Aaron Rodgers -- Hurt or just playing very poorly thus far

[mmmdk]

Last week: Offense put up a TD quick, then sort of fizzled. It went away until about 3 to 4 minutes into the 4th, and even then it was reliant on completeing a couple deep balls more then having sustained drives against the worst team in the NFL.

Ahh, now it makes sense. You don't even watch the games! If you did, you would have known that we scored two TDs on 80+ yard drives in the first half.

Wasn't it three quick FGs and two 80+ yard drives...ah, just kidden...I saw the game!

[packerbacker1234]

Last week: Offense put up a TD quick, then sort of fizzled. It went away until about 3 to 4 minutes into the 4th, and even then it was reliant on completeing a couple deep balls more then having sustained drives against the worst team in the NFL.

Ahh, now it makes sense. You don't even watch the games! If you did, you would have known that we scored two TDs on 80+ yard drives in the first half.

He's completely right. Where did we have any drives showing that we can win a cold game at Soldier field in the snow? None. We haven't shown that this season. They won't win when it matters if they don't learn to play "small ball".

Thats the point. At no point did I feel we had this game in hand, and the Rams suck. Offense looks worse then it did last year.

[vince]

I agree that Rodgers has held on to the ball too long on some occassions in my opinion. Bart Starr did that quite often too, rather than force the ball and turn it over. Not that Rodgers has anywhere near the accolades of Starr, but it's not such a bad quality. It has kept the team in the game and in position to win in the end, which it has twice and came pretty close the third.

It's funny how some people criticise a guy as being too conservative for keeping his team in position to win by not turnign the ball over - and at the same time criticise him for not sustaining drives when he comes up big with explosive plays that win games.

[SkinBasket]

*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.

Yes, we know. We'll never be as smart or insightful as you. It breaks our stupid little hearts.

There's someone like Partial on every forum. Lucky us.

Look out, Partial's been known to compare his post count against others as a way of marking his territory. And a belated welcome to the forum to you.

[falco]

Look out, Partial's been known to compare his post count against others as a way of marking his territory. And a belated welcome to the forum to you.

its not the size of your post count, its how you use it.

[mmmdk]

I agree that Rodgers has held on to the ball too long on some occassions in my opinion. Bart Starr did that quite often too, rather than force the ball and turn it over. Not that Rodgers has anywhere near the accolades of Starr, but it's not such a bad quality. It has kept the team in the game and in position to win in the end, which it has twice and came pretty close the third.

It's funny how some people criticise a guy as being too conservative for keeping his team in position to win by not turnign the ball over - and at the same time criticise him for not sustaining drives when he comes up big with explosive plays that win games.

Phil Simms really sucked too...not!

[vince]

Thats the point. At no point did I feel we had this game in hand, and the Rams suck. Offense looks worse then it did last year.

The offensive line certainly looks worse than it did last year. There's no excuse for that. The receivers have dropped more balls than they did last year. There's no excuse for that either. I think Nelson has more drops than catches so far this year.

[falco]

Thats the point. At no point did I feel we had this game in hand, and the Rams suck. Offense looks worse then it did last year.

The offensive line certainly looks worse than it did last year. There's no excuse for that. The receivers have dropped more balls than they did last year. There's no excuse for that either. I think Nelson has more drops than catches so far this year.

We've definitely got a lot of question marks. I still think this is a team that hits its stride by mid-season.

[packerbacker1234]

I agree that Rodgers has held on to the ball too long on some occassions in my opinion. Bart Starr did that quite often too, rather than force the ball and turn it over. Not that Rodgers has anywhere near the accolades of Starr, but it's not such a bad quality. It has kept the team in the game and in position to win in the end, which it has twice and came pretty close the third.

It's funny how some people criticise a guy as being too conservative for keeping his team in position to win by not turnign the ball over - and at the same time criticise him for not sustaining drives when he comes up big with explosive plays that win games.

Because you can't expect to throw the deep ball to score all the time. I mean, there is something to be said about not taking any risks too - it's called being afraid to turn it over. Turnovers happen, you can't be afraid of them and Rodger's may be too afraid, as he doesn't want to be known as a Favre type.

But, Favre is known for one thing despite his picks: He puts points on the board. That is why he has been so good for so long despite the picks (which he ironically doesn't throw really at much fo a greater rate then anyone else). Rodgers looked phenominal in preseason and yeah had his "moments against the rams (3 bombs)", but he also seems too conservative at times. Sometimes it is good to take a sack, other times you might have missed your window, or were so afraid of a turnover you wouldn't even be willing to give your WR a chance.

I mean, not turning it over is a great way to "stay" in games. THats what San Fran does. Being afraid to turn it over is also not going to make your offense great either. It's harder to defend a guy who is willing to throw it all over. Gets the defense on there heals.

[mmmdk]

"get louder at lambeau" is a name to take seriously; Packer fans gotta get louder at Lambeau!

I welcome you and your notion.

