Mike Williams Has Never Had Aaron Rodgers

[Raideraholic]

what do you mean Mike Williams never had a Rodgers.      Is this something sexual going on between them or something else.    It’s really no one business what both guys do behind close doors. 

[Barry McCockinner]

12 minutes ago, Raideraholic said:

what do you mean Mike Williams never had a Rodgers.      Is this something sexual going on between them or something else.    It’s really no one business what both guys do behind close doors. 

[Warfish]

On 6/22/2024 at 4:52 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

The first person -- what are you talking about, or did you start watching football like 6 months ago?

Peyton Manning regressed in 2010. Then missed all of 2011 with a far more concerning neck injury + surgery than Rodgers just had. Then threw for 15000 yards and 130 TDs (in 16 games/season not 17, mind you) over the next 3 years, including a still-standing NFL record 55 TDs in 2013. 

At age 36, 37 and 38 I believe?

He was definitely great on a stacked team in 2013, at age 37.

Or, put differently, 4 years ago for Rodgers (who, as it turns out, was ALSO pretty great at age 37).

Do you know where Manning was at age 40/41?

Retired after being utter trash in his final season, and not his usual greatness the year before.

On 6/22/2024 at 4:52 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

Also Kurt Warner never showed substantive decline, repeatedly breaking his throwing hand & suck for 5 years, and then didn't bounce back & take yet another team to the Super Bowl.

In an interesting coincidence, Warner was ALSO 37 years old in 2008 when he led his team to the Super Bowl loss in his last great season.

On 6/22/2024 at 4:52 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm sure you'll move the argumentative goalposts again, though.

Not my goalposts to move, but what your post tells me is that several great QB's had great seasons at age 37.  For several, the final great season.  Manning (SB Win for Denver), Warner (Super Bowl loss for Arizona) and our own Rodgers himself (in 2020, he had a great season of production (13-3, Conf. Champ. Game loss), and another (like Manning) at age 38 too.

With that said, 37 isn't 40 or 41 (Rodgers will be both in the 2024 season, turning 41 late in the year).

As noted, but Warner and Manning were out of the NFL at 40.  

Only Brady, I believe, has beaten father time at that age so far in the modern NFL.

[Sperm Edwards]

52 minutes ago, Warfish said:

At age 36, 37 and 38 I believe?

He was definitely great on a stacked team in 2013, at age 37.

Or, put differently, 4 years ago for Rodgers (who, as it turns out, was ALSO pretty great at age 37).

Do you know where Manning was at age 40/41?

Retired after being utter trash in his final season, and not his usual greatness the year before.

In an interesting coincidence, Warner was ALSO 37 years old in 2008 when he led his team to the Super Bowl loss in his last great season.

Not my goalposts to move, but what your post tells me is that several great QB's had great seasons at age 37.  For several, the final great season.  Manning (SB Win for Denver), Warner (Super Bowl loss for Arizona) and our own Rodgers himself (in 2020, he had a great season of production (13-3, Conf. Champ. Game loss), and another (like Manning) at age 38 too.

With that said, 37 isn't 40 or 41 (Rodgers will be both in the 2024 season, turning 41 late in the year).

As noted, but Warner and Manning were out of the NFL at 40.  

Only Brady, I believe, has beaten father time at that age so far in the modern NFL.

I’m not fully rehashing my prior posts again. Cliff notes version (which is still a couple paragraphs for me, lol):

Suffice to say these aren’t all the same scenarios by a long shot, just by looking at one factor alone - age - and ignoring all other factors. You’re comparing players with different personal and family lives, with different career and recent accomplishments, with different injury severities (most recent and/or cumulative), who didn’t have the appetite to again rehab after surgery to Rodger’s whose rehab is done and who has neither a wife nor children. Unless his processing speed has diminished, he can either still throw well enough or he can’t.

I’ve no idea if he’ll be great or suck or last the season or last less than 5 plays again. But whatever happens it will have zero to do with the likes of Peyton Manning with his multiple neck injuries and surgeries and multiple pinched nerves and surgeries in his throwing shoulder on top of his own most recent foot/heel tear, and and a 5 year old kid and just winning another SB ring before he decided to hang it up instead of rehabbing.

[Warfish]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I’ve no idea if he’ll be great or suck or last the season or last less than 5 plays again.

I agree.  You don't know.  Nor do I. 

