Skip to main content

@Goalline posted:

Rodgers' 2021 Cap hit 46,444,157

Brady's 2021 Cap hit 18,395,588

X4: How come Brady always has a better team around him than Rodgers. Dame you, Gute, Gunt, Goop, Guppy, or whatever other millions of names folks call him on the board when he doesn't sign all the superstar defenders available.

$46 million? That's next year, man. And that's not happening. Rodgers 2021 cap hit was $27 million. Brady's was $10 million. $18 million for Brady next year.

Part of the reason Brady's cap hit is lower is the voidable years at the end of his deal. He will count $24 million vs the Bucs 2023 cap even though his contract expires after 2022. He's getting paid, the Bucs are just pushing the numbers out for the rebuild after he's done.

Last edited by PackerHawk
@PackerHawk posted:

$46 million? That's next year, man. And that's not happening. Rodgers 2021 cap hit was $27 million. Brady's was $10 million. $18 million for Brady next year.

Part of the reason Brady's cap hit is lower is the voidable years at the end of his deal. He will count $24 million vs the Bucs 2023 cap even though his contract expires after 2022. He's getting paid, the Bucs are just pushing the numbers out for the rebuild after he's done.

Wait. This is not 2024?

Good piece by Matt Schneidman about how this postseason will be a defining moment in AR's legacy (it's behind a paywall).

Fair or not, Rodgers’ legacy will be judged by how much the Packers win when he’s on the field. So far, they haven’t done it enough in the playoffs. That’s why these playoffs, in which the top-seeded Packers kick off their Super Bowl pursuit against the sixth-seeded 49ers on Saturday night at Lambeau Field, are a defining moment for Rodgers’ legacy.

....

A third straight season exiting short of the Super Bowl after having a first-round bye would be crippling, but winning a second ring — heck, even reaching the big game after falling just short the last two seasons — would likely shift the narrative of the past decade that Rodgers, though supreme most regular seasons, can’t carry his team to victory when it matters most.

Like Silverstein, he points out that the playoff losses are complicated but it's a bottom line business and the bottom line is his lack of success in the postseason. Tom Brady is 35-11 in the postseason and 7-3 in the big game. From the piece:

Again, quarterback winning percentage is not entirely indicative of a quarterback’s performance, but quarterbacks of this caliber are expected to overcome any hindrances around them, fair or unfair. Brady got credit for a Super Bowl win when he completed 21 of 35 passes for 262 yards, no touchdowns and an interception in a 13-3 win over the Rams three years ago, but Rodgers gets credit for a loss every time he plays well and his defense collapses in the postseason. That’s just how it goes.

Piece is really less a criticism of AR than one about the reality of how the position is judged.

Last edited by michiganjoe

Last Sunday, McVince against the 49ers ran with Elliot a whopping 12 times. Then used Pollard another 4.

Once again, a MM game plan (and yes, I get they fell behind) that put a ton of pressure on his QB to throw their way to a playoff win.

How many damn times did we see MM do that with Rodgers in the playoffs? From Ryan Grant to Eddie Lacy to ____ insert RB here, McVince's game plan was to put everything on his Pro Bowl QB to win it and use his RB's as an afterthought at best unless GB was way ahead.

Just imagine if Rodgers during those same years had an OC that resembled anything like MLF where they would pound the ball to set up the pass in those playoff games. Not saying outcomes would have definitely changed, but it certainly would have helped being much more balanced.

Those opposing defensive coordinators lost no sleep knowing full well what MM was going to do in those games...

What still baffles me about that game was our very first play on offense. Go back to the week before vs. Rams we killed them by playing 2 RBs, motioning one out, which Rams reacted to by sending a LBer out with him. This left only 1 ILBer ... 5 defenders in the box to be blocked by 5 o-lineman, which resulted in us rushing for 188 yards. So we do the same thing on first play vs. Bucs...Jones motions out but Bucs do not send an ILBer with him . They blitz a defender off he corner which leaves 2 WRs and Jones on the perimeter vs ONE defender .... AR doesn't throw him the ball but rather hands off to Williams for 3 yards. I don't think we did it again all game and I could not figure out why. One of my retirement goals is to somehow meet MLF, AR, or Hackett and ask them why .... of course this will quickly be followed by them hollering "security"

Last edited by FLPACKER
@packerboi posted:

Last Sunday, McVince against the 49ers ran with Elliot a whopping 12 times. Then used Pollard another 4.

Once again, a MM game plan (and yes, I get they fell behind) that put a ton of pressure on his QB to throw their way to a playoff win.

