November 14, 2019, 07:02:53 AM

Author Topic: Position look: QB  (Read 3681 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #75 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. 

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5337
  • Karma: +44/-2
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #76 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. me, will be the biggest question that needs to be answered.

Just found this...………..

[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.]
« Last Edit: June 24, 2019, 12:13:57 PM by dannobanano »

Offline OneTwoSixFive

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2440
  • Karma: +20/-10
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #77 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".
(ricky) "Personally, I'm putting this in a box, driving a stake through its heart, firing a silver bullet into its (empty) head, nailing it shut, loading it into a rocket and firing it into the sun. "

(Pink Floyd) "Set the controls for the heart of the sun"