and thinks Wilkins has more upside, would Gutekunst allow Kizer to be cut/traded? This of course goes back to the dynamics of who how much decisiion making power MLF has. Anyway, here is a scouting report on Wilkins. It's a mixed bag, and he definitely doesn't seem ready to start or backup AR, but has "potential".

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/manny-wilkins?id=32195749-4c08-8704-d220-729afe7d681f
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: B on May 15, 2019, 02:49:24 PM
Final roster decisions are process decisions with lots of input from multiple people at the table. Bottom line, from Wolf, to Sherman, to Thompson, to Gutekunst the final call on rosters is led by the General Manager
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: Hands on May 16, 2019, 06:11:03 AM
The pre-season will be the main event for Boyle verses Kizer. Multiple teams will want to see which QB is cut. I see two QBs on the active squad this year and one on the PS. There won't be three QBs protected this year. I hope that if something does sideline Rodgers for a game or two that the backup can still keep them in the game and hope the defense makes some plays. It couldn't happen for the past 4 years, but maybe this year we see the defense show their teeth.
It will be hard enough to win with Rodgers...winning many games with either Kizer or Boyle will be difficult.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: ricky on May 16, 2019, 06:31:00 AM
Final roster decisions are process decisions with lots of input from multiple people at the table. Bottom line, from Wolf, to Sherman, to Thompson, to Gutekunst the final call on rosters is led by the General Manager

OK. But if Gutekunst "strongly suggests" that Kizer remain on the roster?
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 16, 2019, 07:34:49 AM
Final roster decisions are process decisions with lots of input from multiple people at the table. Bottom line, from Wolf, to Sherman, to Thompson, to Gutekunst the final call on rosters is led by the General Manager

OK. But if Gutekunst "strongly suggests" that Kizer remain on the roster?

This really isn't that hard. Gutekunst has the final say on the 53. He will continuously monitor all the players through training camp, he will meet with his personnel staff and coaching staff several times to field opinions on each player and make his decisions from there. Many position coaches along with the HC will pound the table for their guys, but not everyone can be kept. In the end if Gutekunst believes it is in the best interest of the Green Bay Packers to keep Kizer, he will keep Kizer.     
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 16, 2019, 07:50:44 AM
The pre-season will be the main event for Boyle verses Kizer. Multiple teams will want to see which QB is cut. I see two QBs on the active squad this year and one on the PS. There won't be three QBs protected this year. I hope that if something does sideline Rodgers for a game or two that the backup can still keep them in the game and hope the defense makes some plays. It couldn't happen for the past 4 years, but maybe this year we see the defense show their teeth.
It will be hard enough to win with Rodgers...winning many games with either Kizer or Boyle will be difficult.

Good post Hands. Agree that multiple teams will be watching the Packers QB situation and be looking to pick up a leftover. With Seattle signing Geno Smith they are probably out as a trade partner, but Jacksonville and Dallas are both light a servable backup and may be a trade partner at the cutdown. Minnesota also is in need, but I don't think a trade there is an option.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: OneTwoSixFive on May 16, 2019, 08:05:52 AM
I don't care much about the current QB2. The Packers are unlikely to have a QB2 good enough to do well if Rodgers goes down..........at least, not beyond the odd game or two.

What I do care about is the succession plan, post Rodgers. I believe the Packers should be thinking about his successor years in advance of that successor seeing the field. They (the Packers) need to identify who they want as early as possible. If the guy they want is good (and he should be) then you will need a very high pick to secure him.

That means trying to get extra first round pick(s) in the year you think he becomes available, which takes some pre-planning in the previous year, or even two. I'd also budget at least one year where the rookie can (mostly) sit and learn and get better, while AR shows by example how to be a QB in the NFL.

So, for example, you trade down from your first rounder in 2020 (like the Packers did with New Orleans) for a future first, or give up a second round pick (maybe with a sweetner) for a first the following year, anything really for an extra first rounder, next year. Ideally you want more than that, an extra second as well, maybe. Then, because of your forethought, in the year 'the man' becomes available you have trade up capital to spend. You draft your guy in 2021, let him (mostly) sit, as he learns the playbook and work on his game. In 2022 he is ready to go (hopefully).

Of course this process doesn't have to start in 2020, it could start a year, or two, or three later than that, it all depends on when 'the guy' is likely to come out, and it might need some fancy footwork to get things to align (and how Rodgers is playing, will impact that as well). The whole point is that you start manoeuvring years before the guy you want sees the field.

This kind of pre-planning isn't worth it for most players, but a QB is so crucial to a team, that a good one is worth the effort.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: scoremore on May 16, 2019, 08:33:15 AM
They blew it this year.  Could have gotten Rosen for #2 pick and we would have been set.  Missed opportunity to land a potential franchise QB on the cheap.  We will be hard pressed to get a guy going forward as I expect the Packers to be drafting late over the next few years.  This was the year to grab one either Lock or Rosen.  Next transition will likely be a tough one.   
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 16, 2019, 09:04:04 AM
They blew it this year.  Could have gotten Rosen for #2 pick and we would have been set.  Missed opportunity to land a potential franchise QB on the cheap.  We will be hard pressed to get a guy going forward as I expect the Packers to be drafting late over the next few years.  This was the year to grab one either Lock or Rosen.  Next transition will likely be a tough one.

I understand the frustration of feeling like it was a missed opportunity, but I don't think the door is now closed on future opportunities. Another QB will come their way and the most important thing is that they are prepared to capitalize on the situation. I do believe they were very interested in Lock with their 2nd round pick.

 
Benjamin Allbright

Verified account
 
@AllbrightNFL
Follow
Follow @AllbrightNFL
 
More
Per source: Green Bay was definitely interested in Drew Lock, Broncos traded up to get ahead of Packers.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: scoremore on May 16, 2019, 09:08:49 AM
Wasn't all that enamored with Lock to be honest.  Accuracy is more important than arm strength.  Rosen was the guy I really wanted would have been a perfect fit for the Packers.  Would have felt a lot better with him backing up Rodgers and believe he could have thrived with the Pack.  Oh well guess Gute felt differently.  They may still be able to get him eventually.  Rosen thrown into another bad situation in Miami hopefully it doesn't ruin him.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: The GM on May 16, 2019, 02:49:03 PM
They blew it this year.  Could have gotten Rosen for #2 pick and we would have been set.  Missed opportunity to land a potential franchise QB on the cheap.  We will be hard pressed to get a guy going forward as I expect the Packers to be drafting late over the next few years.  This was the year to grab one either Lock or Rosen.  Next transition will likely be a tough one.

I like Rosen as much as the next guy, but there will be opportunites to get a good QB down the road.  Its no so much what you spend in draft choices to get one, its finding  the right fit for your team.  Brady, Wilson, and Brees weren't first round choices.    You also have to figure Rodgers longevity and what the plans are with him.  Is he breaking down with injuries?, is he going to play into his 40's?   You always want a capable backup but looking for his replacement at this point might be a little premature.  JMO.       
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: Gregg on May 16, 2019, 05:34:14 PM
I kind of agree with that one.

I think we are all aware of how this team plays when AR is injured.  And AR is not getting any younger.

I would have liked us to either trade for Rosen, or drafted a QB.

Wolf used to do this all the time with Favre..  And it worked.  Since he would just trade the guy for picks. And some of those guys ended up being starters after.

For some reason, we do not do that anymore.  I don't know why.

Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on May 16, 2019, 05:51:02 PM
...For some reason, we do not do that anymore.  I don't know why.

I can think of at least 3 reasons why:
1.  We've been in full Nowacrat mode.  And after some not-that-successful drafts, our roster has been talent-deficient.  With 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round selections, they've been targeting other positions and players who might be good help within a year or two. 
2.  IN Wolf's day, they had an extra year of rookie contract.  That extra year is huge, hugely huge, for trade value, and it's huge for value as a good backup too if you sacrifice the first couple of years to development.
3.  Not only do we lose that year of development and value, but the CBA doesn't allow practice.  They could practice 3 times as much in Wolf's day, and even in early MM era he could do his QB school and stuff like that to bring prospects along.  With no QB school and 1/3 the practice time, it's a lot harder to develop a raw prospect. 

I would also say that Wolf was good at scouting QB's.  Not sure that Gute and the recent guys are as good?  (Beats me, but my understanding is that they had a 1st-round grade on Kizer pre-draft and continued to love him after his rookie season, an evaluation that thus far doesn't seem vindicated.) 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: dannobanano on May 16, 2019, 07:02:46 PM
I would also say that Wolf was good at scouting QB's.  Not sure that Gute and the recent guys are as good?  (Beats me, but my understanding is that they had a 1st-round grade on Kizer pre-draft and continued to love him after his rookie season, an evaluation that thus far doesn't seem vindicated.)

To be honest, I'm not sure TT was ever that great at evaluating QB's. With Rodgers, he got lucky with a future HOF'er falling into his lap.

Go back and look at some of the other QB's he drafted along the way (Ingle Martin, Brian Brohm, Matt Flynn, BJ Coleman, and Brett Hundley).

Ted had the final say on all those picks, regardless of input from Gute, E. Wolf, McKenzie, Schneider, or Dorsey.

I'm not trying to be mean to TT, but he always had the final word.

With regard to Kizer............TT was already compromised, healthwise, and MM was pounding the table for him. I think MM owns that one more than anyone else.

Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 17, 2019, 08:13:14 AM
...For some reason, we do not do that anymore.  I don't know why.

I can think of at least 3 reasons why:
1.  We've been in full Nowacrat mode.  And after some not-that-successful drafts, our roster has been talent-deficient.  With 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round selections, they've been targeting other positions and players who might be good help within a year or two. 
2.  IN Wolf's day, they had an extra year of rookie contract.  That extra year is huge, hugely huge, for trade value, and it's huge for value as a good backup too if you sacrifice the first couple of years to development.
3.  Not only do we lose that year of development and value, but the CBA doesn't allow practice.  They could practice 3 times as much in Wolf's day, and even in early MM era he could do his QB school and stuff like that to bring prospects along.  With no QB school and 1/3 the practice time, it's a lot harder to develop a raw prospect. 

I would also say that Wolf was good at scouting QB's.  Not sure that Gute and the recent guys are as good?  (Beats me, but my understanding is that they had a 1st-round grade on Kizer pre-draft and continued to love him after his rookie season, an evaluation that thus far doesn't seem vindicated.)

All good points craig. One more point is that it just isn't normally a good return on investment. Look at the Patriots and Garoppolo, they invest a 2nd round pick in him and train him for 3 years and trade him for a 2nd round pick. That is the one that worked out. None of the guys Wolf drafted and traded brought a windfall of any sorts. Brooks was a 3rd round pick and the Packers got a 3rd round pick back. The only deal that returned much of a positive return was Mark Brunell, he was a 5th round pick and the Packers got back a 3rd and a 5th.

Fans remember the good, but forget about the QB picks that were just lost draft capital with Wolf. The Wolf theory of drafting a QB every year brought the Packers in '95, '96 and '97 the QB's Jay Barker, Kyle Wachholtz and Ron McAda. Nothing gained there.   
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: ricky on May 17, 2019, 03:37:19 PM
A major here: that Rosen is a starting caliber QB. Totally unproven, though he does have potential. Whether that potential will make him a franchise QB or a good backup or a journeyman remains to be seen. If Rosen was brought in, would be the defacto heir apparent to Rodgers? And what would happen to Boyle or Kizer if the Packers only went with two QB's? This would be putting a lot of faith in Rosen's ability to become a franchise QB. And would very probably cause some hard feeling from Rodgers. We've seen this scenario play out once before, and personally, the thought of seeing AR in another uniform is very unappetizing.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 17, 2019, 04:12:19 PM
                          GAMES   ATT/COMP   COMP%   YARDS   TDS/INTS   RATING   QBR   RUSH YARDS       
Rookie QB #1        14        393/217       55.2       2278       11/14         66.7     26.6       138

Rookie QB #2        15        476/255       53.6       2894       11/22         60.5     29.7       419

Two rookie QB's thrown into the fire as rookies. Some think one is a future franchise QB while the other is a bum, but who is the franchise QB?     
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 17, 2019, 08:17:48 PM
                          GAMES   ATT/COMP   COMP%   YARDS   TDS/INTS   RATING   QBR   RUSH YARDS       
Rookie QB #1        14        393/217       55.2       2278       11/14         66.7     26.6       138

Rookie QB #2        15        476/255       53.6       2894       11/22         60.5     29.7       419

Two rookie QB's thrown into the fire as rookies. Some think one is a future franchise QB while the other is a bum, but who is the franchise QB?     

One of these is DeShone Kizer and one is Josh Rosen.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: footballdad on May 18, 2019, 05:58:04 AM
No facts whatsoever to base this on, but maybe somebody not currently on the roster? Would really love to see a vet. Pederson or Flynn type who can step in and win a few games if need be.
Vets will be available when cutdowns start.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: scoremore on May 18, 2019, 07:09:35 AM
A major here: that Rosen is a starting caliber QB. Totally unproven, though he does have potential. Whether that potential will make him a franchise QB or a good backup or a journeyman remains to be seen. If Rosen was brought in, would be the defacto heir apparent to Rodgers? And what would happen to Boyle or Kizer if the Packers only went with two QB's? This would be putting a lot of faith in Rosen's ability to become a franchise QB. And would very probably cause some hard feeling from Rodgers. We've seen this scenario play out once before, and personally, the thought of seeing AR in another uniform is very unappetizing.

If Rosen is beats out Rodgers so be it.  Rodgers beat out Favre.  Given Aaron's injury history think it is reckless not to have a legitimate QB behind him.  Rosen is unproven but is very smart and also is accurate with the football.  Firmly believe he would have thrived in GB.  Played on one of the worst teams in the NFL last year.  No O-line and no weapons.  Now he's going to Miami another bad situation.  I really don't care about Kizer or Boyle.  We could have had Rosen for our #2 pick in the draft.  Rosen or no Rosen Aaron will retire a Packer. 

Whether Rosen would have been our next great QB who knows?  Way I look at it cheap insurance against Aaron going down again.  Also taking a shot at finding the next guy.  Don't care about stats from Rookie seasons Kizer can't hold Rosen's jock strap IMO.  Rosen might not do well in Mia either.  GB would have been the perfect situation.  Sit and learn behind Rodgers until he's ready.   Unless Aaron changes his style of play he won't last more than 2 or 3 seasons.

Packers need to start the search now.  It's incredibly difficult to find a franchise QB.  We'll be drafting late which will make it that much harder.  Feel like we missed an opportunity here.  The Packers need to start planning for life after Rodgers.  It might take a couple of shots before we hit on the next great GB QB.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 18, 2019, 07:52:14 AM
A major here: that Rosen is a starting caliber QB. Totally unproven, though he does have potential. Whether that potential will make him a franchise QB or a good backup or a journeyman remains to be seen. If Rosen was brought in, would be the defacto heir apparent to Rodgers? And what would happen to Boyle or Kizer if the Packers only went with two QB's? This would be putting a lot of faith in Rosen's ability to become a franchise QB. And would very probably cause some hard feeling from Rodgers. We've seen this scenario play out once before, and personally, the thought of seeing AR in another uniform is very unappetizing.

If Rosen is beats out Rodgers so be it.  Rodgers beat out Favre.  Given Aaron's injury history think it is reckless not to have a legitimate QB behind him.  Rosen is unproven but is very smart and also is accurate with the football.  Firmly believe he would have thrived in GB.  Played on one of the worst teams in the NFL last year.  No O-line and no weapons.  Now he's going to Miami another bad situation.  I really don't care about Kizer or Boyle.  We could have had Rosen for our #2 pick in the draft.  Rosen or no Rosen Aaron will retire a Packer. 

Whether Rosen would have been our next great QB who knows?  Way I look at it cheap insurance against Aaron going down again.  Also taking a shot at finding the next guy.  Don't care about stats from Rookie seasons Kizer can't hold Rosen's jock strap IMO.  Rosen might not do well in Mia either.  GB would have been the perfect situation.  Sit and learn behind Rodgers until he's ready.   Unless Aaron changes his style of play he won't last more than 2 or 3 seasons.

Packers need to start the search now.  It's incredibly difficult to find a franchise QB.  We'll be drafting late which will make it that much harder.  Feel like we missed an opportunity here.  The Packers need to start planning for life after Rodgers.  It might take a couple of shots before we hit on the next great GB QB.

I thought there was a chance the Packers might of been players for Rosen, but they didn't get involved and that is fine also. I don't think Kizer is the answer because he is just too slow to process on the field, but I also don't know if Rosen was the answer either. The Packers decided that they would rather keep their 2nd round pick and draft an OLineman and if that is what the Packers thought was the best decision, well I guess I don't disagree with the decision. I am sure that the Packers are always looking for their next great QB, but I doubt they are even a little concerned they missed out on Rosen.     
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: scoremore on May 18, 2019, 09:00:08 AM
No doubt they aren't losing any sleep over it or he'd be a Packer.  They are in win now mode that is clear.  Me I like to keep on eye toward the future.  Also don't like putting all my eggs in on Aaron.  His ability to stay healthy is a major concern for me.  No faith in Kizer at all.  None.  Agree the game is too fast for him.  Sure he has physical traits but that won't cut it at QB.  Have to be able to read a defense. 

Packers must have faith that Rodgers has several more good years.  I hope they are proven right.  Rosen was in mind the perfect fit for the Packers.  Smart and accurate.  Just having him as a back up was worth #44 for me.  If Rodgers goes down we at least wouldn't throw the season away.  With MLF and the new offensive game plan maybe Rodgers will get the ball out quickly avoid getting hit and this will be a non issue.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: dannobanano on May 18, 2019, 09:30:17 AM
No doubt they aren't losing any sleep over it or he'd be a Packer.  They are in win now mode that is clear.  Me I like to keep on eye toward the future.  Also don't like putting all my eggs in on Aaron.  His ability to stay healthy is a major concern for me.  No faith in Kizer at all.  None.  Agree the game is too fast for him.  Sure he has physical traits but that won't cut it at QB.  Have to be able to read a defense. 

Packers must have faith that Rodgers has several more good years.  I hope they are proven right.  Rosen was in mind the perfect fit for the Packers.  Smart and accurate.  Just having him as a back up was worth #44 for me.  If Rodgers goes down we at least wouldn't throw the season away.  With MLF and the new offensive game plan maybe Rodgers will get the ball out quickly avoid getting hit and this will be a non issue.

Cheer up score! All is not lost.

The Packers may still be able still get your man, who you pound the table for, after this next season.