How many damn times did we see MM do that with Rodgers in the playoffs? From Ryan Grant to Eddie Lacy to ____ insert RB here, McVince's game plan was to put everything on his Pro Bowl QB to win it and use his RB's as an afterthought at best unless GB was way ahead.

Just imagine if Rodgers during those same years had an OC that resembled anything like MLF where they would pound the ball to set up the pass in those playoff games. Not saying outcomes would have definitely changed, but it certainly would have helped being much more balanced.

Those opposing defensive coordinators lost no sleep knowing full well what MM was going to do in those games...

I think the even worse part about MMs gameplans was that the times he did commit to the run where the times when he could have trusted his HOF QB to put games away. There is no QB in history you could trust not to make a mistake more than Rodgers, and after not bothering to establish the run early, he'd take the ball out of his hands and go ultraconservative.

The Seattle game eats at all of us, but beyond the special teams failures and the Burnett "lay down" on the interception, if they drive for a FG after Burnett's pick the game is probably still over. They had the ball near midfield and run the ball into 8 man boxes 3 times in a row. There were 5 minutes left and one first down gets the clock to the 2 minute warning up two scores. 25 yards gets you into FG range. Two first downs ends the game.

Screen Shot 2022-01-19 at 10.19.32 AM

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Screen Shot 2022-01-19 at 10.19.32 AM
@DH13 posted:

We just can't quit 2014.

That game was MM/DC in a nutshell.  Brilliant game plan, disciplined execution...until it mattered most.  With the game on the line, they forgot how to chew their food and no one knew the heimlich.

It was also the often infuriating pattern of MM playing not to lose instead of playing to win, except for the one play where they should have absolutely been ultra-conservative. That was the fake FG that went for a TD. You were up 16-0 and your #1 priority should have been to protect against a fake.

Every other decision was ultra-conservative.

1. Kicking a FG on 4th down from the 1 TWICE, and kicking a FG on 4th and 1 from the 22 after that.

2. Burnett laying down with at least 15 yards of field position in front of him.

3. Running the ball into the middle of the line 3 times up two scores with 5 minutes left.

As you say, the ultimate MM game. Completely outcoach the other team BEFORE the game starts and then try to keep from screwing up in-game management enough to not blow the advantages you created before the game.

It kills me when I watch a team build a lead and then change their game plan.  Like you went up 16-0 doing one thing and then consciously decide to CHANGE what you are doing (and has clearly worked), to then give you a better change to "win" the game.  Like if it worked, why stop doing it?  May be a wrong word but it's cowardice on the coaches.  It's playing scared.

I'd be curious if this is discussed during the week.  Like do coaches have one game plan for getting a lead, then a totally different game plan to protect the lead? 

@CUPackFan posted:

It kills me when I watch a team build a lead and then change their game plan.  Like you went up 16-0 doing one thing and then consciously decide to CHANGE what you are doing (and has clearly worked), to then give you a better change to "win" the game.  Like if it worked, why stop doing it?  May be a wrong word but it's cowardice on the coaches.  It's playing scared.

I'd be curious if this is discussed during the week.  Like do coaches have one game plan for getting a lead, then a totally different game plan to protect the lead?

I would bet it's dependent on your personnel.

If you have Rodgers or Brady as your QB (especially Rodgers) you know if you get a comfortable lead that he's not going to do anything idiotic to let the other team back into easily.

If Favre (and maybe Josh Allen or even Mahomes) is your QB, you probably do have to go a little more conservative to protect against the increased chance of an overly aggressive decision letting the other team back in it. The same goes if you have a younger QB.

In MLFs case, having Rodgers means you can be more aggressive in your play calling even when comfortably ahead. He's less likely to make a mistake that costs you than any QB in history.

@CUPackFan posted:

It kills me when I watch a team build a lead and then change their game plan.  Like you went up 16-0 doing one thing and then consciously decide to CHANGE what you are doing (and has clearly worked), to then give you a better change to "win" the game.  Like if it worked, why stop doing it?  May be a wrong word but it's cowardice on the coaches.  It's playing scared.

I'd be curious if this is discussed during the week.  Like do coaches have one game plan for getting a lead, then a totally different game plan to protect the lead?

I totally agree.  What ever happened to let's stick to what got us here and keep doing it until they stop us.   

@Pakrz posted:

Easy Packer faithfuls. I’m not pooping on St. Bart. Just saying the boy had some helpâ€Ķ lots of it.

Vince tore Bart apart during a shitty practice in front of everyone. Might have been 58 or 59. Afterwards Bart told Vince to never do it again. If he had a problem with his starting QB pull him aside and tear me a new one in private. Never do it in front of the guys he expected him to lead.

Vince never did it again. That massive collection of HOF’ers would have done anything for Bart.

That’s how you string a load of titles together.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×