Would this offense be good with Aaron Rodgers?

[Jets Voice of Reason]

I don’t know. One guy has won a super bowl and won mvps. The other guy we’re praising for not dirting five yard passes anymore. 

[LockeJET]

We seriously might be 6-1 if Rodgers was the QB. We would’ve won the New England game for sure and most likely the Chiefs game.

[The Crusher]

7 hours ago, usanyj said:

I think you go with the classic over the younger model?

Yeah, me too.

 - Z. Wilson 

[The Crusher]

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

This offense would be better with Daniel Jones running it.

WTF? Behind this line? What the he’ll Mike white do to you? 

[The Crusher]

1 hour ago, Barton said:

They would still have major issues as an offense due to the lack of an elite-ish 2nd receiver outside of Garrett at either WR or TE, and the Oline being swiss cheese at times. 

Agreed but if Aaron was upright we may have been a little more aggressive  getting one this year. 

[JiFtheOracle]

The Jets average 18 pts a game, they have scored 3 TD's in 12 quarters of Football during their 3 game winning streak (the defense has 2 over this time frame), the only player to score during this 3 game winning streak is Breece Hall and 2 of them were just unbelievable breakaways, the Jets are the worst red zone and 3rd down offense in the entire NFL.   In their most recent game, they were at one point, 1-14 on 3rd down, the starting QB took 2 sacks on what would have been the final drive 99.99999% of the time, one of the sacks he took on 4th down w/ the game on the line after buying himself time to throw.

So yes, I think it's very safe to say the offense would be significantly better w/ a HOF QB vs. the worst QB in the NFL.

[Scotty Wooty Doo Doo]

Cant put 8 in the box with AR at QB . 

[BigRy56]

Significantly. And the Eagles would have company for the best record in the league

[chirorob]

8 hours ago, JetFaninPatLand said:

I just finished watching the All 22 from last weeks game and I’ve come to the conclusion that 40 year old Aaron Rodgers would not have been successful.
 

Observations: 

-The OL stinks in pass protection

-The WR with the exception of Garrett can’t get separation. Lazard is a complete zero. 

-The running game is AWFUL. One of the worst success rates in the league. 
 

Obviously prime Rodgers could make a high school offense look good, but 40 year old Rodgers? Not sure. 
 

What are your thoughts?

Yes, I think a HOF quarterback would improve the offense over Zach Wilson.

I actually think Zach has played decent given what's going on around him, but Rodgers is a huge upgrade over Zach.

[GreekJetinPatLand]

14 minutes ago, Scotty Wooty Doo Doo said:

Cant put 8 in the box with AR at QB . 

The Giants were putting 9 on the box any time jets ran 13 personnel. 

[The Crusher]

5 minutes ago, JetFaninPatLand said:

The Giants were putting 9 on the box any time jets ran 13 personnel. 

With Zach, I think that’s a point here. You can say Aaron’s old, he’s not this, he’s not that but if he was in the game   the offense would simply be better for a host of reasons. This is probably where you go but would  it be good? Not sure, but definitely gooder than it is 

[Barry McCockinner]

8 minutes ago, JetFaninPatLand said:

The Giants were putting 9 on the box any time jets ran 13 personnel. 

Do you think they would have been doing that with Rodgers at QB? Playing with fire when the QB can burn you.

Running backs have a much easier time when Rodgers is QB because they rarely see this sort of sell out by defenses.

[slimjasi]

How good it would be, IDK, but it would be considerably better than it is now. 

[bicketybam]

Considering the amount of people that think it would be better with Tim Boyle or Trevor Seimian, how could it not be better with Aaron Rodgers?

[TBJ]

Would this dog make puppies with his balls?

[UntouchableCrew]

Kind of depends on what you mean by "would this offense be good."

When watching the Cowboys game, for instance, my first thought was "even with Rodgers we get smoked this game." Couldn't block anyone on offense and the defense got worked.

There's certainly no reason to believe we'd be a top five or even top ten offense with Rodgers.

But would the offense, and subsequently the team, be clearly, significantly better? I think that's pretty obviously yes. Lazard and Cobb aren't obvious value add guys -- but but they're guys with chemistry and history with Rodgers. Rodgers ability to diagnose a defense pre-snap is leaps and bounds better than Wilson, and teams couldn't stack the box against the run.

