@Fandame posted:Not that I don't agree with the rest of what you said, but I agree that the offense that was run this year and even most of last year is not what we saw the first year. There used to be guys running all over pre-snap and someone often in motion at the snap; now, it looks a lot more like MM's offense where guys went only on the snap and tried to beat their man. Once in a while this year, they had Watson motion, but not enough to really fool anyone.
As for Jones, his rushing attempts were so up and down (in order and whether W or L): 5L, 15W, 12W, 16W (OT), 13L, 9L, 8L, 20L, 9L, 24W (OT), 12L, 12L, 9W, 17W, 6W, 14W, 12L. When I plug that into my basics of math, I come up with 14.1 average carries in wins; 8.88 in losses. But, if you take out the two OT games, the carries-in-wins average drops to 9.1 per game.
What I think it really boils down to is who is actually calling the plays: Rodgers or MLF? If Cousins changed up to 80% of the calls, what percentage did Rodgers change? And why does he change them -- if he does? He mentioned in the Det game that he wasn't happy with the playcalls at the end, so did he run them to throw MLF under the bus, or did he change them and they didn't work so then he implicates MLF?
At this point, I think Rodgers is more comfortable with a more stationary offense where he can, as some say, play hero ball rather than all the motion and shorter throws. My evidence for that is how he always waits until the play clock is at 0 before calling for the snap. Doing that while running a motion offense is so much harder for timing purposes. (And I am so sick of his running down the clock as it is so much harder for the line to block since the D can tee off.) I also think he is slowing down as far as reading the field and a motion offense means decisions must also be made quicker.
In short, I'd like to see a return to the MLF offense, and I'd like to see Love running it.
Excellent analysis. Spot on.
@CUPackFan posted:The important thing is getting rid of Rodgers' guaranteed contract, not the picks. If Rodgers doesn't want to go to the Colts, he can retire - Packers still get out from under the guaranteed salary.
He will still count against our cap, $16m this year and $25m next year if he's traded. You can't get out from under the dead cap numbers.
@Fandame posted:What I think it really boils down to is who is actually calling the plays: Rodgers or MLF? If Cousins changed up to 80% of the calls, what percentage did Rodgers change? And why does he change them -- if he does? He mentioned in the Det game that he wasn't happy with the playcalls at the end, so did he run them to throw MLF under the bus, or did he change them and they didn't work so then he implicates MLF?At this point, I think Rodgers is more comfortable with a more stationary offense where he can, as some say, play hero ball rather than all the motion and shorter throws. My evidence for that is how he always waits until the play clock is at 0 before calling for the snap. Doing that while running a motion offense is so much harder for timing purposes. (And I am so sick of his running down the clock as it is so much harder for the line to block since the D can tee off.) I also think he is slowing down as far as reading the field and a motion offense means decisions must also be made quicker.
In short, I'd like to see a return to the MLF offense, and I'd like to see Love running it.
MLF doesn't have a great poker face so I think we can read into his response in his presser after the Det game when he was asked about Rodgers play call comments and he said in a surprised voice "well it sounds like he didn't like the play calls".
If Rodgers changed the calls at the line, MLF would have known that, it wouldn't have come as a surprise to him that Rodgers didn't like his calls. I think Rodgers does in fact run the plays called. There's usually two calls anyway, the normal call and the "canned" version. Usually when you call an audible you have a signal word or phrase ("new york bozo") which totally changes the play. I don't remember a lot of that this year.
But this goes back to the hubbub about AR's "signals". This is where I can see the tension between MLF and AR. AR is probably calling the plays MLF has given him, but is giving signals at the line (at the last second as you said) for receivers to change up specific routes. So technically AR is calling MLF's plays, but a route or two might be modified.
Those signal calls have caused issues over the years with players running the wrong route (because they missed the signal, didn't know what it was, or were afraid to go against MLF's call), and probably a lot of disgruntled AR looks walking off the field.
