Green Bay Packers headed for the Cellar!

cubby chubby

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 20, 2016
Posts:
1,117
Liked Posts:
462
When the Packers look back on this season, their high point will have been beating the Bears in their opener. (most likely the Bears' only loss this season. heh)
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
18,808
Liked Posts:
4,655
Packers fans believe whatever the announcers tell them.. "does he have the magic in him to come back."

Truth is Rodgers looked like shit the entire game and got hunted down by the Lions by their backups... Ziggy Ansah wasn't even on the field and the pass rush still managed to get to the QB for 2 sack fumbles... The offensive line is in shambles and the defense is the definition of hot and cold. They have no pass rushers yet somehow still think they are good because Stafford was absolutely horrible.

Detroits run defense is awful and Green Bay was great in garbage time.

Detroit's run defense is horrible, I will give you that. Lions got lucky and got up quick, which took the run game for the Pack pretty much out of the equation. Not sure I agree with the sentiment that Stafford was horrible, 2 TDs, 0 INt's, 101.9 QBR. Granted he didn't have his normal 250+ yards, but the game didn't dictate he throw that much for a change. He did have a nice bomb to Galloday called back, missed a throw here or there, just kind of a so-so performance in my book.
 

BearsJR

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 7, 2012
Posts:
2,850
Liked Posts:
1,404
Packers fans believe whatever the announcers tell them.. "does he have the magic in him to come back."

Truth is Rodgers looked like shit the entire game and got hunted down by the Lions by their backups... Ziggy Ansah wasn't even on the field and the pass rush still managed to get to the QB for 2 sack fumbles... The offensive line is in shambles and the defense is the definition of hot and cold. They have no pass rushers yet somehow still think they are good because Stafford was absolutely horrible.

Detroits run defense is awful and Green Bay was great in garbage time.

Those sack fumbles weren’t on the line. That was Rodgers holding the ball way too long and not knowing what was coming. Kind of Cutler like and odd to see. He was off all game, bad throws, missing open guys just weird.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
18,808
Liked Posts:
4,655
Those sack fumbles weren’t on the line. That was Rodgers holding the ball way too long and not knowing what was coming. Kind of Cutler like and odd to see. He was off all game, bad throws, missing open guys just weird.

Those were coverage sacks, when the Lions weren't playing 2 deep. Rodgers had nowhere to go with the ball. Granted, the Packers receivers were the second coming of the 2017 Bears..............
 

Chris Sojka

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 25, 2012
Posts:
6,687
Liked Posts:
2,686
Those sack fumbles weren’t on the line. That was Rodgers holding the ball way too long and not knowing what was coming. Kind of Cutler like and odd to see. He was off all game, bad throws, missing open guys just weird.

I completely agree... I guess i missed clarity in my post as I re read it.... What I was trying to say was, it's not the it mattered that Ziggy Ansah was out when you allow 2 sack fumbles to come from backups. You are correct they weren't bullrushing him in the pocket on those plays or forcing him out. He took it upon himself to hold the ball and getout of the pocket and create and in doing so gave backup DEs a chance to chase him down and create turnovers.

Aaron Rodgers blew that game as much as his kicker did...
 

msadows

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
25,252
Liked Posts:
20,464
Those were coverage sacks, when the Lions weren't playing 2 deep. Rodgers had nowhere to go with the ball. Granted, the Packers receivers were the second coming of the 2017 Bears..............

Yea...but how often does rodgers not see an active rusher and just sit there waiting to get strip sacked.

At one point he literally ran out of the pocket and then slowed down like there was no one around him.

Not to mention the intentional grounding too.

Overall this game made him like old and mortal
 

Chris Sojka

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 25, 2012
Posts:
6,687
Liked Posts:
2,686
Those were coverage sacks, when the Lions weren't playing 2 deep. Rodgers had nowhere to go with the ball. Granted, the Packers receivers were the second coming of the 2017 Bears..............


I don't believe this was the case 100% of the time. If you go back and rewatch the game you'll hear the announcers say that Rodgers just missed wide open guys looking for the big play downfield, which Detroit had covered well.

He was reluctant to check down and missed a few passes when he did. Overall Rodgers looked like shit outside of garbage time.
 

msadows

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
25,252
Liked Posts:
20,464
I don't believe this was the case 100% of the time. If you go back and rewatch the game you'll hear the announcers say that Rodgers just missed wide open guys looking for the big play downfield, which Detroit had covered well.

He was reluctant to check down and missed a few passes when he did. Overall Rodgers looked like shit outside of garbage time.

yup. He made some nice throws but was missing RB's 5 yards away from him.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
18,808
Liked Posts:
4,655
I don't believe this was the case 100% of the time. If you go back and rewatch the game you'll hear the announcers say that Rodgers just missed wide open guys looking for the big play downfield, which Detroit had covered well.

He was reluctant to check down and missed a few passes when he did. Overall Rodgers looked like shit outside of garbage time.

The same announcers also said a majority of the time (not 100%) that the receivers were all covered, and actually showed it on replay. Not saying Rodgers didn't have a bad game mind you, but I believe on both strip sacks he had nowhere to go with the ball. As terrible as Detroit's Dline is (which I freely admit), there secondary is actually pretty good. I heard the announcers say they were one of the top in the league at man coverage.
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
17,088
Liked Posts:
11,480
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
The same announcers also said a majority of the time (not 100%) that the receivers were all covered, and actually showed it on replay. Not saying Rodgers didn't have a bad game mind you, but I believe on both strip sacks he had nowhere to go with the ball. As terrible as Detroit's Dline is (which I freely admit), there secondary is actually pretty good. I heard the announcers say they were one of the top in the league at man coverage.