The same primary issue remains -- the OL stinks and there would clearly be games (Cowboys, Eagles, sadly even the Giants) where Rodgers would struggle behind it. But the entire nature of the offense and how defenses need to play us would change with Rodgers out there.

I think we'd be 5-2 or better with Rodgers, frankly. The only "L" we've taken that we clearly lose even with Rodgers is Dallas.

[All Gas, No Gase]

Rodgers would help cover up the OC’s stink. ZW can only audible between two plays. Rodgers makes a lot of adjustments with his hand signals according to what the defense gives him.

[Ken Schroy]

7 hours ago, Beerfish said:

It would be better but not great,  we still have stink wrs and an atrocious oc.  Our record would be no different at this point in the year.

I think it would be "better at times", when everything else is working. This scenario about AR getting the ball out faster is fine, but he could not take some of those hits several times in a game.

[DonCorleone]

9 hours ago, JetFaninPatLand said:

I just finished watching the All 22 from last weeks game and I’ve come to the conclusion that 40 year old Aaron Rodgers would not have been successful.
 

Observations: 

-The OL stinks in pass protection

-The WR with the exception of Garrett can’t get separation. Lazard is a complete zero. 

-The running game is AWFUL. One of the worst success rates in the league. 
 

Obviously prime Rodgers could make a high school offense look good, but 40 year old Rodgers? Not sure. 
 

What are your thoughts?

Aaron Rogers would not be able to escape the pass rush. The Jets have way too many holes on the line. Rogers would get injured a few minutes into a game. 

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

Short and long answer, yes.

[Biggs]

Rodgers would be retired by now if he didn't luck out with a non contact injury. 

[carlito1171]

Rodgers even at 40 would be throwing receivers open, calling proper protections at the line, getting the ball out much quicker, and we'd have much better execution in the red zone and on 3rd down. Most of the layup reads Zach misses he would feast on, and it would open our running game that much more. You don't need Rodgers to be an MVP for this squad to be dangerous, just keeping defenses honest and opening up a consistent running game to lean on would have this offense looking night and day better then with Zach under center. 

With all that being said the OL, primarily in pass pro would still be bad with all the injuries and would prob have led to him being killed with a different injury.....

[Claymation]

54 minutes ago, JetFaninPatLand said:

The Giants were putting 9 on the box any time jets ran 13 personnel. 

The Giants run a hybrid 46 defense, throw in the inclement weather and you get a ####show. Dexter Lawrence B-slapped the Jets OL all day. That had nothing to do with Zach, that has to do with Dexter being one of the best DT in the game right now. 

[carlito1171]

2 hours ago, Ghost said:

The issue is the line and people would rather blame Wilson than the line. 

[Flea Flicking Frank]

Yes, the answer is clearly yes. One thing is for sure, the offense would have attacked more. AR would not have allowed them to play conservative, even if they wanted to, he would not stand for it.

An offense that does not attack is a pussy offense, that is what we have now, a passive non attacking offense. AR would be much better in this offense just on his push to play aggressively, and he is obviously a much better QB 

[Hael]

Our running game would instantly become one of the better units in football with Rogers at the helm.  There is no way you can stack the box against him like you can against Zac and imo our OL runblocking and Breece Hall are relatively elite (at least before the injuries). 

The way D coordinators play the Jets is one of the most disrespectful things i've ever witnessed, getting them to at least play somewhat honestly would open up so many things for this offense.

[batman10023]

9 hours ago, usanyj said:

I think you go with the classic over the younger model?

that's Zach's view!

[rangerous]

Rodgers would make the oline look better if only because he gets rid of the ball faster.  Zach is still a bit off but he’s miles above where he was last season and he’s putting more touch on his passes.

[Flea Flicking Frank]

you sly dogs, a creative new way to have a 98 page zach sucks thread, have fun boyz

[FootballLove]

10 hours ago, JetFaninPatLand said:

A 1986 Ferrari with 200,000 miles or a new Honda Civic? 

1986 Ferrari with 200,000 miles:

New Honda Civic:

Tough call!!!!