I do think you're right about them getting moving away from motion because AR doesn't like it. Motion puts guys in positions to make specific plays based on the motion and timing of it. If you have that you not only have less opportunity to run the clock to zero (like you said) but you also don't have as much leeway to give someone a signal to run a different route, because the motion is so integral to the play and how it's run.
This is a live by the sword, die by the sword thing. You obviously want your QB to put you in a better position to make a play if he sees something that could work better, specifically if the D is showing something and you can change a route at the line to take advantage. But now you've added more complexity into the game, and you're not just trusting your WR to make a play regardless of the call.
This is most likely why AR wants all his buddies back. It's not just that they're his friends, it's that he can trust them to know WTF he's thinking all the time. He seems to prefer teammates that can read his mind over ones who would just go out and beat their man on standard called play.
He simply does not want to be considered a game manager, like he thought he was in 2020. He wants to be the active head of the offense, for better or worse.
@vitaflo posted:He seems to prefer teammates that can read his mind over ones who would just go out and beat their man on standard called play.
Precisely why Watson never saw a pass his way the second half of the season
Is it possible that defenses are lining up one way (to defend a run, for example) knowing full well that AR will see that and then change to a pass play?….Basically daring AR to pass the ball because they know he will. And if they know what’s coming, it’ll be easier to defend.
Or is that a MLF play calling problem? It just seems like the offense has become way too predictable….kinda like every third and one turns into a long low percentage pass attempt.
@vitaflo posted:Packers had contract talks with him before the 2021 season and they low balled him. He got frustrated and it was only at the last minute that the Packers "offered more" than the Raiders. But the bridges were already burned.
Your article says that "talks broke off". We can assume they broke off because the offer didn't make Adams the highest paid WR in the league. We can't assume that Adams was "low balled" as you claim.
It sounds like normal contract negotiations to me; there's no evidence of any "bridge burning".
And then a year later it's reported that “The Packers offered Davante Adams a bigger deal over the first two years than the Raiders did … he just didn’t wanna be there,” Rapoport said.
It was also well reported that he wanted to play with his college buddy in warmer weather; e.g., "it was a dream of his to play for the Silver and Black".
But believe what you want.
@bdplant posted:Is it possible that defenses are lining up one way (to defend a run, for example) knowing full well that AR will see that and then change to a pass play?….Basically daring AR to pass the ball because they know he will. And if they know what’s coming, it’ll be easier to defend.
Or is that a MLF play calling problem? It just seems like the offense has become way too predictable….kinda like every third and one turns into a long low percentage pass attempt.
EVERY NFL offense tries to call (or audible) into a play that has a better chance to be successful vs what defense they think their opponent is in. There is all kinds of disguising , cat & mouse, predicting off past tendencies, etc. It just seemed this year MLF was saying "we didn't get what we expected" when asked about specific big play calls that weren't successful.
@Pikes Peak posted:Looks like a geneous to me
Why is he running AWAY from pretty girls? (Not that there is anything wrong with that)
@FLPACKER posted:EVERY NFL offense tries to call (or audible) into a play that has a better chance to be successful vs what defense they think their opponent is in. There is all kinds of disguising , cat & mouse, predicting off past tendencies, etc. It just seemed this year MLF was saying "we didn't get what we expected" when asked about specific big play calls that weren't successful.
I wonder if MLF meant it as a double entendre: "we didn't get what we expected" from the D formation or from the play that Rodgers ran? 
@bdplant posted:Is it possible that defenses are lining up one way (to defend a run, for example) knowing full well that AR will see that and then change to a pass play?….Basically daring AR to pass the ball because they know he will. And if they know what’s coming, it’ll be easier to defend.
Or is that a MLF play calling problem? It just seems like the offense has become way too predictable….kinda like every third and one turns into a long low percentage pass attempt.
Fully a possibility, especially if defenses think they have a better chance defending the WR than the RB. I think that changed once Watson became a legitimate threat and/or Jones was off the field. After those two, GB became much easier to defend.