Miami is a dumpster fire that just keeps burning. They could easily be in the race for the #1 pick in next years draft (Tua? Herbert?), and that could put Rosen squarely on the trading block again, but maybe for even less than what Miami anted up this year (pick #62) to get him.

https://www.thephinsider.com/2019/4/29/18522407/miami-dolphins-could-still-draft-a-quarterback-in-2020-nfl-draft-josh-rosen-tua-herbert-fromm

[According to Albert Breer of Sport’s Illustrated’s MMQB, Chris Grier would be open to drafting a quarterback in 2020 if things didn’t pan out with The Chosen One.
“Every team in the league is looking for that guy that’s going to lead them to championships,” Grier said. “And so for us, we’re in a position where we’re trying to find that guy, like a lot of teams in the league. So yeah, it was an easy decision. And it doesn’t stop us from doing anything in the future. Who knows? If things go well and we feel he’s the guy, who knows? But it doesn’t stop us from doing anything.”
If Rosen doesn’t pan out, the Dolphins have set themselves up quite nicely to acquire their quarterback of the future. But until they find the heir apparent to Dan Marino’s Iron Throne, they should do whatever it takes to find ‘their’ franchise signal caller. Even if that means drafting a Tua Tagovailoa or Justin Herbert in 2020.]


My personal preference would be to see the Packers trying to draft a QB next year to develop as the potential heir to Rodgers.
The two guys I'd have eye's on would be Jake Fromm and Jacob Eason.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: scoremore on May 18, 2019, 04:51:14 PM
Thanks Danno.  Thinking the same thing.  Miami is a dumpster fire for sure.  Another new system Rosen will have to learn as well.  Tough situation to be put in.  If he doesn't do well there probably a 3rd/4th or player trade.  It might very well wreck him.  Guess next year is supposed to be a real good QB class so maybe that is what Gutenheimer has in mind.

Not at all comfortable with our back ups currently.  Fingers crossed Aaron doesn't get hurt this season.  Wasn't a fan of Lock.  Big arm but accuracy issues.  Can't have that in the NFL.  He may still end up being a stud but will be a work in progress.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: Starr2Max on May 18, 2019, 06:34:48 PM
I just love fans that have absolutely no patience especially with the toughest position on the field.  Perhaps everyone here is too young to remember that after two years, Rogers was panned as a wasted first round pick.  Then, I only remember him having one good game his third year, after which it seemed that the only ones that believed in him was the FO and coaching staff.  When TT went with Rogers and shipped Favre to the Jets, fans booed AR during training camp - like it was his fault.  Is Kiser the answer?  I don't know.  He is currently on his third HC, OC and QB coach, and that alone may doom him.  However, I have no doubt  that if we had brought in Rosen and he isn't immediately the second coming, that the same fans would blast Gute and call for us to go get the new "flavor of the month."  soapbox
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: Gregg on May 18, 2019, 09:15:59 PM
I think we are forgetting about Matt H.

Its not just Brunell and Brooks.

Mr September ended up playing in three Pro Bowls, and drove the Hawks to six playoff appearances.

My real point though was that those guys offered quality depth because they were really starters, not just back ups.

What quality depth have we had behind AR?  Hundley?  Kizer?

I just don't think its smart to gamble with that position.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: scoremore on May 18, 2019, 09:22:42 PM
I just love fans that have absolutely no patience especially with the toughest position on the field.  Perhaps everyone here is too young to remember that after two years, Rogers was panned as a wasted first round pick.  Then, I only remember him having one good game his third year, after which it seemed that the only ones that believed in him was the FO and coaching staff.  When TT went with Rogers and shipped Favre to the Jets, fans booed AR during training camp - like it was his fault.  Is Kiser the answer?  I don't know.  He is currently on his third HC, OC and QB coach, and that alone may doom him.  However, I have no doubt  that if we had brought in Rosen and he isn't immediately the second coming, that the same fans would blast Gute and call for us to go get the new "flavor of the month."  soapbox

Kizer is a turnover machine.  He has had his opportunities and he sucked.  As for Aaron none of us knew what we had until Farve went down in Dallas.  Rodgers first action and he nearly led the Packers to a win after Farve stunk up the joint.  He was prepared and it showed.  Anyone watching that game should have taken notice.  He's was real deal. 

This will be Kizer's third year assuming he even makes the team.  Football intelligence is critical.  You can have all the tools in the world if you can't read a defense forget it.  Rosen has it Kizer doesn't.  That's the way I see it.  We'll see what the season brings.   BTW Starr2 what makes you think we are all young?  You must be new to this board.  Before you start criticizing other posters maybe you should step back and read a little more.  People on this forum are not your average clueless fans.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: B on May 19, 2019, 05:34:21 AM
Perhaps you are correct about Kizer scoremore, but that isn't exactly true of Rodgers.

Aaron's first real action came Dec 19, 2005 against the Baltimore Ravens and he looked completely overwhelmed
 ~~ 8 of 15 for 65 yards 0 TD and 1 interception for a QB rating of 36.8   

His next came when Brett got knocked out of the New England game Nov 19, 2006, and again Aaron looked lost
 ~~ 4 of 12 for 32 yds with an improved QB rating of 42.4   

Aaron's exciting performance against Dallas that you referred to came on Nov 19, 2007 in his 3rd season.

I've never been overly excited about Kizer, if fact I was disappointed in the trade that obtained him. However, the Packers did make a rather significant trade to get him, and I think he will (and should) be given and opportunity to compete and develop if he wins that competition.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 19, 2019, 06:53:26 AM
Very true B that he will be given every chance to compete and win the job as a backup. As I stated in the first post on this thread he is 'still a raw and developing player' and he will be given the chance to mature. The trait that I do not like about him is how slow he is to process after the ball is snapped. As he matures and develops is this something that will speed up for him? Without a doubt, but will it be enough to be an effective QB at the NFL level. The list is very long of gifted athletes with great arm talent that played the QB position yet still failed because of the inability to process quickly enough. This is not claiming Kizer is not an intelligent person, but maybe more of a concrete thinker.   
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: dannobanano on May 19, 2019, 07:25:33 AM
Very true B that he will be given every chance to compete and win the job as a backup. As I stated in the first post on this thread he is 'still a raw and developing player' and he will be given the chance to mature. The trait that I do not like about him is how slow he is to process after the ball is snapped. As he matures and develops is this something that will speed up for him? Without a doubt, but will it be enough to be an effective QB at the NFL level. The list is very long of gifted athletes with great arm talent that played the QB position yet still failed because of the inability to process quickly enough. This is not claiming Kizer is not an intelligent person, but maybe more of a concrete thinker.

What's working against Kizer is that he will now be learning his 3rd offensive system in 3 years as an NFL QB. That's a tough job, even for a seasoned veteran, let alone a young QB still feeling his way into the NFL.

Also, even his college coach (Brian Kelly) said Kizer should have stayed, at least, another year in school rather than declaring early for the draft. Most people have forgotten that Kizer declared for that draft as a 3rd year sophomore at Notre Dame.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000797133/article/brian-kelly-deshone-kizer-should-have-stayed-in-school

[Notre Dame coach Brian Kelly isn't any more sure about DeShone Kizer's readiness for the NFL than some of Kizer's critics.
The coach made it clear Monday that he sees his former quarterback as a developmental pro prospect, even though he's considered a possible first-round draft choice, telling Sirius XM Radio that Kizer still has quite a bit of needed growth ahead of him.
"Well, he still should be in college. The circumstances are such that you have to make business decisions and he felt like it was in his best interest," Kelly said. "I'm going to support him and his decision. But the reality of it is he needs more football, he needs more time to grow in so many areas. Not just on the field, but off the field."]

After all MLF has history with Kizer.

https://www.packers.com/news/five-things-to-know-about-matt-lafleur

[After his four seasons in Washington, LaFleur spent a year coaching quarterbacks at the University of Notre Dame in 2014. It just so happens his one season in South Bend coincided with current Packers quarterback DeShone Kizer’s redshirt freshman season.]

So if MLF thinks there's enough talent in Kizer to give him a fair shot in his offense, you have to respect what he see's, rather than what we think we see.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 19, 2019, 07:46:51 AM
What I see is not a professional opinion and what the Packers front office and coaching staff see's is. It why I watch the Packers actions and attempt to read from there on all their moves and not get overly invested in my opinion. I share what I see, but if the Packers chose to put their faith in Kizer, I will attempt to see what they see and not declare them wrong for not sharing my thoughts.

Gute's investment in Kizer was not much, he traded a player that they probably were going to cut if they did not find a trade partner. He saw a player with physical tools and a season of hard lessens under his belt, certainly a player worth the roll of the dice. I am not pulling against the young man, I would love to see him be a success story, just a little leery is all.   
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on May 22, 2019, 11:31:52 AM
I thought this was a note worth sharing from an article on Fox Sports. A little under the radar, positive quote about Tim Boyle from Rodgers.
Rodgers is in the middle of his own competition. No, not for the starting quarterback job. Rather, it’s competing with fellow quarterbacks DeShone Kizer, Tim Boyle and rookie Manny Wilkins in learning LaFleur’s offense.
 
“Tim’s been kicking my butt a little bit with some of the formation tests, so I’ve had to do some extra studying to get on top of a few of those,” Rodgers said.
 
