What's the Matter With Aaron Rodgers?

For lower-tier NFL quarterbacks, anything less than amazing production tends to invite an avalanche of "this guy could be replaced by a workmanlike Brian Hoyer-wannabe making the minimum, and no one would notice a difference" analysis. The Houston Texans' Brock Osweiler has been buried after two bad games, and Sam Bradford is only now digging his reputation out from a deep hole of smoking rubble. On the other hand, the football world seems much more inclined to forgive when the bad play comes from someone with a sterling reputation.

Someone like, say, Aaron Rodgers.

The Green Bay Packers are 3-1 heading into Sunday's game against the Dallas Cowboys, but all is not well in Lambeau Field. The offense struggled last season with injuries, and those who weren't hurt simply looked bad; even Rodgers couldn't keep his head above the water, finishing the year with a negative DVOA. In my postmortem of the Packers that winter, I wrote, "The pendulum should swing the other way in 2016."

So far, it hasn't. "What's wrong with Green Bay's offense?" is a very popular question these days. There are a few theories out there, many of them revolving around the quality of the team's receiving corps. Some of these I very much agree with—Davante Adams wasn't an NFL-caliber wide receiver last year and may still not be one, yet the Packers give him snap after snap, perhaps because they don't have better options.

Last season, the talk was all about how the Packers never came up with replacement targets after receiver Jordy Nelson got injured; in the last eight games of 2015, Rodgers went over 6.61 YPA just once. This season, Nelson is back on the field, but Green Bay has still averaged only six yards per attempt or less in three of their four games. Statistically, they have become a ground-and-pound team.

Some of this stems from the aforementioned lack of receiving talent; some of it stems from the receivers on hand becoming predictable. For example, NFL.com/Football Guys' fantasy writer Matt Harmon took a look at Randall Cobb under the Reception Perception microscope. What he found was that Cobb ran 49 percent of his routes right at the line of scrimmage, on flat or slant routes. Compare this to a sampling from 2014, when none of Cobb's route tree scores went above 20 percent. In other words, Cobb was an actual deep receiver instead of a purely horizontal threat.

Head coaches often have reasons for changing usage patterns that drastically, and perhaps what the Packers saw in practice was that Cobb is no longer able to stretch the field like he did a few years ago. It stands to reason that Cobb may have simply lost a step.

But that doesn't feel like a very satisfying answer, because the Packers have made good receivers out of less than this before. Players like James Jones have fine performances with Green Bay for years, only to fade away on other teams. The quarterback often carries the passing game, not the other way around.

Whoa. McCarthy 'I don't know why the hell I have to come in here and answer questions about what you think went wrong on offense.'

— Aaron Nagler (@AaronNagler)October 12, 2016

Head coach Mike McCarthy is another easy target for blame because his adherence to rational game theory borders on robotic. But this also feels like a reach, because if the NFL were a league that kneeled to great chess play alone, the Patriots would go 16-0 every time Chip Kelly wasn't on the schedule. In the end, football is more about out-executing your opponent than out-thinking him. It's tough to find 50 yards of schemed underneath passing that keeps a drive on the ideal down-distance schedule. It's much easier to have Nelson outrun someone and catch a football.

So, we're back to Rodgers. He deserves more scrutiny, and frankly, more blame. Nobody is saying the two-time MVP is done or washed up, but I am definitely hitting the "wait a minute" button.

Take Sunday night's slapfest against the New York Giants. Janoris Jenkins notwithstanding, the Giants do not have a great secondary, and on Sunday they had to rely on backup corner Trevin Wade because first-round pick Eli Apple has been banged up. Rodgers often had all day in the pocket. With dropbacks like this, he should probably be able to find somebody open, right?

This was but one of many examples of Green Bay giving Rodgers plenty of time to throw on Sunday, and getting very little in return. And this should concern the Packers, because they aren't generating many big chunks of yardage off football's most efficient play, the play-action pass.

Over the past two seasons, the Packers have simply been unable to do much with their deep shots. It's tough to have a great passing offense without splash plays.

Is this slide some kind of death knell for Rodgers' career? Probably not. The comparison that comes to mind is Philip Rivers' 2012 season. Rivers was the epitome of consistency for a solid decade. But in 2012, he just didn't play well. He threw for less than 4,000 yards for the first time since 2007. His yards per attempt dipped under seven for the only time in his career. He was taking more sacks than usual, despite the fact that in his prime he had always been able to diagnose blitzes and find the open man quickly. The Chargers were not significantly injured. It was just a weird, wacky year against the rest of Rivers' career.

There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with Rodgers physically. He's just not playing well. That could change at any time, but until he does, the Packers are better off letting the defense and running game take them to the playoffs.

Want to read more stories like this from VICE Sports? Subscribe to our daily newsletter.