@KenIngalls
I can probably copy and paste this for the next few seasons. Until the Packers take a rebuild year or two, they will be in this perpetual limbo of borrowing from the future to pay for the past & present, while being hamstrung from being able to make large acquisition swings.
Aaron Rodgers To Decide Future By Consulting With Coven Of Trusted Witches https://t.co/xOnT7mOusm pic.twitter.com/KVqeLsYQMX
— The Onion (@TheOnion) January 19, 2023
@packerboi posted:Then you haven't been paying attention on what this offense looked like in 2020 vs now. Because it's a shell of itself.
In that year, you had dudes like Tyler Irvin doing a lot of preset motions along with Aaron Jones. It was a shame Irvin didn't stay healthy but let's not pretend he was some generational talent that the Packers couldn't run that same offense in '21 with another player.
Guys like Tyler Irvin were experienced professional vets. They're used to the speed and talent in the game. They're used to pro playbooks. They've had numerous years of technique refinement. That makes a HUGE difference in complex offenses.
And Rodgers fed Adams because he was the reliable receiver. The second-most was Jones, which isn't good enough on a team with hopes of a championship. This year when they absolutely needed a receiver to make a tough play, they didn't have anyone they could count on to take a chance with.
@Chongo posted:Aaron Rodgers To Decide Future By Consulting With Coven Of Trusted Witches https://t.co/xOnT7mOusm pic.twitter.com/KVqeLsYQMX
— The Onion (@TheOnion) January 19, 2023
The Sanderson sisters? Terrific
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/...packers-bottom-line/
Not sure this has been posted but it's a very detailed read into Rodgers contract numbers. And after reading it, I don't know how they keep him on the team in 2023 without absolutely killing the future of the team.
If Rodgers plays this coming year, his cap number is $31m. But that cap number is much much lower than what he is paid in cash next year ($60m), which means if he retires after 2023 we will have dead cap of $68m spread between 2024 and 2025.
Basically if Rodgers stays on the team next year and then retires we are basically paying almost $100m for one year of play, spread out over 3 years. Add in Love's 5th year option (if they take it) for over $20m in 2024 and I don't see how this works at all.
If they punt on Love and Rodgers comes back again in 2024 it gets even worse because his injury guarantee of $50m becomes a normal guarantee in 2024. So if he plays in 2024 as well and retires after that season we are then adding a cap hit of $41m in 2024 *plus* $77m of dead cap money spread between '25 and '26. That would be almost $150m for two years of play spread out over 4 years.
The only way to get out of this is if he retires or is traded. Both would limit the damage to $16m in '23 and $24m in '24. I don't know how anyone in GB can think that after this past season that basically paying $100m for one year of play or $150m for two years of play is even close to a good idea.
If he wants to keep playing he almost has to be traded to mitigate the damage it will do to future years of the franchise.
Thank you for that factual analysis.
things are getting clearer…
@vitaflo posted:https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/...packers-bottom-line/
Not sure this has been posted but it's a very detailed read into Rodgers contract numbers. And after reading it, I don't know how they keep him on the team in 2023 without absolutely killing the future of the team.
If Rodgers plays this coming year, his cap number is $31m. But that cap number is much much lower than what he is paid in cash next year ($60m), which means if he retires after 2023 we will have dead cap of $68m spread between 2024 and 2025.
Basically if Rodgers stays on the team next year and then retires we are basically paying almost $100m for one year of play, spread out over 3 years. Add in Love's 5th year option (if they take it) for over $20m in 2024 and I don't see how this works at all.
If they punt on Love and Rodgers comes back again in 2024 it gets even worse because his injury guarantee of $50m becomes a normal guarantee in 2024. So if he plays in 2024 as well and retires after that season we are then adding a cap hit of $41m in 2024 *plus* $77m of dead cap money spread between '25 and '26. That would be almost $150m for two years of play spread out over 4 years.