[bitonti]

1 hour ago, DonCorleone said:

Aaron Rogers would not be able to escape the pass rush. The Jets have way too many holes on the line. Rogers would get injured a few minutes into a game. 

in fact that's exactly what happened

the Jets would be 6-1 with Aaron Rodgers from 10 years ago maybe 

[jvill 51]

With the caveat that I think this past week was actually a dreadful pass blocking performance particularly from the interior OL (as to be expected when you've got a practice squad guard forced into action at center against Dexter Lawrence), I think the pass protection "issues" on the season as a whole, once again, have been largely overblown. I don't think it would be controversial to say that the worst 3 pass blocking performances (leaving aside this past week for a second) were weeks 1-3, while the best 3 were weeks 4-6. For sh*ts and giggles lets take a look at how long Zach held the ball each of those games:

Week 1: 3.29s (32nd of 32 qualifying QBs)

Week 2: 3.17 (30 of 32)

Week 3: 3.22 (33 of 33)

Week 4: 2.88 (18 of 32)

Week 5: 2.76 (13 of 27)

Week 6: 2.61 (12 of 29)

Wouldn't you know it, the offensive line looked a whole lot better when the QB wasn't holding the ball longer than any other QB in the league! In fact, the offense actually looked decent between the 20s in all of those games where Zach released the ball in under 2.9 seconds (a TTT that would still rank only 29th out of 36th, so we're not asking a lot here), including against some pretty damn good defenses in KC and PHI. Now, lets look at Rodgers average time to throw in the last 3 seasons:

2022: 2.7s (12th of 40)

2021: 2.63 (5th of 38)

2020: 2.72 (21st of 41)

Zach has only gotten the ball out quicker than 2.72 seconds in one game this year; In fact he's only done it 3 times in his career. And this is only looking at time to throw. When you combine that with Rodgers' knowledge of the game, his pre-snap recognition, his ability to identify pressures and set protections and get the offense into the correct play, yes, I think the offensive line performance would look a hell of a lot better to the naked eye.

The other major non-Zach issues with the offense, the OC and the lack of a secondary receiver better than Lazard, would also be drastically mitigated by the presence of Rodgers IMO. This offense was set up to let Rodgers get up to the line, check into the correct plays, funnel a ton of targets to Garrett Wilson as the new Davante Adams, and hammer you with Breece Hall when you drop guys out of the box. If you shaded coverage to Garrett, even though the secondary guys aren't great at creating separation Rodgers can beat you with his mind.

Well, most of that is out the window with Zach Wilson. He can't check into the correct plays, putting more importance on the initial play calling. Hell, most of the time when he checks at the line it seems he's going to the worst possible call. No one's dropping guys out of the box in fear of Zach beating them, so the running game is largely dependent on Breece hitting home runs. And Zach just isn't a good enough QB to get through his reads and hit guys that aren't wide open.

I'm not sure where they'd rank with Rodgers, but I'd have a hard time believing they wouldn't be at worst middle of the pack with a HOF QB feeding a top end WR and an all-world RB.

[FactsOnly]

the sheer fact that he can audible out and essentially CANCEL out Sack-ofsh*t-ett would make the offense good

[FactsOnly]

11 hours ago, Darnold Schwarzenegger said:

Lazard is a 900 yard receiver with ARod. He’s a 450 yard wr with ZW. 

also Arod would be more decisive and get rid of the ball quicker, thus making the line look a little better than they have looked with Wilson. 

the running game would be more effective with a qb that opposing defenses respect. If ZW beats them they can live with it. There not trying to let Breece run wild. Opposing teams game plan around our run game. With ARod they would have to respect the pass as well.

actually he's never had a 900 yard season

and it certainly wasn't with Hackett

400

400

500

he's on pace to beat all those numbers he had with Rodgers with Zach Wilson

[FactsOnly]

11 hours ago, JetFaninPatLand said:

His best year was last season and he got 788 yards.

He was targeted 100 times and caught 60 balls.

This year his stats are almost identical except he’s only on pace for 619 yards on less targets. He has 17 receptions on 29 targets (59%). 
 

He’s not good…..

these guys are delusional man 

sad really