Patriotplayer90 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Every moment of his preparation in the off-season and the construction of a roster is pieced around a franchise QB. This fake fairytale McCarthy haters come up with that a different coach would lead to a different result is simply foolish. The Packers are built around Rodgers. Belicheck isn't winning with Hundley at QB here. Built around him, or completely dependant on him? He's not some college option QB. I don't see anything different about this offense which suggests that it was built specifically for him. I'm sure he didn't request for there to be no running game or defense. Belichick beat a playoff team with a 3rd string injured rookie ;). So I think he could manage to do better than what McCarthy did. And you might want to check what Cassel's winning percentage was after he won 11 games with him BB. Edited October 16, 2018 by Patriotplayer90 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Patriotplayer90 said: Built around him, or completely dependant on him? He's not some college option QB. I don't see anything different about this offense which suggests that it was built specifically for him. I'm sure he didn't request for there to be no running game or defense. Belichick beat a playoff team with a 3rd string injured rookie ;). So I think he could manage to do better than what McCarthy did. And you might want to check what Cassel's winning percentage was after he won 11 games with him BB. Perfect, we should really reach out and sign Bellichick. What? The best coach in the world is already employed by a team? Who would've seen that coming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Patriotplayer90 said: Built around him, or completely dependant on him? He's not some college option QB. I don't see anything different about this offense which suggests that it was built specifically for him. I'm sure he didn't request for there to be no running game or defense. Belichick beat a playoff team with a 3rd string injured rookie ;). So I think he could manage to do better than what McCarthy did. And you might want to check what Cassel's winning percentage was after he won 11 games with him BB. It's dependent on him because it's built around him. How's that hard to grasp? Would you say it's foolish for a basketball team to build a roster around LeBron James? Or a hockey team to base an offense around Crosby? Why is it this cool "diss" to say the Packers are dependant on Rodgers? Good. They should be built exactly how he wants, if we suffer when he's not in because the backup can't run that offense, who cares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriotplayer90 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: It's dependent on him because it's built around him. How's that hard to grasp? Would you say it's foolish for a basketball team to build a roster around LeBron James? Or a hockey team to base an offense around Crosby? Why is it this cool "diss" to say the Packers are dependant on Rodgers? Good. They should be built exactly how he wants, if we suffer when he's not in because the backup can't run that offense, who cares? Explain how it's built around him. It's built exactly like every other offense. And they are spending first and second round picks on defense every year, and just getting TE castoffs from other teams in FA. He's the least demanding player ever, obviously, if he's forcing them to build it his way Edited October 16, 2018 by Patriotplayer90 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Patriotplayer90 said: Are you seriously including BB's stint with the worst organization in football 25 years ago? Yes I included a full data set and didn't cherry pick numbers that suit some dumbass's agenda. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriotplayer90 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, incognito_man said: Yes I included a full data set and didn't cherry pick numbers that suit some dumbass's agenda. Did we look like a top 10 team without Rodgers in 2013 and 2017? That seems a hell of a lot more relevant than his record with a QB who had a winning record with many different coaches Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Patriotplayer90 said: Did we look like a top 10 team without Rodgers in 2013 and 2017? That seems a hell of a lot more relevant than his record with a QB who had a winning record with many different coaches Among all the stupid schit I read on here, this narrative that MM is a bad coach and only successful because of Rodgers is among the dumbest. (1) he's had significant success without him (2) EVERY good/great coach has their success intertwined totally and completely with elite players they've coached. It's such a brainless, baseless argument so I shut it down every time it pops up from the next guy who things he has some secret of the universe on his feeble fingertips. Edited October 17, 2018 by incognito_man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriotplayer90 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, incognito_man said: Among all the stupid schit I read on here, this narrative that MM is a bad coach and only successful because of Rodgers is among the dumbest. (1) he's had significant success without him (2) virtually EVERY good/great coach has their success intertwined totally and completely with elite players they've coached. It's such a brainless, baseless argument so I shut it down every time it pops up from the next guy who things he has some secret of the universe on his feeble fingertips. He was great without Rodgers... For one year, with a HOF QB. He's been absolutely horrible without otherwise. Look at his record without a HOF QB. It resembles that of a bad coach. Is that without base or irrelevant? Hell no. Marvin Lewis has a winning career record without HOF QBs. The list of coaches who have better winning percentage than MM without a HOF QB is very long. Your narrative that one is required to not be completely terrible is idiotic and completely untrue. Acting like a pompous jerk doesn't make you have a good point. You don't. Edited October 17, 2018 by Patriotplayer90 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Patriotplayer90 said: He was great without Rodgers... For one year, with a HOF QB. He's been absolutely horrible without otherwise. Look at his record without a HOF QB. It resembles that of a bad coach. Is that without base or irrelevant? Hell no. Marvin Lewis has a winning career record without HOF