“It’s reps. It doesn’t matter what offense you’re in, whether it’s a new offense or an offense you’re second or third year in, it’s all about reps and getting more reps with the plays. I’m a rep guy. I need the reps, just like those guys do.”

 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: B on May 22, 2019, 12:32:08 PM
Indeed a positive note about Boyle. It also sounds like Rodgers is having to face a little humility and shake off some potential complacency that may have developed by playing in the same system for so long. 

Something I see as a good thimg.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: dannobanano on May 22, 2019, 01:22:07 PM
Maybe Boyle is one of those 2nd year guys who takes a big step forward.

Aaron may be finding out that change is a good thing.............especially for growing as a player.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on June 05, 2019, 06:31:17 AM
It is way to early to make any strong judgements on any players yet, but just looking at the little bit that is coming out of the 3 open OTA practices it sounds like Kizer has been more consistent then Boyle. Boyle and Rodgers have thrown some INT's that have been noted by reporters, but I have not seen any reported by Kizer as of yet.

Boyle was given an attaboy by Rodgers last week for how well he understood the playbook.

The feeling I get from comments of those at the OTA's is that Kizer is off to a good start.

 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 05, 2019, 07:48:29 AM
Would be nice if both Kizer and Boyle come along well and merit keeping. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on June 13, 2019, 06:14:40 PM
I'll put this here, seems like a fit for QB transition and how long it may take the Packers offense to hit their best stride.


Geoff Schwartz

Verified account
 
@geoffschwartz
Follow
Follow @geoffschwartz
 
More
Geoff Schwartz Retweeted Michael Silver
Just as a reminder ... and this isn’t me being a “hater” because I say this for every new offense. It takes 8-10 regular season weeks for a new OC to get his offense fully running. There are exceptions but this is mostly the rule.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: mancl on June 17, 2019, 06:12:44 AM
https://madison.com/wsj/sports/football/professional/tom-oates-play-of-packers-backup-quarterbacks-a-red-flag/article_add4f877-9b7f-555b-9d29-59b2f35e538c.html
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: The GM on June 17, 2019, 06:50:34 AM
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/06/16/aaron-rodgers-wants-more-freedom-at-the-line-of-scrimmage/

Here we go.  I agree with Rodgers on this, but his comments dont help his image.  He needs to keep that stuff in-house IMO.

Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on June 17, 2019, 08:39:26 AM
How far into the season do they get before Rodgers starts ignoring MLF's play calls.

Going back to comments by Marcedes Lewis in January.

Packers tight end Marcedes Lewis detailed some of what he saw in his first season in Green Bay on Yahoo Sports’ “Mostly Football”, saying he was in the huddle when Rodgers ignored his then-coach’s play call.
“I guess McCarthy called in a play, and Aaron was kind of like, ‘Nah,’” Lewis said. “He gave a direction and a protection to the line, and went". I’m like, ‘What’s really going on?’ I’ve never seen anything like that before in my life.”

Lewis said. “I feel like Aaron had his own set of things that he wanted to do, then obviously McCarthy had his things that he wanted to do. I just think there was a little dysfunction".

So how far into the season before Rodgers starts overriding the play calls from MLF? What is MLF going to do, bench him for Boyle or Kizer? That would be career suicide for MLF and that isn't happening. Rodgers is still running the show and the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them, hopefully it doesn't get too dysfunctional to early or we could be discussing who the next new coach should be again by the season end.

One other thing of note is how Rodgers is already campaigning for who he wants on the roster. Maybe Murphy should just name him QB, HC and GM and end all gossip and speculation. Just another off season in GB, when is the first day of training camp start?
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 17, 2019, 09:24:23 AM
:):):) 
Yeah, those comments don't look good..... as presented.  But, that's just one comment snipped totally out of context. 

I'd like to see how Silver had been guiding that interview prior to that snip, and to see how he'd been setting up the question, and then see what the actual question was.

Florio is taking that line as a pro-active attack on MLF's authority and leadership.  Very possibly yes.  But it may also be that Silver was going back to the Rodgers/MM stories, referencing allusions to Rodgers changing plays, and asking Rodgers whether MM shouldn't have just told Rodgers to stick to the called plays. 

If the question was presented in such a way that Rodgers needs to either say the QB should never change a play or that he at least sometimes should, that might be an obvious and rhetorical question that obviously should prefer having the QB allowed to change some plays.  Likewise we know how defensive Rodgers is: *IF* the question was structured such that Rodgers either needs to say that he was all wrong to change some plays under MM or that it was OK, again of course he's going to defend having changed some plays. 

I guess I'm saying that pulling a comment out of context and stripping out the question that it was responding to, may make it easy to misinterpret. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 17, 2019, 09:26:13 AM
....One other thing of note is how Rodgers is already campaigning for who he wants on the roster. Maybe Murphy should just name him QB, HC and GM .....

I haven't seen or heard that.  Who is he campaigning for? 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on June 17, 2019, 09:59:07 AM
....One other thing of note is how Rodgers is already campaigning for who he wants on the roster. Maybe Murphy should just name him QB, HC and GM .....

I haven't seen or heard that.  Who is he campaigning for?

Speaking of snipping something out of context craig, at least if you would have quoted the full sentence, a reader would have had a chance at picking up on the hint of sarcasm in the complete quote. By not doing so their is no chance of it.

As for the players he is campaigning for, the hard sell is already started for Kumerow and Tonyan.   
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 17, 2019, 10:08:05 AM
Heh heh, none of our posters needed a full sentence context to know that you QB, HC, and GM reference was sarcasm!  :)  But I did quote the full sentence regarding campaigning for roster spots. 

So, what kind of "campaign" are you talking?  "These guys are good, I want them on the roster"?  "It's been great seeing some of the young guys stepping up, like Kumerow and Tonyan?" 

(I haven't listened to last weeks press conferences yet, I'll try to listen for that.)  My feeling is that Rodgers has always kind of thought it was good leadership to try to talk up guys doing well,  we recall years where some UDFA receiver would get a favorable comment or too.  **IF** it's just that kind of thing (two weeks back, he had a nice reference to Burks; I just took it as a favorable encouraging comment, not an inappropriate campaign to drive the roster or tell Pettine how to distribute snaps or anything.....

But you're a good listener, so maybe if I listen to Tuesday's press conference, I'll hear what you heard, too.  Thanks for the alert. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 17, 2019, 10:15:40 AM
How far into the season do they get before Rodgers starts ignoring MLF's play calls.

[Lewis paragraph]......"I just think there was a little dysfunction".

So how far into the season before Rodgers starts overriding the play calls from MLF? What is MLF going to do, bench him for Boyle or Kizer? That would be career suicide for MLF and that isn't happening. Rodgers is still running the show and the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them, hopefully it doesn't get too dysfunctional to early or we could be discussing who the next new coach should be again by the season end. ...

Heh heh, interesting and negative spin for sure, RT. 

Personally I hope things can flow super successfully so that we're happy with the way the team is winning.  **If** the offense is succeeding really well and we're scoring points consistently, and the plays are making sense and working, I don't think we'll be crawling with negative posts and speculation about how many effective plays were called by MLF and what fraction were improvised and adjusted by Rodgers.  Those discussions grow amidst failure, not success.  Perhaps if things are going great, we'll be complimenting the synchronicity, the excellent schemes and plays designed by MLF, and the veteran wisdom and brilliance of Rodgers to execute those plays and to sometimes optimize an opportunity, or to avoid a play that the defensive set was going to otherwise snuff. 

Not to go overly Koolaid, but there is at least a shot that the offense really will work out great.  Maybe we won't be parsing the blame, because there will be no failure and blame to assign; perhaps instead it will be more a question of how to share the praise.  ("Our coach is great!"  "But it's really our QB who is great and is making it all work...") 

Either way, regardless of how the show is run, there is zero question that aspirations of SB come down to Rodgers. 

If the negative narrative plays out, we're not a SB team.  That's possible only if Rodgers is a huge asset.  Not if Rodgers is doing terrible things as a QB:  1) inaccurate  2) not seeing open receivers  3) not taking good opportunities underneath and instead scrambling around and getting sacked or throwing the ball away  4) generally making bad decisions 5) replacing good calls from coaches and replacing them with bad calls of his own.  **IF** that's the way he performs this year, we're not going to the Super Bowl.  Likewise ***if*** he's a toxic cancer, undermining everything the rest of the organization is trying to do, we're not going to Super Bowl. 

To go far, the only way that can possibly happen is if Rodgers ends up being a huge asset, rather than a big liability.  1) He's got to throw accurately.  2) He's got to be able to take advantage and convert when guys are open, both upfield and downfield.  3) He absolutely needs to make good decisions, regarding recognition of defense, recognition of receivers, recognition of plays called that can work versus when it's appropriate to change a play, recognition of everything.  And obviously he needs to work with the coaches and teammates to make the team the best it can be, not far less....

Part of all of this, I think, has to depend on MLF's communication skills.  I think he's got to be designing plays that can and will and do work; but he's also got to be able to communicate the virtue of the plays being used, intelligently and persuasively enough so that Rodgers buys in.  He's got to be able to persuade Rodgers to buy in.

I don't think Rodgers has any complaint with winning.  If the plays MLF is calling are winning games, week after week; getting guys open, play after play; providing Rodgers with opportunities for completions play after play..... I don't see Rodgers being super motivated to undermine all of that.  I think he'd love to be the captain of a champion.   
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on June 17, 2019, 02:03:21 PM
So in a nutshell, the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them. No?

