Enough of Aaron Rodgers' apologists blaming Matt Lafleur for his failure to play big in big games

 

Alright, enough is enough. I turn on my phone and the first thing I see on the news feed is Mike Holmgren blaming the Packers for the impasse with Aaron Rodgers. Before I get into Holmgren’s main point, once again there was that ridiculous assertion that the Packers lost the NFC championship game against the Buccaneers because Matt Lafleur didn’t let Rodgers throw a fourth incomplete pass after first-and-goal late in fourth quarter, instead kicking a field goal. Look at what LaFelur was facing: that Rodgers would connect on a fourth try was hardly a “gimme,” and even if he did, the Packers would still need to go for a two-point conversion to tie, and the Packers were 0-3 on two-point conversion attempts in this playoff run.

The field goal was the “guaranteed” points, and Lafleur was putting his faith in a defense that after allowing the Buccaneers to score a touchdown on their opening drive in the second half, had intercepted Tom Brady three times and allowed just 3 points, and the Packers still had three time outs to get the ball back. They almost did with 90 seconds to play, save for a ticky-tack third-down pass interference call.

But what if Lafleur had given the ball to Rodgers, and let him throw another incomplete pass? What would we be talking about then? Rodgers' failure to convert on two first-and-goal opportunities? His two interceptions, including the one late in the second quarter that allowed Brady to extend the Buccaneer lead to 21-10 at halftime? His failure once again to play clutch in a critical game?

But getting back to the main point of Holmgren’s comments, I’ve already stated what I think is the real behind-the-scenes reason that Rodgers wants out of Green Bay, and it has nothing to do with “respect” or who the general manager is. Holmgren doesn’t help his case claiming there was a similar dynamic in play with the 49ers “not telling” Joe Montana that they traded for Steve Young from Tampa Bay; there were similarities in certain ways, but not in way Holmgren interpreted them. Bill Walsh wanted a player with some playing experience after Montana missed half the 1986 season from injury. Getting Young as a backup was a smart move, and wasn’t meant to “disrespect” Montana.

Young continued to be Montana’s backup for four years until the 1991 season, when Montana suffered a serious elbow injury and missed the entire season. Montana then pushed his “rehabilitation” too far and spent most of 1992 on injured reserve. In relief, Young led the NFL in passer rating both seasons as he would for the next two seasons, and winning the Super Bowl in the 1994 season. Young had supporters in the locker room, and the rift created forced the 49ers to trade Montana.

I didn’t think it was a smart move for the Packers to pick Jordan Love in the first round, because they could have gotten someone who was a better prospect in a later round. But why would Love “rattle” Rodgers—unless, of course, Rodgers being worried that having his worst season the year before, and coming off a campaign in which he was often tentative in a new system with a new coach, and being blown out twice by the same team (the second time in the NFC championship game) had anything to do with it.

What right does Rodgers have to question what the team does at this stage of his career anyways? Sit around and do nothing at the most important position? The only thing I’m disturbed about is that the Packers didn’t draft a quarterback who was actually worthy of wasting a first round pick on to insure the team is at least "competitive," which is the only thing that is "guaranteed" with Rodgers. After all, Tom Brady was only a what? A sixth round pick? And how many Super Bowls has he won? One thing for sure: whoever the Packers’ next quarterback is, he will begin with just one fewer Super Bowl appearance than their future Hall of Famer.