The only way to get out of this is if he retires or is traded. Both would limit the damage to $16m in '23 and $24m in '24. I don't know how anyone in GB can think that after this past season that basically paying $100m for one year of play or $150m for two years of play is even close to a good idea.
If he wants to keep playing he almost has to be traded to mitigate the damage it will do to future years of the franchise.
When he threw down the gauntlet, it was bound to turn into a hostage situation. The organization gambled and lost, ironically, by giving him what he was asking for. At the time, they were coming off two #1 seeds and an MVP season. So more than likely they had legit reason to believe he would maintain his level of play to some degree, which on the surface they were right about, since he won another MVP. What they failed to root out were the issues keeping them from advancing in the playoffs, and in that window Rodgers' play at the very least slipped to the point where he couldn't carry as much of the load. So two years and increasingly disappointing seasons later, it almost feels like there is no situation where anyone might win, short of the astronomical odds that he sticks around and make some deep playoff run.
It feels very familiar to the end of the MM era where most people agreed that change was inevitable. Only now, you're stuck in a contract where you're guaranteed in some form to lose, and you just extended your head coach who inspires little to no confidence to be able to address his own flaws. You drafted up to grab a qb who may never start a game in GB. And the trade value for your hof guy is significantly diminished. Like you say, short of a trade, idk how there could end up being a winner in this situation. It feels like a cut your losses problem, even though the losses may end up a disaster regardless.
i'm sure there's some crazy owner out there we can fleece
I'm sure there is a team out there that will take him, but a year late and post Russell Wilson, the haul is getting smaller
@"We"-Ka-Bong posted:I'm sure there is a team out there that will take him, but a year late and post Russell Wilson, the haul is getting smaller
@"We"-Ka-Bong posted:I'm sure there is a team out there that will take him, but a year late and post Russell Wilson, the haul is getting smaller
Proactive vs reactive
it's water under the bridge. time to cut our losses and move on
Ask him to restructure his contract and take a pay cut. When he refuses, cut him or trade him. At least then the Packers can say they wanted him back but AR was unwilling to do what needed to be done in order to field a competitive team….which would be true.
I don’t know if that’s possible or how it would work with the salary cap though.
from what i have read, if they cut him the cap hit is like $90 million. trade is the only option unless he retires.
I think you read that correctly. The cap hit is horrendous if they cut him vs. trading him or he retires. Plus Gute is too smart to cut him and have him land somewhere in the NFC where he can haunt you.
This would take balls, and clearly the Silos don't have any, but if they sprouted some, they need to tell 12 this:
"you need to tell us now if you are all-in the next two seasons. If so, we are going to trade Love and get some picks to help win a Super Bowl. We are going all-in because you are all-in. That means we expect you to be at all mini-camps and OTA's...not because you need them, but because the team needs them. They are vital to development of the offense as a unit. If you cannot commit to these terms, we will try and find a trade partner so you can finish your career there, and if we can't get a good enough value for you, you will be Love's backup as we proceed in his development as the future QB1."
The time for "fuck-fuck" is over, but sadly, with the Silos "fuck-fuck" is all we get.
@bdplant posted:Ask him to restructure his contract and take a pay cut. When he refuses, cut him or trade him. At least then the Packers can say they wanted him back but AR was unwilling to do what needed to be done in order to field a competitive team….which would be true.
I don’t know if that’s possible or how it would work with the salary cap though.
This is the problem, there's no way out of it. You cannot cut him or he will count $99m against the cap this year. You can't restructure your way out of that because the money has already been paid. We're basically paying off the credit card here. You can't "undo" it.
You can't restructure for a trade because again, money has already been paid. The best possible situation for us is we trade him (or he retires) and we're "only" on the hook for $40m over the next two seasons.
What sucks is the best case scenario is he is traded (or retires) this offseason and then in 2024 we're paying $44m in cap for the QB position in 2024 ($20m for Love's 5th year option + Rodgers $24m dead cap). Which is insane. And that's our best case.