Good leadership comes from actions and not words. In the words of Bill Belichick, the Packers need Rodgers to 'just do his job', anything else is just lip service and not needed. It would start by running the plays that are called and stop audibling out of a large percentage of them. Coaching staffs spend months breaking down opponents and designing game plans to best sequence their plays for an end purpose and breaking the sequence with constant audibles kills the chance of manipulating a defense with the purpose the game plan intended.

Belichick does a great segment each week during the season on there teams website breaking down plays. Watching one week last season he talked about burning a play on 1st down to see how a safety reacted to a formation and setting that player up for a play later in the game from the same formation. First they showed the set up play and then they showed the play from the same formation and the end result of a 60+ yard scoring strike. Rodgers doesn't like a play and audibles out of it, but just like the Belichick play, the play may have a bigger picture purpose and because of the audible the information is never gathered for later use. Football has become a game of chess and requires thinking several moves ahead, not just one move at a time. Rodgers should 'just do his job' and stop trying to do everyone else's.         
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: The GM on June 17, 2019, 06:10:10 PM
Rodgers needs to be able to have the flexibility and the capability to change plays at the line.

He also needs to explain to MLF why he changed it while they go over the film.

They need to talk about those situations and why the play is called.  These are two bright guys, and they both need to give a little bit for this to work.   


     
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 18, 2019, 11:14:09 AM
So in a nutshell, the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them. No?

Yes and no.  Yes, ANY realistic chance for the Packers to go far hinges on Rodgers being a really good, asset contributor.  Any chance requires that he steps up and plays much better than he did last year.  If he's as injury-limited as last year; as inaccurate; as scattershot poor in his decision-making, etc., then the Packers aren't winning the Super Bowl. 

There's a host of things that have to come together for the Packers to win the Super Bowl.  QB play has to be one of them.  If QB play is poor, it's just not happening. 

"Going as far as Rodgers takes them" is phrased (intentionally, I think) to sound un-teamly.  Rodgers can't take them, it's a team.   A host of things need to come together.  The o-line needs to stay healthy and play well.  The receiving corps needs to step up.  The run-game needs to work.  The o-scheme needs to work.  They need to be able to convert 3rd downs and red-zone.  The defense needs to stay healthy.  The pass rush needs to work.  The secondary needs to stay healthy.  There's a whole lot of things that need to come together for the Packers to emerge as the best team in football.  It's not "just about" or "all about" Rodgers.  It's about the team. 

But for the team to thrive, I do think it's essential that the QB thrives.  QB-play is such an important component of team function.  If Rodgers isn't healthy enough, accurate enough, smart enough, patient enough, collaborative enough to play at a very high level, the Packers won't go all the way.  As MLF has noted, QB play can sometimes make up for some other things going imperfectly.  But it's really hard to go all the way while needing to make up for bad QB play. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 18, 2019, 11:37:24 AM
Good leadership comes from actions and not words. In the words of Bill Belichick, the Packers need Rodgers to 'just do his job', anything else is just lip service and not needed. It would start by running the plays that are called and stop audibling out of a large percentage of them. Coaching staffs spend months breaking down opponents and designing game plans to best sequence their plays for an end purpose and breaking the sequence with constant audibles kills the chance of manipulating a defense with the purpose the game plan intended.

Belichick does a great segment each week during the season on there teams website breaking down plays. Watching one week last season he talked about burning a play on 1st down to see how a safety reacted to a formation and setting that player up for a play later in the game from the same formation. First they showed the set up play and then they showed the play from the same formation and the end result of a 60+ yard scoring strike. Rodgers doesn't like a play and audibles out of it, but just like the Belichick play, the play may have a bigger picture purpose and because of the audible the information is never gathered for later use. Football has become a game of chess and requires thinking several moves ahead, not just one move at a time. Rodgers should 'just do his job' and stop trying to do everyone else's.       

Really interesting points.  My mind is going in multiple directions with this.
1.  Every coach wants a QB who can audible out of bad plays and into better plays... at times, and to some degree.  So, doing an appropriate amount of audibling is part of "just doing his job".  The question is when and where, and when is too much? 
2.  I wonder what MLF wants? 
3.  I'm not sure whether MM was a great chess master? Will MLF be?  I hope so....
4.  I think communication is pretty important.  If you're going to run some bad plays to set up a big-play later, I'd think that could be discussed in advance?  There could be an understanding of when you're trying to sequence some stuff. 
5.  Sequencing plays and stuff is probably a lot easier if your offense is good enough to be stacking first downs, even while setting up for even great gains later... 
6.  1-2-3-punt may not be the most conducive to sequencing.  So I could imagine there might be lots of times when it's 3rd down, and you're not thinking chess or sequencing, but simply trying to give yourself the best chance of keeping the ball rather than punting it over....
7.  If Rodgers is going to play as a selfish, short-sighted, inaccurate, bad-decision-making disruptor, then the team is not going to go as far as it could.  Good QB play needs to be a component of a big season.  Somehow or other, Rodgers and MLF will need to be able to work together, in a favorable way, to achieve big success.  Whether that's possible, I have no idea.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on June 18, 2019, 12:42:17 PM
I think you are twisting this a little bit craig. Calling audibles is part of the game, but the majority of plays should not be audibles.

You use the term 'bad plays' and no one used the term 'bad plays', the play that the Patriots ran on 1st down was a quick throw to the flat that was good for a 3-4 yard gain. The pass went to the flat for the purpose of setting up a play later on. Not a good play, not a bad play, just a play with a purpose. Also, no one is talking about using such a play on 3rd down to end a drive, that just is not logical.

The Packers were average, middle of the road, at most things last season and that includes 1st downs and average plays per drive. The Packers ranked 15th in 1st downs per game at 20.8 with the Rams first at 24.4 per game. Average plays per drive for the Packers was 6.09 which was 13th in the NFL, the Ravens were first at 6.71 plays per drive. Let those numbers sink in for a few minutes, the Packers were about a half a play per drive from leading the NFL. Yet Packers fans have this narrative that the Packers were always going 3 and out. Just maybe a little less disruption to the sequencing gets them there.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/first-downs-per-game

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff2018
 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: Hands on June 19, 2019, 06:58:06 AM
..."The Packers were average, middle of the road, at most things last season and that includes 1st downs and average plays per drive. The Packers ranked 15th in 1st downs per game at 20.8 with the Rams first at 24.4 per game. Average plays per drive for the Packers was 6.09 which was 13th in the NFL, the Ravens were first at 6.71 plays per drive. Let those numbers sink in for a few minutes, the Packers were about a half a play per drive from leading the NFL. Yet Packers fans have this narrative that the Packers were always going 3 and out. Just maybe a little less disruption to the sequencing gets them there.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/first-downs-per-game

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff2018"

RT, this is a very interesting stat that confirms to me something that has been bouncing around in my mind for some time. MM understood how iffy his defense was. In order to win games, the Packers had to play a discipline approach on offense. A better ball control and time consumption drives to literally keep the defense off the field. Rodgers saw what the defense was giving them and took advantage of the match ups when they occurred.
Enter Pettine, and the defense maybe better but not by much (silk purse out of a sow’s ear type of thing). So, for the past two seasons.... Rodger’s takes advantage every chance he gets. Leaving the defense on the field way too long. So, MM goes MLF comes in and the wonderkid coach with the GM makes the defense much better and now the offense can get more explosive. The defense, IMHO, is what will either make the Packers NFC champs or not. Rodgers will still take those shots that the other team's defense gives him. But this offense will have more runs and I think Rodgers sees that and agrees in principle, but still wants to fire that bomb down the sideline to a streaking MVS or Adams.
I guess I'm saying Rodgers is going to audible a lot and if he stays healthy, he will remain accurate. If his offensive line is healthy, Rodgers will have the time he needs. The playmakers in this offense, WR and RBs, are a better than last year. So IF, a big if, the defense stays the course and this team will get very hot at the end of the season. All that means one thing...right or wrong any controversy about the QB will be put to rest because of the team’s performance.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 20, 2019, 09:09:38 AM
RT, I wasn't trying to twist.  Clearly a QB needs to and should call audibles, that *is* part of his job.  AS your last post notes, you agree.

The question is whether a guy does that part of his job well.  Part of the job is knowing how often and when.  I made no judgement on whether Rodgers used an appropriate number of audibles, or did that aspect of his job well at all. 

Your view is clearly that he did his job poorly in that regard.  "Constant audibles", and "a large percentage" of plays were in your post.  In your recent post, you note that "the majority of plays should not be audibles".  Perhaps hyperbolizing, but clearly suggesting that Rodgers was calling way too many.  You know better than I do, so I respect your perspective. 

Certainly I agree that the "majority" of plays shouldn't need to be audibles; do you think that Rodgers was calling audibles on a majority of plays? 

**IF** the majority of plays "should" be audibles (hypothetically), that would mean that the plays being called were really bad (hypothetically); and/or that the players on offense are kinda bad and it's hard to get good plays for them. 

I can't judge any of this stuff.  By one narrative, MM was calling really bad plays, and the defense knew them. 

For the moment, the offense seems really healthy, and I think in a really good place.  If they can stay healthy, I think the o-line could be very solid.  I think with an extra year, the WR group could be good.  Rodgers was commenting that he thinks the TE group is really good.  And there's a lot of positive talk about the MLF system, from the players. 