Nor does anyone, Rodgers included.

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

But whatever happens it will have zero to do with the likes of Peyton Manning with his multiple neck injuries and surgeries and multiple pinched nerves and surgeries in his throwing shoulder on top of his own most recent foot/heel tear, and and a 5 year old kid and just winning another SB ring before he decided to hang it up instead of rehabbing.

Then why did you cite Manning in the first place?  Or Kurt Warner?  That was your post I quoted, wasn't it?

Personally, I found the similarities interesting, that all three of the players you discussed in your post were pretty elite at age 37, and fell off shortly thereafter (with only Rodgers continuing on past 40).  

Ultimately, age (and injuries) are a major factor in sports, and choosing to ignore item when projecting a player's likely future is silly.  

[jetspenguin]

Back to the Mike Williams thing..

He is the best #2 since Decker and he will make a huge difference for us on offense.

Sent from the FOREVER AND EVER Suicide Watch desk.

[Wit]

If Lazard is this bad without him I wonder how good Garret can be.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[Doggin94it]

I 100% thought that if you put Ulrich & Fidelio in the same thread the universe would explode. Matter and antimatter. 

[jamesr]

I'll keep repeating this...
He'll be 41 when they're making the wildcard run.  That's the number that matters.
 

We'll have played 12 games before Rodgers turns 41. That's enough to have locked up a playoff berth and be shooting for the division in the remaining weeks.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[The Crusher]

If he does I’m sure @HighPitch would like to suckle his fingers, seems to be a thing. 

[RutgersJetFan]

36 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

If he does I’m sure @HighPitch would like to suckle his fingers, seems to be a thing. 

[Rich Thornburgh]

8 hours ago, Wit said:

If Lazard is this bad without him I wonder how good Garret can be.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

Lazard couldn’t break 800 yards receiving as Aaron’s first read for an entire season.  Lazard has never been good

[The Crusher]

24 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

RIP Fatguy little coat, rest in peace!! 

[Sperm Edwards]

9 hours ago, Warfish said:

I agree.  You don't know.  Nor do I. 

Nor does anyone, Rodgers included.

Then why did you cite Manning in the first place?  Or Kurt Warner?  That was your post I quoted, wasn't it?

Personally, I found the similarities interesting, that all three of the players you discussed in your post were pretty elite at age 37, and fell off shortly thereafter (with only Rodgers continuing on past 40).  

Ultimately, age (and injuries) are a major factor in sports, and choosing to ignore item when projecting a player's likely future is silly.  

I used Manning and Warner because they both satisfied his criteria of it’s never happened before and science says it can’t/won’t:

Veteran QBs who had visibly and/or statistically started to regress, then missed a season or similarly significant time to injury, then came back just as good after that.

They were both so recent it’s not like I had to go back and cite someone from Otto Graham’s era either.

Age is of course a factor. It isn’t the only factor, though, nor even the only significant factor alongside beginning a long rehab and being away from family again, when they already have a fortune saved up, post-playing jobs/income lined up, and know they don’t have 5-10 years left in them smart like a 28 year old rehabbing the same injuries.

FFS if they were motivated enough to do so, Brees and Brady could both still be starting this season.

This isn’t the era of 1970s sports medicine, and Rodgers has neither the injuries that prevent him from throwing well enough, nor a tight family he wants to spend so his time with, more than training for and playing through another season after a couple decades.

A week here or there in the sun and another in the total absence of sun/light (lol) and he’s good to go. 

[Warfish]

29 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I used Manning and Warner because just off the top of my head (since both were recent) they satisfied his criteria of it’s never happened before and science says it can’t/won’t:

Veteran QBs who had visibly and/or statistically started to regress, then missed a season or similarly significant time to injury, then came back just as good after that.

As noted, your original answer doesn't actually answer the "it's never happened" question posed, because you failed to note the ages of those example QB's at the time they "came back just as good".  As noted, all were 37 in those "come back" years.  And they quickly declined again after those seasons, and we out of the league by 40.  And again, as noted, Rodgers too had something of a resurgence at age 37 himself, having one of his best seasons.  37 year old QB's having one last gasp of greatness is clearly a thing that happens, based on history.

But ultimately, you said "whatever happens it will have zero to do with the likes of Peyton Manning".  Which is true.  But maybe that should have been the answer in the first place, rather than cite other QB's when those other QB's don't matter, and your citation was factually flawed.  /shrug.

