Aaron Rodgers GETS PAID!

"Eggs in one basket" seems to have worked well even in the short term, considering Rodgers has been to two of the last 3 NFCCGs played when healthy.

Other sports are irrelevant, lets name the last 4 football dynasties. 49ers/Montana, Cowboys/Aikmen, Patriots/Brady. Notice something? All of these dynasties have a HOF star QB. Redskins with their revolving door of QBs are the exception to the rule.

Rodgers 'alone' has gotten GB to 2 NFCCGs on his last 3 healthy seasons, I'd say that is quite an impact.

You.. think its funny the second most succesful team in the league in the past 10 years behind the Pats, the team who has been in 2 of the last 3 nfccgs in the last three years of healthy starting QB, are a favriote to go to the SB? That seems... odd.

Ok, so you again defeat your own point. Outside of Rodgers, GB is a nobody, but with him they are the most consistant contender in the conference. Yes. You see why they may be interested in signing a guy like him now.

I think it is quite likely GB wins the North, they probably would have last year had Rodgers not went down. They were 4-1 and leading the division prior to that, and of you recall, we didnt exactly stomp the daylight out of them even with Hundley at QB.

The Packers havent missed the playooffs with Rodgers since 2008. Sorry, but now your just being an absurd homer.

Who cares of there are other teams that would be better then GB minus Rodgers? They HAVE Rodgers, therefore it is utterly irrelevant what would happen in an alternate universe where they didnt have him.

Rodgers is a jerk for his contract but Cousins isnt a jerk for his. Gotcha. *Bops homer on forehead*

Only one QB takes less money to help his team, and he didn't do so at Rodgers age anyway. Seems like an unfair criticism to hold only Rodgers to that standard but noone else.

I'd take us with our backup over them with theirs too, of course. What on earth is that even saying? Obviously the team built around the 100 million $ QB is going to need him on the field to contend, what is that even saying?

Fact is, "eggs in one basket" has been undeniably more succesful for GB, then our recent plan of attack has been for us.

No, I think your view of talent is skewed by homerism and wishful thinking, because until Rodgers went down last year, they were on pace to do no worse then us. And every season when Rodgers hasnt gone down (including one where he did) they HAVE done better then us.

Until Minny outdoes GB WITH Rodgers not gone for most the year, GB will be the favriote in the division.

It obviously helps to have an upper echelon QB when it comes to competing for championships, but if you do it while neglecting the rest of the team, it's not going to work out for you. The Vikings finally paid a lot of money for an upper echelon QB but they didn't have to sacrifice anything in the process. Aside from Barr, all of our stars have been locked up for several years. That's a well run organization and the Vikings won't go 2-8 if Cousins misses 10 games. At worst we'd go 5-5 with Siemian and he's worst than Hundley. Siemian is the only blunder the FO has made.


You're ignoring the fact that those elite QB's were surrounded by well rounded supporting casts and well run organizations who put the pieces together. That's why the Packers struggle to go 10-6 or 11-5 even with Aaron Rodgers. Those other dynasties never finished worse than 12-4. Aaron Rodgers is the only thing that has kept the Packers from being the NFC's version of the Browns the past decade, except the 2 seasons he got injured.

Well thats not true. Big money QBs whether be bonafide HOFers, like Rodgers and Brady, or guys Ryan, Roethlisberger and Wilson, make up the majority of succesful teams in the league at any given time. There is a reason for this, QBs make the NFL go 'round.

I don't think your numbers on those dynasties are accurate, and i point out most the dynasties (while having completed the ultimate objective more then Rodgers thus far) didnt last as long as GB WITH Rodgers, who has been the second most succesful franchise on the NFL the last decade.

Rodgers has gone 10-6 three times in his career, one went for a SB win, the other for a NFCCG berth. Here are his career results:

2008: 6-10 missed playoffs
2009: 11-5 Wild card loss
2010: SB win
2011: 15-1 div loss
2012: 11-5 Div round loss
2013: 8-7-1 WC loss (Rodgers missed 8 games, 5-2 before injury)
2014: 12-4 Nfccg loss
2015: 10-6 Div loss
2016: 10-6 Nfccg loss
2017: 7-9 Missed playoffs (Rodgers missed 9 games, 4-1 before injury)

Your fooling yourself to think that isnt succesful. They have been second only to one organization since Rodgers took over.

If your point is GB without Rodgers = Cle, I wouldnt completely agree, but it would only help my point. Rodgers is worth whatever he asks for.

And again, of all this is true, that's more reason for GB to pay him, right?

At any rate, I dont think GB has been quite as deficient as you claim, their main issue is defense, and it wasnt an issue that surfaced until 2011. GB has managed to put good WRs around Rodgers forever, and good o lines and running games dating back to 2013. I think having an offensive minded HC with a O coordinator background is a big reason GB is seemingly consistantly set all around on O.

I think the Packers O breaks so badly without Rodgers due to its complicity, you look at what Hundley had around him last year with a top 10 running game and a perrenial top (albeit last year, injured) o line, and he shoulda been able to produce. To my point, Matt Flynn used to produce for GB on a regular basis.

Not to mention, I have a hard time comprehending how one can rationalize McCarthy as a bad coach, he calls top notch O units, achieved success before Rodgers (13-3 NFCCG appearance), and also built Rodgers mechanics from the ground up. Want some of Rodgers early career preseason footage before McCarthy changed his 'Tedford' mechanics?

Curious, what do you think of Sean Payton? He has done far worse then McCarthy has, and while Brees isnt quite Aaron Rodgers, he still is good enough that you would expect more from the Saints, who prior to last year seem to be a significantly less succesful, discount version of the Packers.

So assuming Breeze's implication is correct, nearly any team in the league would have issues after signing Rodgers, if your correct, and GB is really Cleveland in disguise, then that is ever more reason for them to give Rodgers whatever he pleases.