[falco]

I agree that Rodgers has held on to the ball too long on some occassions in my opinion. Bart Starr did that quite often too, rather than force the ball and turn it over. Not that Rodgers has anywhere near the accolades of Starr, but it's not such a bad quality. It has kept the team in the game and in position to win in the end, which it has twice and came pretty close the third.

It's funny how some people criticise a guy as being too conservative for keeping his team in position to win by not turnign the ball over - and at the same time criticise him for not sustaining drives when he comes up big with explosive plays that win games.

Because you can't expect to throw the deep ball to score all the time. I mean, there is something to be said about not taking any risks too - it's called being afraid to turn it over. Turnovers happen, you can't be afraid of them and Rodger's may be too afraid, as he doesn't want to be known as a Favre type.

But, Favre is known for one thing despite his picks: He puts points on the board. That is why he has been so good for so long despite the picks (which he ironically doesn't throw really at much fo a greater rate then anyone else). Rodgers looked phenominal in preseason and yeah had his "moments against the rams (3 bombs)", but he also seems too conservative at times. Sometimes it is good to take a sack, other times you might have missed your window, or were so afraid of a turnover you wouldn't even be willing to give your WR a chance.

I mean, not turning it over is a great way to "stay" in games. THats what San Fran does. Being afraid to turn it over is also not going to make your offense great either. It's harder to defend a guy who is willing to throw it all over. Gets the defense on there heals.

I wouldn't put the words "Rodgers" and "conservative" in the same sentence.

[vince]

I think you're missing the boat when you say he's "afraid" to turn the ball over and misses opportunities. It has nothing to do with fear IMO and everything to do with being smart with the football to put your team in position to win the game.

You criticise Rodgers for playing poorly in the Bears game, yet his team won the game precisely because his opponent was not smart with the football - and lost the game because of it.

[falco]

I think you're missing the boat when you say he's "afraid" to turn the ball over and misses opportunities. It has nothing to do with fear IMO and everything to do with being smart with the football to put your team in position to win the game.

You criticise Rodgers for playing poorly in the Bears game, yet his team won the game precisely because his opponent was not smart with the football - and lost the game because of it.

Exactly - Rodgers isn't conservative - he just isn't reckless. You can't call someone conservative when they air it out several times a game.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Look, AR is not a bad QB, but I do think all of us have gotten too high on him too soon. He isn't perfect, and I am starting to think this whole "lack of turning it over" is showing a "lack of taking a chance". It's easy to throw a ball deep to a 1 on 1 guy, minimal risk.

That's called good decision making. You want him to start throwing high risk passes which could lead to a pick? Well then you'd be bitching about he's not making good decisions and throwing into poor situations.

He's not a high-risk taking QB, get over it.

How many wins has MR Rodgers gotten with his present decision making. Holding on to the ball too long, not willing to take "any" chances, and thus forcing our defense on the field all game. How man wins? 8 out of 20? Look, I like Rodgers, and safe decisions are fine. It will always keep you in the game: But how long are we going to Rely on Mr. Woodson picking off hte ball for our offense to score points? I don't think our defense is as bad as people make it out to be. The fact remains: They are always on the field. This punting business is getting old. Yeah, maybe he takes a chance and gets picked, or maybe he takes a chance and something happens. Hell, even Manning and Brady take more "chances" they AR.

The guy holds on to the ball when he shouldn't. He's good, he's better then I expected, but he is handcuffing the team almost as much as the OL is. I mean, say what you want on how he IS the offense, then step back and start looking at how many points our DEFENSE has SET UP the offense to get, then get back to me.

There's the whole bullshit argument about how it's ALL on a QB to win games and just ignore the rest of the team's performance. When you get a clue about football, then get back to me.

[The Shadow]

Rodgers has been playing poorly?
When?

I don't get it either. A-Rod has been our offense the first 3 weeks.

LOL what offense? This was the first game with any semblance of an offense. How quickly we forget!

Well, to me, Rodgers has looked very good - esp considering how often he is getting pressure in his face.
NO interceptions? Coming up clutch in pressure time with a winning bomb against your biggest rival?
I will take that kind of 'poor play' any day of the week!

He played maybe the worst game of his career against our biggest rival: Thank the defense and the 4 int's for winning that game, not the bomb to win it. I mean fuck, we were in position to get the ball in the endzone without going deep. We actually had a drive going... surprisingly. He didn't play all that well against Cincy until late. Defense was responsible for us scoring 2/3rds of our point sin that game until 2 minutes were left. I mean, defense didn't play well, but if they didn't score a TD and set up another at the 5, it's like 38 to 7 instead of 38-30 or whateve rit was.

Last week: Offense put up a TD quick, then sort of fizzled. It went away until about 3 to 4 minutes into the 4th, and even then it was reliant on completeing a couple deep balls more then having sustained drives against the worst team in the NFL.

AR hasn't played well, and you can say what you want about the OL - some of those sacks are on Rodgers and he has admitted to that. He said sometimes he is not making the right Line calls and occasionaly may be holding on to it too long.

What??
He PRODUCED when the game was on the line.
Perhaps you got used to a few wonderful plays during a game - and then that familiar fizzle when it was all on the line.
This is something new - a guy who gets it done under pressure.