 

EDIT:  I see you almost completely rewrote your post.  Not going to re-write my own or reply again.  This is a opinion topic, and you're free to have any opinion, for any reason, you wish.  

[rangerous]

So there are some who think Rodgers won’t put the numbers?  Just consider that the 2015 offense with fitzy was pretty darn good.  Fitzy had a career year and all it took was fielding a team that was largely injury free.  And this 2024, imo, has more talent.  It certainly isn’t silly to expect good things for once.

[Sperm Edwards]

On 6/24/2024 at 9:18 AM, Warfish said:

As noted, your original answer doesn't actually answer the "it's never happened" question posed, because you failed to note the ages of those example QB's at the time they "came back just as good".  As noted, all were 37 in those "come back" years.  And they quickly declined again after those seasons, and we out of the league by 40.  And again, as noted, Rodgers too had something of a resurgence at age 37 himself, having one of his best seasons.  37 year old QB's having one last gasp of greatness is clearly a thing that happens, based on history.

But ultimately, you said "whatever happens it will have zero to do with the likes of Peyton Manning".  Which is true.  But maybe that should have been the answer in the first place, rather than cite other QB's when those other QB's don't matter, and your citation was factually flawed.  /shrug.

 

EDIT:  I see you almost completely rewrote your post.  Not going to re-write my own or reply again.  This is a opinion topic, and you're free to have any opinion, for any reason, you wish.  

Yeah the problem is it creates a question with almost no answer by weeding out everyone along the way, and when citing the couple exceptions they're still unconvincing because the number of them is so sparse.

• Elite ability & big-name status -- even aside from the rest of the list, there are only so many elite QBs in the first place. From there, a GM has to decide to stick with the older man or begin the youth movement. A GM can sell the fanbase & ownership on the excitement of putting the upcoming season in the hands of 40+ Brady, Brees, Rodgers all-time great types; but not so on 40+ Carr, Flacco, Fitzpatrick, etc. even if they're still capable of showing up with a big game now & then. No one cares if Derek Carr can technically still throw the rock well at 40; they're drafting someone else before it gets to that point because he's an emo beta mushbrain.
• Healthy enough -- that's not just in terms of a most recent injury (which has often occurs well into or later in the season when guys retire, like with Warner whom I'd mentioned); but also cumulative injuries taking their tolls on guys who've taken such bad beatings & had so many conditions for so many years (Peyton Manning, Roethlisberger, etc.) that it's just robbed them of their once elite ability.
• Team situation -- namely, on a team that's worth it to keep playing. If Brady was locked into a contract with a team that had some combination of a bad/unsuccessful coach, poor receiving talent, poor protection, and a crappy defense, then he probably hangs it up a few years earlier himself even though his FA status with NE did allow him to go elsewhere, with high success as we all saw in Tampa. He'd have also been the statistic of QBs who didn't play into their 40s had he hung 'em up, and it'd have been convenient to suggest his age meant he couldn't do it anymore.
• Family situations. Late 30s for a lot of guys is when - with the money they've saved up - they decide they've just had enough and one more season or two isn't worth missing out on more of their kids' lives, or the strains it puts on their marriages that have had to deal with daddy/hubby away for 6 mos/year for 15+ years, or having to move the family yet again (including new schools for the kids yet again) to get onto a contender's roster. Rodgers is immune to all that, where most others aren't. 
• Desire. It's a long offseason, and all that training & preseason & in-season prep is a lot harder at 40 than it was at 32, and is harder at 32 than it was at 24. With all the money already made by QB who've still got it well into their 30s (or even early 40s), it's just  too exhausting for most, as they've surely been thinking about how much longer before they retire for a few years already, and just not worth it anymore. Especially some can't or don't feel like adjusting & changing their game when they can't do all the things they used to be able to do physically.
• NFL era. There may have been many more in the past who could've done so but so much has changed that there's just a shorter history to look at. That includes sports medicine, protections on QBs that didn't exist years ago, and the sheer amounts of money players (QBs especially) didn't make until fairly recently, especially the 80s and earlier when the league didn't make as much and there was no such thing as free agency. Montana in his prime made $1MM/year & the league turned guys into cripples far younger than we are today. Now they're talking $60MM/year for Dak Prescott, which creates a very different calculus in terms of risk vs. reward to keep playing with well over $100MM banked.