Slay and Co are a very good secondary and I really don’t think Detroit is as bad as everybody is making them out to be. That offense is only going to get better and that secondary is no small task to go up against.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

pfcmsh

Active member
Joined:
Nov 15, 2015
Posts:
585
Liked Posts:
156
Location:
Northern Illinois
Rogers is hurting with that knee. You could see him limping slightly and you know he was "shot up" for the game. He looks slow scrambling. I think the loss to the Lions should convince him to try to not extend plays as he could when he had a good leg. That leg has to be really sore today because when he got ran down by Okawara (I think) that knee took an ugly angle even with the brace on. I think Rogers effectiveness will continue to drop as long as they play him. He should be sitting out until he returns to normal scrambling speed. Green Bay is totally dependent upon Rogers skills so they will keep playing him. I am wondering if that is wise for their future. They are paying him unbelievable money and if he is slowed more in the future because he is playing today, that will only hurt the Packers. I really think he is on the downside of his career. Why jeopardize remaining years? The injuries have piled up, he will be 35 years old. I think the glory days of 2 HOF QBs for 25 years that have carried the Packers are fading with every hit he takes. They will never have another 25 years like they just had.
 

pfcmsh

Active member
Joined:
Nov 15, 2015
Posts:
585
Liked Posts:
156
Location:
Northern Illinois
He was reluctant to check down and missed a few passes when he did. Overall Rodgers looked like shit outside of garbage time.

He has always been much less effective when he gets hit. He is really jittery and off the mark when that happens.
 

SlickWilly

Team Ignore Member #2
Donator
Joined:
Apr 26, 2013
Posts:
5,294
Liked Posts:
4,524
Location:
Dakotaland
My favorite teams
  1. New York Mets
  1. Detroit Pistons
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. North Carolina Tar Heels
He disappeared after the 2nd rodgers sack fumble, possibly never to be heard from again.

He kept going on and on about how the packers 3rd string RB's were amazing, and how their 6th rank D is close to being elite. Then he hid in a corner when his team showed their true form.

I don't think we can get that lucky.
 

Washington

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 22, 2016
Posts:
3,887
Liked Posts:
2,913
No, that's fucking stupid and the reason they haven't done more with back to back HoF QBs. Their decisions pretty much come from a board of directors. I seen that when the Tribune owned the Cubs. They don't try to win, just try to put fans in the seats.

What you said really makes no sense. Their Board does not render any football related decisions. They have always had a GM to do that. Wolf was great and TT proved to be bad because he never wanted to use FA when the team was a player or two away always. The Board renders decisions like their remodel and new practice facilities as well as assigning a CEO.

As for putting fans in the seats; that is almost laughable. They have a 36 year waiting list for season tickets. People will their tix down in their families. They'll have sell outs long after CCS' kids and grandkids are deceased.

Packers fans really need to point to TT as the reason they squandered Rodgers' years away. They were too late in replacing him.
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
17,088
Liked Posts:
11,480
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
Rogers is hurting with that knee. You could see him limping slightly and you know he was "shot up" for the game. He looks slow scrambling. I think the loss to the Lions should convince him to try to not extend plays as he could when he had a good leg. That leg has to be really sore today because when he got ran down by Okawara (I think) that knee took an ugly angle even with the brace on. I think Rogers effectiveness will continue to drop as long as they play him. He should be sitting out until he returns to normal scrambling speed. Green Bay is totally dependent upon Rogers skills so they will keep playing him. I am wondering if that is wise for their future. They are paying him unbelievable money and if he is slowed more in the future because he is playing today, that will only hurt the Packers. I really think he is on the downside of his career. Why jeopardize remaining years? The injuries have piled up, he will be 35 years old. I think the glory days of 2 HOF QBs for 25 years that have carried the Packers are fading with every hit he takes. They will never have another 25 years like they just had.

If Mitch pans out, this division can be ours for the next 10 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

pfcmsh

Active member
Joined:
Nov 15, 2015
Posts:
585
Liked Posts:
156
Location:
Northern Illinois
If Mitch pans out, this division can be ours for the next 10 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think so too. I am a believer in Trubisky. Yesterday against the Lions, the Packers didn't look good on offense. Part of the reason was newer receivers. They also have a new offensive coordinator and all that being new causes slow play and receivers out of position. Rogers probably mitigated that to a point. Trubisky has a ton less experience than Rogers. All the newness will become 2nd nature. Trubisky is getting better all the time. I'm expecting winning seasons and playoff appearances. It could even happen this year. Next year will be even easier.
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
17,088
Liked Posts:
11,480
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
I think so too. I am a believer in Trubisky. Yesterday against the Lions, the Packers didn't look good on offense. Part of the reason was newer receivers. They also have a new offensive coordinator and all that being new causes slow play and receivers out of position. Rogers probably mitigated that to a point. Trubisky has a ton less experience than Rogers. All the newness will become 2nd nature. Trubisky is getting better all the time. I'm expecting winning seasons and playoff appearances. It could even happen this year. Next year will be even easier.

Rodgers’ “new offense coordinator” was actually an offensive coordinator he worked with earlier in his career. I think that struggling offense is a result of Rodgers’ age and injury, bad receivers, and Mike McCarthy being an absolute idiot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Top