Wait, so the Packers WRs are playing no different than early in the season, but Aaron Rodgers is? That makes no sense. It's much more complicated than that. None of the Packers offensive players are playing very well consistently. This is not on any one person, or only on the players, period. Nerd logic.
The Packers are having an OFFENSIVE problem, which includes offensive talent, execution, health, play calling, scheme, and motivation, passion, etc.
Originally Posted by: DoddPower
You should address Nerd's argument rather than attacking his "logic." The "logic" is spot on!
Simile: a few weeks ago in a soccer game in France, did thousands off spectators suddenly and unilaterally go haywire, trampling each other in tunnels and pouring out onto the field? Or was there one CAUSAL action that explains all of their behavior?
Similarly, the idea that 24 players simultaneously have gone haywire is patently absurd from a "logic" perspective. You do see that, correct? It may even be true, as illogical events do occur; but ya gotta support this thing that you believe to be true, an illogical event, with more than superficial fanspeak dogma and your opinion [If that opinion is to persuade, as opposed to only satiate anothers similar opinion].
Let's use logic:
The entire #3 offense and its staff are back. Sure Jordy's been replaced by Jones Jones; but R.Rodgers, Adams, Abby, Lacy, Perillo and Janis have an extra year in system. Okay, at most, this might explain the O dropping a notch or 2. But can this CAUSALLY explain a drop from 3rd best to 3rd worst?
Now let's apply the law of parsimony for testing hypotheses as adopted by Franciscan Frier William of Ockham [most generically know it as Occum's razor]. Applying the
Razor in the French simile we can presume to test thousands of independent hypotheses as to why each individual went haywire; or we can look for the most obvious thing and test it: that all were reacting to one stimuli.
Who has the most impact on any one offensive play? AR has the ability to change the play if the alignment is bad; escape a DLman if 1 or 2 OLman mess up; go to anyone of 5 receivers if one is covered; or run; and he effectively has 3 plays to only go 10 yards, so he can throw the ball away as opposed to taking a sack; etc. Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected or as some say the simplest explanation is usually correct one. The hypothesis that one should test is: does AR's sudden lack of accuracy and exponential increase in poor decision making explain the O's collapse?
If you use, in your words, "logic" and set aside the emotional prejudicial man-crush idol thing, you'll see it too.