Each one of these conditions weeds out more players. Satisfying the above conditions will apply to very few people, so it suggests age 40 is more correlated with satisfying fewer of the above conditions needed than being the pure driver of an inability to continue.

There is so much more going on than a simplistic 39 vs 40 years old that spitting that out as a winning trump card just seems silly to me, if not lazy. I was 39 once, then 40 once after that. The main difference between the two is in your head because our society uses base-10 math so it's then the next big round number; not because of a magical metabolic changes that sports science/medicine has shown only begins at age 40. 

Brees was the same age Rodgers is now (40, turning 41 in Dec/Jan) when he posted a 106 QB rating in his final season despite Michael Thomas missing most of that season himself, leaving him just a RB and a 33 year old slot receiver (nearing retirement himself) to throw to with any confidence. Ditto Favre, who arguably had his best season at age 40-41. Brady even more famously played even further into his 40s. 

You can say those guys are exceptions, and while that's absolutely true it's also true Rodgers's career has been in that class of rare exceptions: the elite among the elite QBs in league history. These guys aren't merely Matt Hasselbeck or Kerry Collins plus 5%. 

Will Rodgers have anywhere near similar success as other 40+ QBs? Who knows; he may miss the whole season again for all I know. There could be so many injuries around him that no one else was going to succeed in this role either. If he doesn't succeed won't be because simply because he's 40 instead of 39 when the season starts.

JFC I can ramble on & on.

[batman10023]

On 6/22/2024 at 5:01 PM, FidelioJet said:

He'll be 41 by the time they'll need to make the Wildcard run.  He turns 41 in December.  

His age when it's going to matter is the point.

where did you say anything about the wildcard run in your original post?

[Sperm Edwards]

29 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

where did you say anything about the wildcard run in your original post?

 

[FidelioJet]

3 hours ago, batman10023 said:

where did you say anything about the wildcard run in your original post?

The second half of the season he'll be 41 - so when I say a 41 year old QB it's in reference to his age when said Wildcard run will be happening.

 

[extmenace]

On 6/23/2024 at 11:59 AM, jetspenguin said:

 

 

Hahahahaha hahahahaha uh... How about NO!?

He still has a lot to prove before he gets in that conversation.

Sent from the FOREVER AND EVER Suicide Watch desk.
 

 

Hes in the Josh Allen territory. Stat padder but seems to fall short in the big moments. The only difference is he hasn’t had a legit defense to play behind, ever.  You’d think Harbaugh will fix that aspect of the team. I said he’s one of the best, not the best. Let’s see what he does with a legit coaching staff around him. He could be in the top 5 discussion soon.

[batman10023]

20 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

The second half of the season he'll be 41 - so when I say a 41 year old QB it's in reference to his age when said Wildcard run will be happening.

 

math math math

he's not even going to be 41 until near the end of the season.

i see why people say you move goalposts

[batman10023]

On 6/23/2024 at 7:27 PM, Warfish said:

At age 36, 37 and 38 I believe?

He was definitely great on a stacked team in 2013, at age 37.

Or, put differently, 4 years ago for Rodgers (who, as it turns out, was ALSO pretty great at age 37).

Do you know where Manning was at age 40/41?

Retired after being utter trash in his final season, and not his usual greatness the year before.

In an interesting coincidence, Warner was ALSO 37 years old in 2008 when he led his team to the Super Bowl loss in his last great season.

Not my goalposts to move, but what your post tells me is that several great QB's had great seasons at age 37.  For several, the final great season.  Manning (SB Win for Denver), Warner (Super Bowl loss for Arizona) and our own Rodgers himself (in 2020, he had a great season of production (13-3, Conf. Champ. Game loss), and another (like Manning) at age 38 too.

With that said, 37 isn't 40 or 41 (Rodgers will be both in the 2024 season, turning 41 late in the year).

As noted, but Warner and Manning were out of the NFL at 40.  

Only Brady, I believe, has beaten father time at that age so far in the modern NFL.

rodgers has also played in 3 less seasons than manning.   so he's a young 40 (or 41 if you as FJ)

[Warfish]

1 minute ago, batman10023 said:

rodgers has also played in 3 less seasons than manning.   so he's a young 40 (or 41 if you as FJ)

He started later in his career than Manning, having been a backup for three seasons, yes.