I think the better the players are, and the better the plays, I'd imagine there would be less and less reason to audible a lot.  If you have a play that has several built-in variants, and you have the players to make those work, and the plays are working, why call an audible?  If you're getting first downs on first or second down, and not needing the urgency that comes with 3rd downs, why call an audible? 

So, to some extent, I'm hoping that improved health, experience, and improved play-calling will all reduce the usage for audibling?  If that makes sense?   
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 20, 2019, 09:14:26 AM
But yeah, the QB needs to be working with and cooperating and supporting the coach, that's a team.  **IF** the QB is undermining the coach, or undermining sequencing, is undermining the setting-up of subsequent success, is undermining the chess game, that's bad news.  I certainly hope that doesn't happen this season. 

And *IF* the QB is making bad audible decisions, that is NOT just doing his job.  If he's NOT audibling when he should, that's not doing job well.  If he is audibling when he shoudn't or doesn't need to, that's not doing his job well either.  Appropriate and wise, effective audibling is really a significant part of the QB's job.  I hope Rodgers does that part of his job really well this year. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 20, 2019, 10:03:49 AM
One other thing of note is how Rodgers is already campaigning for who he wants on the roster. ...

Just to go back on this comment.  I listened to Aaron's presser from last week, partly with your note in mind.  I didn't really sense anything inappropriate, myself, even though your comment had kind of raised my sensitivity. 

Again, you may have inside info, or I may have missed some articles or interviews, so I may be way off and just Kool-aiding and missing some negative stuff. 

But rodgers is asked about lots of players, and tends to speak positively about all of them, kind of coach-like.  Last two weeks ago, Martinez and Burks (and lots of othrs).  This week, each level of defense, Jaire, Tramon, Martinez, etc..  TE's, WR.  Graham and Jace.  "The TE room is very deep", and a tiny passing reference to "Bobby" and to Hillis.  Asked about Davis, positive stuff; MVS, positive stuff; Adams, positive stuff; Kumerow, positive stuff.  I didn't detect anything inappropriate about his kumerow stuff, although he did expand on that and in a serious and respectful way, as opposed to trying to be funny. 

Some of his Kumerow comments connect with other comments; how much Rodgers cares about smartness, professionalism, consistency, attention to details, not making the same mistake twice, taking practice seriously, etc..  Adams was also asked about Kumerow, and gave similar positive comments about how detail-oriented he is, apparently to a well-above-average degree. 

Clearly when Gute is making roster choices, sometimes the guy who is most detail-oriented and least-likely-to-make-the-same-mistake-twice may not be the most talented player, so I'm sure balancing needs to be a thing.  Saturday, James Jones, and Jordy probably didn't get any dumber or less detail-oriented when their careers were winding down; but a time came when that wasn't enough.  Kumerow may be more detail-oriented than MVS, but that doesn't mean he'll get more snaps.  He may be more detail-oriented than Moore; that doesn't mean he'll win a roster spot if they can't both make it.   

Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: dannobanano on June 20, 2019, 01:29:47 PM
Just a comment on a piece I read about possible veteran cuts that could be looming for some veterans, and there were a number of veteran QB's that could be on the chopping block.

I know it's only speculation, and maybe none of these QB's get cut, but I'm only going by the articles, and so I wonder...………...if [IF] any of these QB's get axed, should MLF have any interest in one of them?

http://proxy.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26941405/veterans-cut-the-nfl-32-teams

LAC - Cardale Jones; 4th round pick
NYG - Kyle Lauletta; 4th round pick
SEA - Gino Smith; 2nd round pick, and Paxton Lynch; 1st round pick
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 20, 2019, 02:08:08 PM
One other note after listening to the locker-room player interviews:  There is really a lot of positivity running through the team.  It's pretty infectious.  Granted, I'm an optimist and always tend to be a hope-guy.  But man, it's pretty easy to get really fired up for what the defense might be.  And it's pretty easy to get really fired up for the offense, too; new plays, receivers, running backs, o-line, Rodgers, TE, everything. 

And usually by this time there will be a number of guys injured (Perry, Spriggs, Matthews, Bulaga, last year Lane Taylor......), or newly injured during OTA's.  But for now, Jones seems to be the only injured guy they've got.  And even his injury doesn't seem too likely to last for long.   

A lot of positivity going on.  I know that can change quickly enough, but I admit I like it! 

Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 20, 2019, 05:26:31 PM
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/06/16/aaron-rodgers-wants-more-freedom-at-the-line-of-scrimmage/

Here we go.  I agree with Rodgers on this, but his comments dont help his image.  He needs to keep that stuff in-house IMO.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001033990/article/lafleur-rodgers-navigating-gap-between-system-qbs-freedom?campaign=Twitter_atn

here is the actual article.  It's really interesting, to me at least.  Didn't sound like a problem in the article, or from the comments made. 

To me it was less interesting from "audibles" standpoint than from the broader comments about the differences of the offense.  Talking about a lot more moving parts and shifts.  Rodgers and the receivers seem to believe it will create lots of good opportunities. 

An interesting point was that if guys are spending much of the 40 seconds running and shifting hither-and-yon, which might require some coordination of movements, it's less conducive to the QB audibling and suddenly expecting guys to go elsewhere.

Also talks about MLF's intent to have every set having multiple contingencies built in.  In which case the QB would need to be routinely selecting among those, I'd think, which seems qualitatively similar to what he's always doing. 

Interesting how the receivers are all convinced the scheme and plays will help them; both help them to get open more easily, and help them to get open vertically more often. 

Will be fun to see how some of this plays out.  Will also be scary to see if the Packers are having illegal motion penalties again and again. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on June 21, 2019, 04:29:50 AM
Just a comment on a piece I read about possible veteran cuts that could be looming for some veterans, and there were a number of veteran QB's that could be on the chopping block.

I know it's only speculation, and maybe none of these QB's get cut, but I'm only going by the articles, and so I wonder...………...if [IF] any of these QB's get axed, should MLF have any interest in one of them?

http://proxy.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26941405/veterans-cut-the-nfl-32-teams

LAC - Cardale Jones; 4th round pick
NYG - Kyle Lauletta; 4th round pick
SEA - Gino Smith; 2nd round pick, and Paxton Lynch; 1st round pick

Not to throw a wet blanket on the roster building talk, but none of those guys are worth any kind of look if they are cut. Adding inexperienced QB's with no history in the MLF offense after cuts are made would be a waste of team and players time, they would have no chance for success. The opening day backup QB/QB's are already on the Packers roster.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on June 21, 2019, 05:23:38 AM
You have covered a lot in the last few days on this thread craig and make some very good and interesting points.

I think most all of us hope that all the positive energy keeps rolling and steamrolls all the way to the Super Bowl. But soon the time will come where talk will need to be replaced by performance and frankly the performance from the QB position will need to be much better than it was last season. It is convenient for Packers fans to claim that MM's offense was stale and it was the cause of all things bad for the Packers in the past seasons, but some of the people that break film down for a living see things a little differently.

The common narrative that Rodgers was hurt last season and that was the reason for his decline doesn't totally add up. Him being injured doesn't explain him not seeing WR's running wide open in secondary's, which was a weekly occurrence last season when reviewing all-22's. Him being injured doesn't explain him audibling out of a play, not seeing who the free blitzer is and then not seeing the hot receiver who saw the blitz and was wide open and screaming for the ball. Rodgers played like a player that got his big contract and no longer needed or wanted to put in the time to be great. He played like a player that hadn't even looked at the game plan week after week. He played like a player that was poorly prepared. He played like someone who had several thing more important in life than football.

Now as everyone want to keep consistently whistling right on past this graveyard and claim it was the fault of everyone that is no longer with the Packers, I will again say that "the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them". Last year he was part of the problem, this season will he be the problem or the solution? That is all up to Rodgers and that is all yet to be determined.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: Hands on June 21, 2019, 06:21:31 AM
...................

The common narrative that Rodgers was hurt last season and that was the reason for his decline doesn't totally add up. Him being injured doesn't explain him not seeing WR's running wide open in secondary's, which was a weekly occurrence last season when reviewing all-22's. Him being injured doesn't explain him audibling out of a play, not seeing who the free blitzer is and then not seeing the hot receiver who saw the blitz and was wide open and screaming for the ball. Rodgers played like a player that got his big contract and no longer needed or wanted to put in the time to be great. He played like a player that hadn't even looked at the game plan week after week. He played like a player that was poorly prepared. He played like someone who had several thing more important in life than football.

Now as everyone want to keep consistently whistling right on past this graveyard and claim it was the fault of everyone that is no longer with the Packers, I will again say that "the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them". Last year he was part of the problem, this season will he be the problem or the solution? That is all up to Rodgers and that is all yet to be determined.

RT, that is correct, Rodgers is the straw that stirs the drink. Everything you said above about missing receivers and not seeing the free blitzer is correct and showed that a previous strength of Rodgers was now a weakness. I think, don't know, his injury in the Bears game was the root cause. Every game I saw, I kept saying to myself it looks like Rodgers is playing hurt. Turns out he was!
Now that being said....the defense will make a difference in some games and may even be a juggernaught late in the season. I can't believe I'm saying something like that associated with the Packers, but I think Rodgers will have more protection and a better defense so his play will go back to previous years. IF not then the Packers jumped the gun in signing him to a contract a year too soon.
We will see once the season starts.
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 21, 2019, 09:36:57 AM
.....I think most all of us hope that all the positive energy keeps rolling and steamrolls all the way to the Super Bowl. But soon the time will come where talk will need to be replaced by performance and frankly the performance from the QB position will need to be much better than it was last season. It is convenient for Packers fans to claim that MM's offense was stale and it was the cause of all things bad for the Packers in the past seasons, but some of the people that break film down for a living see things a little differently.