QBs. Your narrative that one is required to not be completely terrible is idiotic and completely untrue. Acting like a pompous jerk doesn't make you have a good point. You don't. Marvin Lewis. Marvin...Lewis. The 73rd best win% all time and career 0-7 playoff record. This is your counter-example? Really? Also, please re-read. I said nothing about QBs. Successful coaches ALL have elite players. Many times that means QB. Other times that might mean the best defensive player ever (LT and Parcells), others still a team full of HOers (half the Redskins and Gibbs). ALL OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL COACHES HAVE GOOD PLAYERS. FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. This is a good point simply because it's true and verifiable. Not because I'm the first person to introduce you to it. Edited October 17, 2018 by incognito_man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Patriotplayer90 said: Explain how it's built around him. It's built exactly like every other offense. And they are spending first and second round picks on defense every year, and just getting TE castoffs from other teams in FA. He's the least demanding player ever, obviously, if he's forcing them to build it his way Offensive players and outside FAs on 2nd (or greater) contracts: Aaron Rodgers, Davante Adams, Randall Cobb, Jimmy Graham, Marcedes Lewis, Lance Kendricks, David Bahktiari, Lane Taylor, Corey Linsley, Byron Bell, Brian Bulaga Defense: Mike Daniels, Clay Matthews, Nick Perry, Tramon Williams, Bashaud Breeland You were saying? The focus clearly has been on paying the guys Rodgers likes to protect him and for him to throw to and rolling with young guys on D and in the backfield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriotplayer90 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Offensive players and outside FAs on 2nd (or greater) contracts: Aaron Rodgers, Davante Adams, Randall Cobb, Jimmy Graham, Marcedes Lewis, Lance Kendricks, David Bahktiari, Lane Taylor, Corey Linsley, Byron Bell, Brian Bulaga Defense: Mike Daniels, Clay Matthews, Nick Perry, Tramon Williams, Bashaud Breeland You were saying? The focus clearly has been on paying the guys Rodgers likes to protect him and for him to throw to and rolling with young guys on D and in the backfield. Because they wouldn't sign anyone on offense otherwise? Graham is the only applicable example. But, my goodness, it takes his entire career for them to sign a good FA skill player. You think they would load up the talent to take advantage of his skillset Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriotplayer90 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 19 minutes ago, incognito_man said: Marvin Lewis. Marvin...Lewis. The 73rd best win% all time and career 0-7 playoff record. This is your counter-example? Really? Also, please re-read. I said nothing about QBs. Successful coaches ALL have elite players. Many times that means QB. Other times that might mean the best defensive player ever (LT and Parcells), others still a team full of HOers (half the Redskins and Gibbs). ALL OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL COACHES HAVE GOOD PLAYERS. FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. This is a good point simply because it's true and verifiable. Not because I'm the first person to introduce you to it. 73rd best winning percentage still beats MM like a drum when he doesn't have the advantage of having a HOF QB to boost his resume. He's been downright horrific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransientTexan Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 12 minutes ago, incognito_man said: Among all the stupid schit I read on here, this narrative that MM is a bad coach and only successful because of Rodgers is among the dumbest. (1) he's had significant success without him (2) EVERY good/great coach has their success intertwined totally and completely with elite players they've coached. It's such a brainless, baseless argument so I shut it down every time it pops up from the next guy who things he has some secret of the universe on his feeble fingertips. yea it's a stupid argument that ignores alot of things. like ignoring that the cap hit that the injured QB takes up. So you essentially become a team that is forced to play with 88-90% of the cap space other teams would have. also ignoring how the backup inevitable wouldn't have all the training camp time & reps that the starter did. and the fact that rosters could've even been tailored around a certain QB's skillset that goes out the window. and it ignores the fact that the team that had the good QB had higher records in recent years and thus would've been drafting lower than other teams and have less cost-effective talent on the roster unless the GM managed to significantly outperform the draft slot. and fallacious binary thinking that all non-elite QB's are the same. Tolzien (who was technically a 3rd-string QB), and Hundley were terrible QB's, which obviously would be a handicap on the record that has nothing to do with the coach, compared to a team that had a league-average QB. and the problem that this is all dealing with a relatively low sample size of 2 instances. and more fallacious binary thinking that just because McCarthy might be worse than Belichick or another 1 or 2 cherry-picked examples that managed to defy those odds means he's a bad coach. just infantile logic all the way around by people looking for reasons to excuse their own over-entitlement complex. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransientTexan Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Patriotplayer90 said: Because they wouldn't sign anyone on offense otherwise? Graham is the only applicable example. But, my goodness, it takes his entire career for them to sign a good FA skill player. You think they would load up the talent to take advantage of his skillset There is such a thing as a salary cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Patriotplayer90 said: Because they wouldn't sign anyone on offense otherwise? Graham is the only applicable example. But, my goodness, it takes his entire career for them to sign a good FA skill player. You think they would load up the talent to take advantage of his skillset How can you refute that data? They spend their money on offense. It doesn't have to be FAs, EVERY SINGLE starting WR Rodgers has had has seen a second contract, every single one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.