I don't know that that makes him a "young 40" or not, that seems an entirely subjective evaluation.  How does one objectively define a "young 40"?  Seasons started seems too simplistic, how about # of hits?  # of injuries?  Severity of injuries?  Time missed due to injury?  Times sacked?  The weight of those sacking him?  /shrug  

I also don't quite understand the objection over describing Rodgers in the 2024 season as 40/41.  That's literally how old he will be to start the year (40) and end the year (41). 

Would you prefer more specificity?  That he will be 40 years 8 months thru 41 years 1 month during the 2024 regular season?

[Long Island Leprechaun]

2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

He started later in his career than Manning, having been a backup for three seasons, yes.

I don't know that that makes him a "young 40" or not, that seems an entirely subjective evaluation.  How does one objectively define a "young 40"?  Seasons started seems too simplistic, how about # of hits?  # of injuries?  Severity of injuries?  Time missed due to injury?  Times sacked?  The weight of those sacking him?  /shrug  

I also don't quite understand the objection over describing Rodgers in the 2024 season as 40/41.  That's literally how old he will be to start the year (40) and end the year (41). 

Would you prefer more specificity?  That he will be 40 years 8 months thru 41 years 1 month during the 2024 regular season?

I think the real issue is that some posters weaponize the magic number 40 as if it were the edge of cliff over a raging river. It frankly tells us nothing. I wouldn't have guessed beforehand that Rodgers would recover from the achilles tear in record time based on age, but he certainly blew that away. He looked good in voluntaries and he has a positive attitude. He's one of the greatest QB's to play the game, so even with a modest drop off, if there is one, he's still a very very good QB. I'll live with that. 

[Jetsfan80]

24 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

math math math

he's not even going to be 41 until near the end of the season.

i see why people say you move goalposts

It's similar to the way some of my ex-girlfriends would argue.  They never "lost" an argument in their minds because they could just shift the argument to fit their needs.

[bicketybam]

6 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

I think the real issue is that some posters weaponize the magic number 40 as if it were the edge of cliff over a raging river. It frankly tells us nothing. I wouldn't have guessed beforehand that Rodgers would recover from the achilles tear in record time based on age, but he certainly blew that away. He looked good in voluntaries and he has a positive attitude. He's one of the greatest QB's to play the game, so even with a modest drop off, if there is one, he's still a very very good QB. I'll live with that. 

That's absolutely what the issue is...the magic number.

So many "people of science" will validate other things that aren't the same as 30 years ago have a hard time accepting that 40 in 2024 is not the same as 40 in 2004. It's almost like they are flat earthers. 

As time goes on, people will live longer and athletes will play at a high level longer than they have ever in the past. It's the advancement of science and sports medicine. Some people need to see 30 years of the advancement and some need only a few. 

[Warfish]

18 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

I think the real issue is that some posters weaponize the magic number 40 as if it were the edge of cliff over a raging river. It frankly tells us nothing.

I respectfully disagree.  It tells us he has reached an age where the vast majority of NFL QB's have retired.  It tells us the odds of his success, based on the entirety of NFL history, is lower than it would be for say, a 37 year old QB.

It's not a binary though.  It's not all or nothing.  And it says nothing specific to Rodgers himself, only to the historical odds of an over-40 QB having high-end success in the NFL.  Like Brady. he could be a unicorn.  Or he could be like the bulk of others who tried, and failed, to win past 40.

18 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

I wouldn't have guessed beforehand that Rodgers would recover from the achilles tear in record time based on age, but he certainly blew that away.

I've heard people say this, but do we actually know for sure that it is true?  We never saw him doing anything in "historic record time" did we?  He never returned to play in a game, he stood on a sideline, and it was reported I believe that he wasn't really ready after all.  He has yet to take a hit in anger post-injury.

Not saying it's not true, only that we have no real tangible evidence that it is true, or that it has any real meaning.    

18 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

He looked good in voluntaries and he has a positive attitude.

And he skipped mandatories.  After being seen massaging his foot/ankle area in voluntaries.  

Again, there is much we do not know and cannot verify as of now.  Camp and preseason will tell us alot more.

18 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

He's one of the greatest QB's to play the game

He certainly was, yes.  We don't know what he is now.  It's been two full seasons past since he produced at a top-10 level.

18 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

, so even with a modest drop off, if there is one, he's still a very very good QB. I'll live with that. 