The common narrative that Rodgers was hurt last season and that was the reason for his decline doesn't totally add up. Him being injured doesn't explain him not seeing WR's running wide open in secondary's, which was a weekly occurrence last season when reviewing all-22's. Him being injured doesn't explain him audibling out of a play, not seeing who the free blitzer is and then not seeing the hot receiver who saw the blitz and was wide open and screaming for the ball. Rodgers played like a player that got his big contract and no longer needed or wanted to put in the time to be great. He played like a player that hadn't even looked at the game plan week after week. He played like a player that was poorly prepared. He played like someone who had several thing more important in life than football.

Now as everyone want to keep consistently whistling right on past this graveyard and claim it was the fault of everyone that is no longer with the Packers, I will again say that "the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them". Last year he was part of the problem, this season will he be the problem or the solution? That is all up to Rodgers and that is all yet to be determined.

Great post, and I agree.  Assuming Rodgers is in the graveyard, and can't climb back out, the Packers are too.  Sure, they can win some games in which he isn't great.  But, yeah, no way they can have a great season without the QB being really good, an asset.

I agree that "the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them".  If he plays like last year, that won't be very far. 

I also agree that attributing it all to injury lacks some explanatory power.  You can recover from injury.  But can that explain all the recognition and decision-making issues you allude to?   

Might there be cognitive issues that may be irreversible, too many concussions or something, to be able to recognize things and diagnose quickly and see and hit the open receiver?  Might there be chronic happy feet; that after so many sacks and hits that the mind is distracted watching for pressure; and the feet are scared to set up and deliver; and you're throwing these rushed weight-on-your-heels throws even when there is no pressure and no need? 

Or are the issues you raise correctible focus issues?  That less time with celebrity girlfriends and Bucks games and Game of Thrones and being clever and funny with the media, and just more time on film and game-planning might remediate?   

I don't know. I'm an optimist, so I hope that somehow Rodgers is able to play at a high-level and be an asset QB good enough to play for a legit contender.  But yeah, it's certainly possible that Rodgers is never going to able to be very good again, that changes to body and soul and brain and celebrity just may not ever permit him to be as good as top-level NFL QB's anymore at this stage of his career.  If so, given the size and duration of his contract, the Packers aren't going to go very far for quite some while. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 21, 2019, 10:04:18 AM
..... Him being injured doesn't explain him audibling out of a play, not seeing who the free blitzer is and then not seeing the hot receiver who saw the blitz and was wide open and screaming for the ball. .....

Tangent really naive, ignorant, dumb question.  When plays are designed, to what degree is the QB expected to see and hit any and all open receivers? 

Over recent years, there have been a couple of common perspectives I've seen.  Back during the last James Jones season, for example: 
1.  one side is saying "the Packers receivers aren't getting open, Rodgers doesn't have any easy throws.  The receivers are too slow; the scheme is too stale.  Nobody gets open." 
2.  Another side says "There are guys running open all the time, but Rodgers just doesn't hit them."

 Q:  is the QB clearly and always at fault if there are guys getting open and he's not throwing to them?  Or is that expected and routine and not blameworthy?  (Note:
 I'm not trying whistle past graveyard and come up with excuses for Rodgers, I really don't know how to think about this....).   I'm wondering to what extent the following might explain not throwing to an open guy:
1.  Primary/secondary target.  If a play is designed to get X, Y, or Z open, and the QB is going through his progression, is it possible that the 5th option only in an unexpected zone of the field is the "running open" guy, but the QB just wouldn't have had the time, or the expectation, to see the 5th option? 
2.  Weight/balance/side.  QB is scrambling/avoiding to the RT side, his balance and eyes aren't conducive to seeing the left side.  So a received on Bakhti's side is getting open, but Rodgers weight and vision are kind of limited to throwing to Bulaga's side?  (I think it's even worse going the other direction...)
3.  A guy is getting open.... but by running the wrong route?  A play is structured with the expectation of throwing to a particular zone; but the receiver gets open towards quite a different zone, but not one the QB was looking for and anticipating?
4.  Or, a play is designed to get guys open in one of several zones, but the defenders preclude that.  Does a guy go where the play had hoped he'd get open, even if it's well-covered?  Or break open in a different direction, even though the QB isn't planning for that? 

As a TV guy, not a 22 guy, I have no idea what's reasonable for the QB to have seen or to have thrown too, versus a guy getting open some place, but too far away or too late or too early for the QB to go there.  I'm good to trust you as a 22-watcher and a smarter football guy. 

But I do feel like sometimes when watching a game with brothers-in-law, they're faulting a QB for not hitting an open guy, when the QB is running for dear life to one side and the open guy is running away on the other.  Or when a guy briefly flashes open early on one side, but clearly the play was designed to go the other side, and by the time the QB sees that the primary target is NOT open, by then the other guy is no longer open.  So I guess I'm kind of trying to learn better how to think, and maybe how to fairly distribute blame!  :)
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on June 21, 2019, 12:13:02 PM
Good questions and some valid points craig.

I don't believe that a blanket statement can be used to assess the issues. It is probably a little of some and a lot more of others. But I just don't believe that Rodgers is a grinder like Brady or Brees are, he wants to win, but I think he would rather play celebrity than deep dive his playbook. The R-E-L-A-X season and the 'just win out' season were probably hints that he was OK with coasting and turning it on when he felt like it and as fans most all ate it up. The last big motivation for him was probably getting the new contract, when that was in the bag a lot of the drive may have exited with it.

The Packers pushed all in with Rodgers and now they will just need to ride it out. Some where I think I read, "the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them" and I think I might agree with that. Lets hope he finds enough motivation to actually study the game plan for most of the games this coming season.         
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: OneTwoSixFive on June 21, 2019, 02:37:31 PM
I disagree with a lot of RT's assessment of Rodgers, although the results may look similar.

I think coasting is not the right word for Rodgers. if that were the case he would never have had the problems he did have with McCarthy in his (McCarthy's) final years. I think he knew MM's playbook so well that in later years he never needed a deep dive, he already knew what he needed to (and it was a criticism of McCarthy in his later years that he never changed up the playbook much).

Rather than lazy or coasting, I believe the key emotion that Rodgers suffered from was discouragement. He knew the Packers offense was too predictable (to defenses) and needed premium talent to overcome it's limitations and lack of innovation over time. there is nothing worse for a very smart guy to see, than his boss not doing what is needed for himself to be able to shine.

There could be at least a degree of proof (in 2019) whether my take or RT's is closer to the truth. It comes by by watching this season play out. If Rodgers is nearly back to his GOAT self this season (bearing in mind he is 36 now, not 26), then you can reasonably surmise that McCarthy was the one most at fault. I know it is hard for a rookie coach to get his team to reach postseason in his first year (it's never happened in the Packers 100 year history), but what I expect to see is a resurgence of the Packers offense, especially in the second half of the season, when the players have had some time to digest the subtleties behind La Fleur's new route concepts. The key to that resurgence all goes through A.R.

If, on the other hand, Rodgers looks very average again in 2019, as he has in recent times, then I believe RT's point that he isn't putting the work in, is more likely to be right than mine. Let it play out.

Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 21, 2019, 04:28:12 PM
1265, I think the "let it play out" point is well taken.  My guess is that it's more wishful thinking than reality that Rodgers and the offense are going to be elite again, but I hope I'm wrong. 

I think how it plays out will speak a lot to perspectives on both Rodgers and McCarthy.  If Rodgers and the offense is really good again, there will be fodder for the "McCarthy's offense was stale, that should have been changed years ago" perspective.   And if Rodgers and the offense don't do any better, that will support the "McCarthy's just been a scapegoat victim" view. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 22, 2019, 07:18:29 AM
....I just don't believe that Rodgers is a grinder like Brady or Brees are, he wants to win, but I think he would rather play celebrity than deep dive his playbook. The R-E-L-A-X season and the 'just win out' season were probably hints that he was OK with coasting and turning it on when he felt like it and as fans most all ate it up. The last big motivation for him was probably getting the new contract, when that was in the bag a lot of the drive may have exited with it.

The Packers pushed all in with Rodgers and now they will just need to ride it out. Some where I think I read, "the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them" and I think I might agree with that. Lets hope he finds enough motivation to actually study the game plan for most of the games this coming season.       

Those are reasonable questions.  As you say, the Packers committed fully to Rodgers; now they will ride it out.  Hopefully for better, possibly for worse. 

I would note that Brady and Brees are two extraordinary guys, in a bundle of ways conducive to great QB play.  It's hard to find guys like that, pretty lofty standard.  It's also possible that perhaps while a guy may not have some of their best qualities, that he may have other qualities that they don't have. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on June 24, 2019, 08:38:23 AM
I think everyone is hoping Rodgers has a great year, the Packers go undefeated and win the Super Bowl and Rodgers is the league MVP. A fan would have to be half a bubble off to hope Rodgers has a bad year.