On Love, this contract basically makes me think they feel that Love ain't the guy. If they thought Love was the next Mahomes, they never would have signed this deal even if they couldn't find a trade partner for AR last offseason. The deal hamstrings the team WAY too much.
I get they were kind of between a rock and a hard place with a back-to-back MVP and Rodgers was able to bend them over here, but we moved on from Favre after he got us to the NFC Championship game and we traded him for a just 4th round pick so Rodgers could start. We've made these kinds of hard decisions before. The fact that we didn't do that here and instead doubled down is a bit telling unfortunately.
Maybe back in early 2022 the FO and coaching DID NOT think Love was a starting caliber QB. This is what lead to the outrageous contract they gave Rodgers. After seeing Love in training camp, preseason games in 2022 they changed their minds but the die was cast with Rodgers. This is a mess that will effect the Packers for about 4 seasons. Get used to it.
@ammo posted:Maybe back in early 2022 the FO and coaching DID NOT think Love was a starting caliber QB. This is what lead to the outrageous contract they gave Rodgers. After seeing Love in training camp, preseason games in 2022 they changed their minds but the die was cast with Rodgers. This is a mess that will effect the Packers for about 4 seasons. Get used to it.
Almost as much as drafting guys like Amari Rodgers, Royce Newman, Josiah Deguara, Kamal Martin, Jace Sternberger, Kinglsey Keke, Oren Burks, J'Mon Moore, Cole Madison and JK Scott in the 3rd, 4th and 5th rounds...the ones that are vital to building out a strong roster via "draft and develop."
@Chongo posted:This would take balls, and clearly the Silos don't have any, but if they sprouted some, they need to tell 12 this:
"you need to tell us now if you are all-in the next two seasons. If so, we are going to trade Love and get some picks to help win a Super Bowl. We are going all-in because you are all-in. That means we expect you to be at all mini-camps and OTA's...not because you need them, but because the team needs them. They are vital to development of the offense as a unit. If you cannot commit to these terms, we will try and find a trade partner so you can finish your career there, and if we can't get a good enough value for you, you will be Love's backup as we proceed in his development as the future QB1."
The time for "fuck-fuck" is over, but sadly, with the Silos "fuck-fuck" is all we get.
I just don't think this would get us anything different than we had this year. Rodgers' reading/seeing the field and anticipation were significantly slower than in the past and his throws were also off. No 300-yard game is one indication. (Yes, I know, young guys, yada, yada, and that played a part but still.) And judging by Rodgers' body language and attitude all year, I don't know that he would be as much of a positive influence as we'd all like to see.
In addition, I can't see Rodgers wanting to spend a lot of time with younger guys. They are out of his comfort zone in terms of life experiences and, in most cases, intelligence. Rodgers is much more comfortable with the grizzled vets, e.g., the five guys he wants back. To top it off, if he were willing to return as more of a game manager QB, I might gamble on him. But we all know how much he dislikes that role. He talks a good game about doing whatever it takes to win, but everyone can see how he does not like handing off to the RB or throwing timing routes, slants, etc., for the majority of a game.
Oh, he'll go somewhere else if traded and have a good year just because he'll carry that chip on his shoulder and use it, but Father Time has grabbed Rodgers by the throat and he's not letting go.
Joe Namath yesterday said if the Jets should acquire Aaron Rodgers in a trade he would let him use the #12 that the Jets retired in honor of Namath. Does Joe know something we don't?
I don't think Joe knows a ton
@ammo posted:Joe Namath yesterday said if the Jets should acquire Aaron Rodgers in a trade he would let him use the #12 that the Jets retired in honor of Namath. Does Joe know something we don't?
Nah I don't think he knows anything we don't since his brain is pickled at this point.
@GBFanForLife posted:Was he sober?
He wants to kiss Aaron's current girlfriend.