Heinz D. Posted June 18, 2018 Author Share Posted June 18, 2018 7 hours ago, ArthurPensky said: Especially the Vikings @ 0-4. I could tolerate it from Patriot fans or something, but winning superbowls isn't easy As loathe as I am to admit it, the Vikings are really about the hardest of the hard luck franchises around. Not only do they have that goose egg in SB wins, but they probably should have made it to three or four more than that. It's really almost nuts what's went on with them. I'd even forgotten about the '87 (I think) wild card team that should have beaten the Redskins until I saw a thing on them the other day. Can't cry much for the Bears, for what might have been, because the teams' so often mis-managed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBearsFan Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 55 minutes ago, beardown3231 said: The Packers have one in 20 years. Not sure where you got two. The Bears have 0, as do the Lions and Vikings. I mean it’s two in 21 years. They beat NE with Favre in the SB following the 96 season. I don’t think embarrassing is the right word, but if you were to tell me that the Bears were going to have HOF QBs running the team for the next 21 years I’d think 2 SB wins would be a bit of a disappointment. Not a failure by any stretch, but I’d still wonder if it should have been more. Especially if you were to tell me that there were no other consistently dominant NFC power during that time. The Packers are the consistently dominant team in the NFC over the past two decades, and only have 2 SB to show for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 15 hours ago, beardown3231 said: The Packers have one in 20 years. Not sure where you got two. The Bears have 0, as do the Lions and Vikings. OK the 20 years was off but I think the larger point was easier to see: Two superbowls out of Favre and Rodgers. I'm aware the bears haven't won one since 85. It was comparing what the Packers got out of Favre/Rodgers vs the other franchise's entire history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blkwdw13 Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 30 minutes ago, ArthurPensky said: OK the 20 years was off but I think the larger point was easier to see: Two superbowls out of Favre and Rodgers. I'm aware the bears haven't won one since 85. It was comparing what the Packers got out of Favre/Rodgers vs the other franchise's entire history. The point is that with 2 HOF QBs the Packer only have 1or 2 Super Bowls. Yes the other teams have a combined 1 Super Bowl but look at their QBs and teams through out the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 42 minutes ago, ArthurPensky said: OK the 20 years was off but I think the larger point was easier to see: Two superbowls out of Favre and Rodgers. I'm aware the bears haven't won one since 85. It was comparing what the Packers got out of Favre/Rodgers vs the other franchise's entire history. Yea hard to feel sorry for the Packers but I think everyone knowing what they know now expected more. As much as I have to give credit to Ted T for building an extremely consistent talent machine his lack of FA signing to fill in the gaps has really hurt the Rodgers era. You give Rodgers a top 5 defense even for a season or two at any point in his career other than 2010 he comes away with more rings. I almost guarantee it. Its embarrassing when you see where his defenses have ranked over his career considering the amount of draft capital stuck into that side of the field. Even when the defenses weren't horrible overall they were some of the worst 4th quarter defenses ever. Hes only had 2 top 10 defenses his entire career and only one top 5 (When he won the superbowl). The other top 10 defense he was in his 2nd year starting. For comparison, since 2008 (Rodgers became starter) Brady has had 9 top 10 defenses, The bears have had 3, Vikings 4, the fricken Browns during that time period have 2. Its embarrassing how little help he has had defensively since 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 18 minutes ago, blkwdw13 said: The point is that with 2 HOF QBs the Packer only have 1or 2 Super Bowls. Yes the other teams have a combined 1 Super Bowl but look at their QBs and teams through out the years. Of course you want more with those two QBs, but its not just about the QBs. QBs are certainly a huge part of a SB team, but teams win games not just QBs. Look at some of the defenses MN and Chicago had or the offenses of the vikes in the late 1990s. Plus HOF players lie Payton, Moss, Peterson, Sanders ect . Considering all that, "just" 2 superbowls since 1997 doesn't seem all that "bad": Bears: 1,1985 Vikes:0 Lions:0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENINCH Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 On 6/18/2018 at 10:04 AM, ArthurPensky said: I'm not sure I can buy that argument it's "embarrassing" to only have 2 superbowls wins in 20 years from Bears (1), Vikings (0), and Lions (0) fans considering they're franchise Superbowl history and some of the teams they have had. Especially the Vikings @ 0-4. I could tolerate it from Patriot fans or something, but winning superbowls isn't easy The rest of us don't have the best QB in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 20 minutes ago, TENINCH said: The rest of us