As for your claims 1265, not sure how you can conclude that something Rodgers did or didn't do in the past isn't so by what he does in the future. Any chance that Rodgers finds some extra drive and motivation this season to take to spotlight off of him as part of the problem last season? The answer is absolutely. History is history and it doesn't change by burning the books and tearing down the statues. What happened is over with and we can now only hope it makes them stronger. 

As for the claim that Rodgers was not putting in the time was because he knew the offense so well and it was stale to him, well it wasn't the Packers offense that he needed to spend the extra time on it was the other teams defense. In watching last years games it was clear that Rodgers had no idea what the other team was doing at times, on many occasions he was completely clueless of blitz's that were coming and where the hot read was. You can claim he was bored with the offense, but their is no excuse for not putting in the time on the opponents defense.     
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: RT on June 24, 2019, 08:46:03 AM
....I just don't believe that Rodgers is a grinder like Brady or Brees are, he wants to win, but I think he would rather play celebrity than deep dive his playbook. The R-E-L-A-X season and the 'just win out' season were probably hints that he was OK with coasting and turning it on when he felt like it and as fans most all ate it up. The last big motivation for him was probably getting the new contract, when that was in the bag a lot of the drive may have exited with it.

The Packers pushed all in with Rodgers and now they will just need to ride it out. Some where I think I read, "the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them" and I think I might agree with that. Lets hope he finds enough motivation to actually study the game plan for most of the games this coming season.       

Those are reasonable questions.  As you say, the Packers committed fully to Rodgers; now they will ride it out.  Hopefully for better, possibly for worse. 

I would note that Brady and Brees are two extraordinary guys, in a bundle of ways conducive to great QB play.  It's hard to find guys like that, pretty lofty standard.  It's also possible that perhaps while a guy may not have some of their best qualities, that he may have other qualities that they don't have.

Yes Brady and Brees have been two extraordinary players and that is a lofty standard, but isn't that the company that everyone puts Rodgers in and isn't that the level of play that is expected of him? Or should he moved to the Joe Flacco and Eli Manning standard of play?
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: craig on June 24, 2019, 10:36:28 AM
1. :):)  To answer your rhetorical, yes I would say that Rodgers has been better than Eli Manning and Joe Flacco for most of his career; should remain better than their level this year; and even at his advancing age and seemingly declining healthy/durability, that he may still be better now than they were in their primes!  :)   

2.  It's also hypothetically possible that Rodgers this year might hypothetically perform at a level comparable or perhaps superior to Brees and Brady; they are aging too, and don't have the arm strength or legs that they used to have either. 

3.  But no, Rodgers should not be viewed or expected to be in the same plateau as Brady and Brees in terms of seeing the field, he never was even in his prime. 

Prime Rodgers was thought by some to be in their class, some argued at times perhaps even better.  ("GOAT" talk and all that.)  But Rodgers has put in a lot of years and wear, he's experienced a lot of hits and sacks, and I suspect a whole lot more concussions than have been officially reported.   I don't think he's the guy he used to be.  We're not talking career-prime Rodgers.  To expect that, for Rodgers now to compare to Rodgers prime, or to Brees/Brady prime, is probably unrealistic.  And yeah, it may be unrealistic and inappropriate to compare Rodger now to Brady/Brees now, even though the years add up for each of them. 

4.  My other point, though, kind of what I had in my head with previous post, is that every player is a unique combination of physical and neurological capacity. 

Prime Rodgers may arguably have been at a similar plateau overall to prime Brady and Brees, or at least kinda close.  But they got their in very different ways.  Rodgers always had more arm, more speed, more scramble, than those guys.  He could make physical throws, off-balance throws, back-peddling throws, that neither Brees nor Brady could make or ever attempted to make.  So he had some advantages that they didn't.  But he never had the capacity to read the field as well as they could.

I think he never had some of the other qualities, probably neurological included, that they had.  He never did, and he never will.  The touch that Brees and Brady have on short passes and swing passes and stuff, the ability to throw a ball softly and lead a guy on the move so that he can adjust his balance and catch the ball in stride and use body to protect, Brady and Brees (and Peyton) have always been exceptional at  that, and Rodgers isn't as good. 
*I don't think it's for lack of film-study or homework; I just assume there's a mental neurological processor that more quickly and accurately computes how to make those throws and with how much arch and velocity and all that, Brees and Brady make those calculations more quickly and are able to execute those throws more accurately that Rodgers can. 
*Don't think it's a "study" thing; just as they can't "study" their legs into running faster or their arms into throwing like Rodgers, likewise I don't think he can "study" his way into making those throws as well.  Different men, different pros-and-cons. 

Similar with reading the field. 
*Brees and Brady are exceptional at that, in Brees case despite the reduced stature and "seeing over the lineman" challenge associated with shorter guys. 
*I don't think Rodgers was ever as good at that, at seeing things and processing things. 
*Certainly Brady and Brees are huge study guys; they have combined max study with max natural gifts in those areas. 
*Again, I just don't think neurologically that Rodgers can scan and see everything as well as Brady and Brees can.  No combine measurement for that kind of processing capacity. 

I think your point is very well taken, though:  Brady combined the gift with the work. 

Is it possible that recent Rodgers, while never quite as gifted, has also put in inadequate work?  I think that's an entirely plausible explanation, RT. 

And I think that might be a rational explanation for some of the recent decline.  *Yes, he's never been quite on par with Brees/Brady at seeing and reading the field. 
*But that gap appears to have widened considerably. 
*The simplest explanation woudl be that his study had declined and left him further behind. 
*A second possible explanation is that his brain has declined?  Too many concussions, too many hits, who knows too many pain-killers, and maybe that mental computer doesn't have the same computing speed that it had in 2011? 

All we as fans can do is wait and watch, and hope. I think we can hope that your study/preparation explanation is true, because hypothetically that's perhaps a more improvable problem than physical or neurological decline. 
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: dannobanano on June 24, 2019, 12:00:44 PM
I think what we are missing here is "context" of Rodgers performance the last 2 seasons.

Historically Rodgers has always been at his best, and most dangerous, when the play breaks down and he gets flushed from the pocket. His completion %, and TD/INT ratios in those situations have been other worldly for his entire career, until these last 2 yrs.

Last year he played the whole season on, basically, a broken leg. So that means he could not do what he does best (make plays on the run). It made him human instead of superhuman.

Did he not prep properly for games last year? No clue...……………..but it's a subjective suggestion, since we are not his shadow.

The 2017 season, he was lost after 5 games. But in those 5 games, when he was fully healthy, he posted a 66.82% completion average, 1367 yds, 13 TD's, 3 INT's. That would have extrapolated out to more than 4300 yds/41 TD's/and 9 INT's (slightly over his starters average of 7.8/season)

JMHO, but I think he will be very focused this season and you will see a return to more of the Rodgers of 2016 type numbers.

The only hiccup I can foresee would be if Rodgers loses patience early in the season as the new system takes root, and that he and MLF come to loggerheads over the playcalling. It's not going to be smooth sailing all the time early on. Can Rodgers trust MLF enough to believe in what he's trying to do. That...........to me, will be the biggest question that needs to be answered.


edit:
Just found this...………..
https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2019/06/24/trust-will-determine-if-audible-issue-is-a-positive-or-negative-for-aaron-rodgers-packers/

[The more that’s said about quarterback Aaron Rodgers and coach Matt LaFleur and their issue over audibling in the new Green Bay Packers offense, the more it’s clear that trust will determine if the process is a positive or an eventual negative.
When push comes to shove, trust will be the determining factor.
Namely, how much will Rodgers trust the system? He’s been locked into one offense for over a decade, and that offense eventually gave him the freedom to do pretty much anything before the snap. It stands to reason that Rodgers fully embraced that power. For a competitor like Rodgers, that power will be hard to give up.
LaFleur must prove that his quarterback-friendly offense can take that burden off Rodgers’ shoulders. He must prove he can consistently provide plays capable of beating a defense without adjustment pre-snap. Building trust takes time. The ideas must hold up even when there are individual failures.
By all accounts, Rodgers has fully embraced the new playbook and all its offerings. If it runs right, life will be much easier on the quarterback in Green Bay. That’s the whole point.
But, again, it’s all about building trust.
When Rodgers comes to the line on a big third down in Week 1 in Chicago and he has two plays to pick from, will he be confident enough in LaFleur’s system to simply pick one or another, or will there be temptation to make big changes?
If there’s trust, the audible issue won’t be an issue.]
Title: Re: Position look: QB
Post by: OneTwoSixFive on June 24, 2019, 12:25:45 PM
As for your claims 1265, not sure how you can conclude that something Rodgers did or didn't do in the past isn't so by what he does in the future.

You'll have to clarify this, as I have no idea what you mean here.

As for the claim that Rodgers was not putting in the time was because he knew the offense so well and it was stale to him, well it wasn't the Packers offense that he needed to spend the extra time on it was the other teams defense. In watching last years games it was clear that Rodgers had no idea what the other team was doing at times, on many occasions he was completely clueless of blitz's that were coming and where the hot read was. You can claim he was bored with the offense, but their is no excuse for not putting in the time on the opponents defense.   

Not bored, discouraged, a different emotion. As for your claim he didn't prepare for defenses enough, there might be some truth in that, I haven't examined his play with the kind of fine toothcomb you would need to separate that detail from other causes. But 'failure to learn opponents play tendencies' is moving the goalposts from what I was replying to. I replied to directly to your quote that "he would rather play celebrity than deep dive his playbook".