Is Aaron Rodgers more of the problem than we might think?

[gbgary]

Is Rodgers not attending OTAs? Is the Rodgers/LaFleur controversy real or is the media making this all up to get ratings/sell papers/etc.? All too often a negative story gets more attention than the truth. Also if the story is not true and no one steps up to say any different, then the untruth gets believed more.

I don't believe any trouble exist between GB's QB and GB's HC. If Rodgers has been absent, then all have accepted it. I don't however believe that he will miss any time at TC this season. Sometimes we just don't get the inside story about what has/is happening.

Now, if any of you know the whole truth, please inform me and any others that may have missed out on the story. Is there a story or is the media manufacturing a story?

there's clearly not trouble between them but there IS a problem that Rodgers himself describes and the coach confirmed (so it's not media driven or manufactured). why did rodgers even bring it up?

[texaspackerbacker]

there's clearly not trouble between them but there IS a problem that Rodgers himself describes and the coach confirmed (so it's not media driven or manufactured). why did rodgers even bring it up?

You know this how? Because some media pukes say so?

[mraynrand]

You know this how? Because some media pukes say so?

LOOK. IT. UP.

[MadScientist]

You know this how? Because some media pukes say so?

Jesus H Tex, these are from actual quotes from MLF and Rodgers
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...gn=Twitter_atn

Stop bitching about actual reporters reporting documented happenings. This isn't just some columnist's opinion. Learn the fucking difference between the two. If you refuse to accept actual reports, then you may as well fuck off until preseason games start because pretty much everything piece of information we get now come via reporters.

[Radagast]

there's clearly not trouble between them but there IS a problem that Rodgers himself describes and the coach confirmed (so it's not media driven or manufactured). why did rodgers even bring it up?

As I interpret this, Rodgers has apparently been studying the new playbook and has simply discovered a problem that he and HC LaFleur agree needs to be addressed. Rodgers, like QBs for decades, knows that the ability change a play at the line of scrimmage is essential. Changing the play can avoid getting clobbered by a defense that is obviously set to pounce or to take advantage of a defensive set with a play designed to gain /score.

I'm confident that working together, both will develop audible solutions to fit the offensive sets and the game situation. EX: Instead of an off tackle run, a screen play that takes advantage of 1 or 2 out of position defensive players.

I don't believe setting up an audible system will be too difficult, but getting everyone working on the same page may be a challenge.

However like the man said,"no worries mate."

[texaspackerbacker]

Jesus H Tex, these are from actual quotes from MLF and Rodgers
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...gn=Twitter_atn

Stop bitching about actual reporters reporting documented happenings. This isn't just some columnist's opinion. Learn the fucking difference between the two. If you refuse to accept actual reports, then you may as well fuck off until preseason games start because pretty much everything piece of information we get now come via reporters.

I say again, ya'all know this how? Have you heard in their own voice LaFleur or Rodgers say anything troublesome? Or is it just some asshole of the fake news media claiming they said things? I went to your link, and there's nothing controversial at all in their own words. These media pukes are spewing it, and some of ya'all are just lapping it up.

[Radagast]

I say again, ya'all know this how? Have you heard in their own voice LaFleur or Rodgers say anything troublesome? Or is it just some asshole of the fake news media claiming they said things? I went to your link, and there's nothing controversial at all in their own words. These media pukes are spewing it, and some of ya'all are just lapping it up.

Hey Tex, the subject is sports and not politics. Let's not allow one passion to overlap onto the other. The sports media is not the news media. Yes they do get caught sometimes embellishing their stories, but unlike the news, the sports media is subject hard statistics and a dependence upon not pissing off the sport they are covering.

Yes there is a real story, however it is in my opinion not the sensational story that the media likes to feast upon. Also, at this time of the year, stories are difficult to come by and reporters will sometimes blow it up bigger than it truly is.

All is well with the Packers, but installing a new offensive system and getting the kinks out will I believe require a good deal of fan and team patience.

[mraynrand]

the sports media is subject hard statistics and a dependence upon not pissing off the sport they are covering.

Someone tell Scoops McGinn about this. He's pretty good on the former, but not so much the latter.

Still, I hate to object, but much of sports media is gossip and blather. That's just the truth.

[pbmax]

Someone tell Scoops McGinn about this. He's pretty good on the former, but not so much the latter.

Still, I hate to object, but much of sports media is gossip and blather. That's just the truth.

I would say its more conventional wisdom first, gossip and blather second, but I am not going to the mattresses over it.

[pbmax]

I say again, ya'all know this how? Have you heard in their own voice LaFleur or Rodgers say anything troublesome? Or is it just some asshole of the fake news media claiming they said things? I went to your link, and there's nothing controversial at all in their own words. These media pukes are spewing it, and some of ya'all are just lapping it up.

All are quote in the article. Neither participant has said they were misquoted.

M4: "Aaron and I have had some good talks, and we're going to have to talk a lot more -- and one thing we have to work through is the audible thing," LaFleur explained. "We're running a system I first picked up while working with Kyle (Shanahan) in Houston a decade ago, and we've never really had a quarterback who's had complete freedom to change plays at the line, because that's not really the way the offense is set up. But, I mean, this is Aaron Rodgers. He's had a lot of freedom to make those calls, and deservedly so. Now, how do we reconcile that, and get to a place where we put him in the best position to succeed?"

Rodgers: "It's a conversation in progress," Rodgers said when we spoke at his locker last Tuesday, punctuating his words with a short chuckle. "I don't think you want to ask me to turn off 11 years (of recognizing defenses). We have a number of check with mes and line-of-scrimmage stuff. It's just the other stuff that really not many people in this league can do.