don't have the best QB in the game. Nick Foles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENINCH Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, ArthurPensky said: Nick Foles? That squirrel found a nut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 2 hours ago, TENINCH said: That squirrel found a nut Lots of squirrels find nuts in NFL for a season. Great teams, it seems, can make it to SB and win it with just okay or bad QBs, but nobody wants to do it that way. Thinking is if you have a great QB you are in hunt every year like Brady and Patriots. Drew Brees for a number of recent years up to last year and Andrew Luck for last several years may beg to differ. Brady and Patriots are far outliers I think. Other teams still need a large number of great players beside the QB. A lot of teams make it and at times win it without a great QB. Recent years where starting superbowl QB wasn't normally very good or QB was washed up or QB hadn't arrived yet: 2017 had Foles, who you mentioned, who played very well in SB and playoffs, but normally isn't that great. 2015 had a Peyton Manning who had lost it and was one of worst QBs in league that year. Cam Newton has now had as many bad years as good or close to. He was very good that year. 2012 had Flacco, he played well for that stretch, but hasn't been good since. 2006 featured future HOFer Rex Grossman playing for Bears. 2005 had baby Roethlisberger who wasn't what he became. 2003 had Jake Delhomme 2002 had Brad Johnson AND Rich Gannon. 2001 had baby Tom Brady 2000 had Trent Dilfer AND Kerry Collins. 1999 featured Kurt Warner in his first NFL season. Essentially a rookie. He played very well from start and stayed pretty good throughout his career except for his time in NY. Don't think that one really fits. 1998 featured a fading Elway, who did well managing games that season but was carried by Terrell Davis and the running game AND Chris Chandler. 1995 was Neil O'Donnell. 1994 was Stan Humphries. So half the time the Super Bowl features a QB who isn't normally that great or was great (Manning and Elway) but is no longer playing great or had QBs who would become great (Brady, Roethlisberger), but who weren't great at the time. That flys in face of notion that you HAVE to have a great QB to go to the superbowl or you have to have a great QB or your season is DOA. If you're team is otherwise stacked you can still go and you can still win. It's possible, but teams want the Brady/Manning/Elway/Kelly type long time consistency and who can blame them. I disagree when people say you HAVE to HAVE a QB though. If you have all the pieces, but the QB you can still succeed. At least for that year when you have all the pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted June 19, 2018 Author Share Posted June 19, 2018 7 hours ago, Spartacus said: Its embarrassing when you see where his defenses have ranked over his career considering the amount of draft capital stuck into that side of the field. Even when the defenses weren't horrible overall they were some of the worst 4th quarter defenses ever. Hes only had 2 top 10 defenses his entire career and only one top 5 (When he won the superbowl). The other top 10 defense he was in his 2nd year starting. For comparison, since 2008 (Rodgers became starter) Brady has had 9 top 10 defenses, The bears have had 3, Vikings 4, the fricken Browns during that time period have 2. Its embarrassing how little help he has had defensively since 2010. Don't bring any of that up in the Packers forum. Like 80% of those guys still worship Thompson like a god. I went into a Gutekunst thread and said the Pack was now better off, and everyone freaked. Then said that the Pack will be better off when they cut Clay Matthews and his massive salary as the only thing Clay has done well for years is make commercials. A Thompson apologist replied that Clay couldn't be cut because of the size and structure of his contract...and at that point I was pretty much done with that thread. 2 hours ago, dll2000 said: That flys in face of notion that you HAVE to have a great QB to go to the superbowl or you have to have a great QB or your season is DOA. If you're team is otherwise stacked you can still go and you can still win. It's possible, but teams want the Brady/Manning/Elway/Kelly type long time consistency and who can blame them. I disagree when people say you HAVE to HAVE a QB though. If you have all the pieces, but the QB you can still succeed. At least for that year when you have all the pieces. Other than your assessment of Elway during his final season, I agree with pretty much everything you said in your post. Despite the "wisdom" of the football media, you don't need a big time QB to win it all. In fact, when you remove the Patriots (who are big-time, historical outliers) having an epic QB can often lead to floundering success, long term. Makes you wonder if somebody will start defying conventional wisdom when it comes to that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 11 minutes ago, Heinz D. said: Other than your assessment of Elway during his final season, I agree with pretty much everything you said in your post. Despite the "wisdom" of the football media, you don't need a big time QB to win it all. In fact, when you remove the Patriots (who are big-time, historical outliers) having an epic QB can often lead to floundering success, long term. Makes you wonder if somebody will start defying conventional wisdom when it comes to that position. Teams have noticed that you can load a team that has a solid core with top free agents and have success when/because you have a rookie QB salary. 