We will see if he is or isn't come camp and preseason and week 1.  And we'll all live with it, we don't have any say it in, lol

Our 2024 hopes revolve around hope that he is the same as 37 year old Rodgers was.  Not the same as last year or the year before's Rodgers.

[AZSOJ]

Listen, AR at 50-60-70% is much better than anyone we have had playing FB for the last 10 years.  If the reports are correct about his arm strength and no look passes... then get ready because for COMPTENT QB play.  Idn't that what we have been lacking?

[bicketybam]

2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I respectfully disagree.  It tells us he has reached an age where the vast majority of NFL QB's have retired.  It tells us the odds of his success, based on the entirety of NFL history, is lower than it would be for say, a 37 year old QB.

It's not a binary though.  It's not all or nothing.  And it says nothing specific to Rodgers himself, only to the historical odds of an over-40 QB having high-end success in the NFL.  Like Brady. he could be a unicorn.  Or he could be like the bulk of others who tried, and failed, to win past 40.

I've heard people say this, but do we actually know for sure that it is true?  We never saw him doing anything in "historic record time"
 did we?  He never returned to play, he stood on a sideline.  He has yet to take a hit in anger post-injury.

Not saying it's not true, only that we have no real tangible evidence that it is true, or that it has any real meaning.    

And he skipped mandatories.  After being seen massaging his foot/ankle area in voluntaries.  

Again, there is much we do not know and cannot verify as of now.  Camp and preseason will tell us alot more.

He certainly was, yes.  We don't know what he is now.  It's been two full seasons past since he produced at a top-10 level.

We will see if he is or isn't come camp and preseason and week 1.  And we'll live with it, we don't have any say it in, lol

Our 2024 hopes revolve around hope that he is the same as 37 year old Rodgers was.  Not the same as last year or the year before's Rodgers.

This just reinforces my earlier post. 

That's the way it's always been until it isn't anymore. Where do you draw the line? Cancer of any kind used to be a death sentence. At some point that changed (thank God.)

[Warfish]

6 minutes ago, bicketybam said:

This just reinforces my earlier post. 

That's the way it's always been until it isn't anymore. Where do you draw the line? Cancer of any kind used to be a death sentence. At some point that changed (thank God.)

It's not a "line" in my mind. 

It's simply one fact, one data point, amid a sea of other facts and data points, that fans can use to evaluate when looking forward to the 2024 season.   

I think it's also important to remind ourselves that these opinion carry absolutely no weight.  What will happen will happen, regardless of what fans on JN think or say.  Ultimately, Rodgers will be good or not because of Rodgers primarily, Saleh and the team around them.

Personally, I fully expect a major, meaningful increase in QB production in 2024 vs. the Wilson, Darnold, Geno or Sanchez Eras, as long as Rodgers remains healthy. 

 

[batman10023]

33 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

It's similar to the way some of my ex-girlfriends would argue.  They never "lost" an argument in their minds because they could just shift the argument to fit their needs.

wait till you get married

[Long Island Leprechaun]

18 minutes ago, Warfish said:

It's not a "line" in my mind. 

It's simply one fact, one data point, amid a sea of other facts and data points, that fans can use to evaluate when looking forward to the 2024 season.   

I think it's also important to remind ourselves that these opinion carry absolutely no weight.  What will happen will happen, regardless of what fans on JN think or say.  Ultimately, Rodgers will be good or not because of Rodgers primarily, Saleh and the team around them.

Personally, I fully expect a major, meaningful increase in QB production in 2024 vs. the Wilson, Darnold, Geno or Sanchez Eras, as long as Rodgers remains healthy. 

 

With all due respect that's a lot of verbiage over several posts to essentially say, "who knows, we'll see..."

[Jetsfan80]

16 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

wait till you get married

Been married closing in on 6 years!  So far, my wife has been a fair arguer who acknowledges the few times I'm right.  We'll see how long it lasts, lol.

[Warfish]

2 hours ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

With all due respect that's a lot of verbiage over several posts to essentially say, "who knows, we'll see..."

Is that a problem? 

Also, I think "I fully expect a major, meaningful increase in QB production in 2024 vs. the Wilson, Darnold, Geno or Sanchez Eras, as long as Rodgers remains healthy" is a bit different than "who knows, we'll see...", but maybe that's just me.