"That's not like a humblebrag or anything; that's just a fact. There aren't many people that can do at the line of scrimmage what I've done over the years. I mean, obviously, Tommy (Brady) can do it, no doubt. Peyton (Manning) could do it. Drew (Brees) can do it. (Patrick) Mahomes will be able to do it. Ben (Roethlisberger) has called the two-minute for years. There are a few of us who've just done it; it's kind of second nature. And that's just the icing on the cake for what I can do in this offense."

M4: "I guess from what you consider the true standard of 'audibles,' you're right -- we have not had that," LaFleur said last Tuesday during a second conversation in his office. "Because, you know, we pride ourselves on having concepts that have answers for whatever. Now, it might not always be the best answer, but you have an answer. But when there are plays that are called that have maybe not a very good answer, we typically call two plays and we run one or the other, based upon the look that the defense is giving us. The quarterback chooses, and there are criteria: We try to teach him the criteria for why we would want this play over the other play."

[gbgary]

As I interpret this, Rodgers has apparently been studying the new playbook and has simply discovered a problem that he and HC LaFleur agree needs to be addressed. Rodgers, like QBs for decades, knows that the ability change a play at the line of scrimmage is essential. Changing the play can avoid getting clobbered by a defense that is obviously set to pounce or to take advantage of a defensive set with a play designed to gain /score.

I'm confident that working together, both will develop audible solutions to fit the offensive sets and the game situation. EX: Instead of an off tackle run, a screen play that takes advantage of 1 or 2 out of position defensive players.

I don't believe setting up an audible system will be too difficult, but getting everyone working on the same page may be a challenge.

However like the man said,"no worries mate."

you need to read the article too. the coach himself says there's no need to change the play because the offense is designed to have an answer for everything. rodgers simply has to run it. two-minute drill and scrambling aside, unless the opponents D only has 8 men on the field (lol), or some other glaring anomaly, there's no reason for rodgers to go off script. again, if goff can do it...

[texaspackerbacker]

Do you believe that shit just because some media asshole claims LaFleur or Rodgers said something? There's no controversy here despite what some want to fantasize. If LaFleur was as stupid as some in the media and some in here seem to think, I'm confident the Packers would not have hired him.

There is simply NOT gonna be any significant change away from the Packers offense riding Aaron Rodgers - what he can do with his arm, what he can do with his legs, and what he can do with his excellent judgment and decision making. Does anybody seriously think LaFleur is dumb enough or ego-driven enough to rock the boat on that? Yeah, I suppose some of ya'all do hahahaha. Hopefully the "new" offense will have a few wrinkles that get more open receivers, etc., but when it comes right down to it, it will be pass first, QB changing plays at times, and QB extending plays rather than just unloading it quick into coverage as some in here seem to want. I see where you said "scrambling aside"; Scrambling is what you do when the play breaks down due to heavy pass rush or receivers not getting open. And in the NFL in general and with the Packers in particular, that's most of the time.

[mraynrand]

I would say its more conventional wisdom first, gossip and blather second.

This is true.

The print people tend to be less of the jock sniffers than the TV people. Mooch is in a category all his own.

[Radagast]

you need to read the article too. the coach himself says there's no need to change the play because the offense is designed to have an answer for everything. rodgers simply has to run it. two-minute drill and scrambling aside, unless the opponents D only has 8 men on the field (lol), or some other glaring anomaly, there's no reason for rodgers to go off script. again, if goff can do it...

HC LaFleur or any Coach/HC worth a damn is not going to publicly say that anything is wrong with any part of their team. Privately though they and I know that no playbook is ever complete. There is always some additions/subtractions. Additionally, Rodgers and others likely will have good ideas that will fit the system for specific circumstances.

I'm aware that LaFleur has spent years along with others developing this system, but game plans are put together after a study of opposing teams are conducted. Changes are routinely planned, practiced, and used against opposing teams.

You need stop being an insufferable know it all and go milk your Bull. .

[MadScientist]

Do you believe that shit just because some media asshole claims LaFleur or Rodgers said something? There's no controversy here despite what some want to fantasize. If LaFleur was as stupid as some in the media and some in here seem to think, I'm confident the Packers would not have hired him.

There is simply NOT gonna be any significant change away from the Packers offense riding Aaron Rodgers - what he can do with his arm, what he can do with his legs, and what he can do with his excellent judgment and decision making. Does anybody seriously think LaFleur is dumb enough or ego-driven enough to rock the boat on that? Yeah, I suppose some of ya'all do hahahaha. Hopefully the "new" offense will have a few wrinkles that get more open receivers, etc., but when it comes right down to it, it will be pass first, QB changing plays at times, and QB extending plays rather than just unloading it quick into coverage as some in here seem to want. I see where you said "scrambling aside"; Scrambling is what you do when the play breaks down due to heavy pass rush or receivers not getting open. And in the NFL in general and with the Packers in particular, that's most of the time.

I believe the media a shit ton more than I believe some idiot from Texas who has talked to none of the people involved and will only believe things he already agrees with. Also Rodgers has not the least bit of trouble calling bullshit if anything reported wasn't true.

What we want is for the receivers to be schemed open and for Rodgers to hit them before the defense has time to recover and get into position to make the play. That's the best plan for success, and keeping Rodgers upright. Also it was noted that some of scheme goes beyond a single play. So maybe in the first quart the play is an inside run that only gains 2 yards, but that sets up the third quarter with the exact same formation against the same defense a play action slant goes for 40. If Rodgers audibles the first play to a pass, they lose the big play later.

In the end, I don't care how this gets resolved, just as long as the Packers win. They haven't for the last two years, so they need to make changes.