49ers, Seahawks and Eagles did it, now Rams are doing it for this season. Bears, did it to some extent, may try it on a larger scale next year. KC will probably do same. Houston and Dallas too. Dallas 2 seasons ago illustrates how a great team can make even a rookie look real good. Take away his star RB and some OL and he came down to Earth real fast last season. He looked like an all pro as a rookie. I don't see why same formula teams are using with rookies wouldn't also work with a modestly priced veteran QB. It might work better for a time. Eagles and Minnesota played really well last year with loaded teams and back up serviceable veterans that nobody else wanted. Eagles won it all. You still have to have a good core of impact players ready now and bring in good free agents that work out. Two big ifs. You can't start with nothing. Above teams drafted high for a long time building a roster with impact players. But formula is there if you have a near loaded team sans a QB. Load it up more, go crazy in FA, then bring in a cheap Nick Foles type and take your shot. Like you said it's outside the box thinking. Teams building around rookie QBs are still hoping that rookie becomes the franchise QB and they can pay him 9 figures at some point even though they will have to gut their teams shortly afterward. I don't blame them. Getting stuck in QB hell is a nightmare. However, when your team is loaded I bet a lot of "horrible" qbs start looking a lot better on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus Posted June 20, 2018 Share Posted June 20, 2018 15 hours ago, Heinz D. said: Don't bring any of that up in the Packers forum. Like 80% of those guys still worship Thompson like a god. I went into a Gutekunst thread and said the Pack was now better off, and everyone freaked. Then said that the Pack will be better off when they cut Clay Matthews and his massive salary as the only thing Clay has done well for years is make commercials. A Thompson apologist replied that Clay couldn't be cut because of the size and structure of his contract...and at that point I was pretty much done with that thread. TBH Thompson was an elite drafter for a long stretch. He also had the balls to draft Rodgers in the first with Brett Favre still years from retirement. What killed TT for the most part wasn't his drafting (His last couple years were pretty brutal) but his total inability to fill holes when drafting didn't work as intended or injuries struck. His last couple years where his drafting really fell off of a cliff it was apparent that his style would no longer work. He also had the tendency to draft "Football Players" and not athletes early. That is generally a good thing but the team got slower and slower by the year. It was most apparent with the WR corp, CBs, and LBs. Clay would cost cap if cut and really there isn't much behind him for the last 3 or 4 years sans Perry who also has injury issues. The Cupboard is pretty bare at OLB for the Packers right now so Clay getting cut is a pretty bad take for the current team. FYI there are some Packers posters that can be pretty sensitive to opposing fans coming in and saying anything negative about anything Packers especially if the take is wrong which no disrespect your Clay Matthews take was wrong IMO. One of the reasons I like this thread as a Packers fan. Good place to get a difference of opinion and discussion without getting too heated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBearsFan Posted June 20, 2018 Share Posted June 20, 2018 16 hours ago, dll2000 said: Getting stuck in QB hell is a nightmare. However, when your team is loaded I bet a lot of "horrible" qbs start looking a lot better on the field. I’ve been wondering about this with the Cowboys. Dak looked really solid as a rookie (not GREAT, and overhyped because it’s Dallas, but solid) when he had Dez and Witten and Elliott and the best OL in the league but he underwhelmed last year without Elliott and now he doesn’t have Dez or Witten at all and his top WR are Allen Hurns and a rookie in Michael Gallup. I don’t see any way he’s terrible by any means, but we should find out this year if he’s truly any better than average. If he’s not then I see a 5-win team in Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBearsFan Posted June 20, 2018 Share Posted June 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Spartacus said: FYI there are some Packers posters that can be pretty sensitive to opposing fans coming in and saying anything negative about anything Packers especially if the take is wrong which no disrespect your Clay Matthews take was wrong IMO. One of the reasons I like this thread as a Packers fan. Good place to get a difference of opinion and discussion without getting too heated. I don’t disagree at all but you could probably say that about any fan base if we are all being honest with ourselves. It’s hard to hear and accept the criticism of your team sometimes even when it’s totally legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.