The "If Gamestop was open I'd buy Madden right now" Post-Game Commiseration Extravaganza with lots of cursing at Aaron Idiot Rodgers who Screwed us from the very beginning and kept on screwing us because he can't ever throw an interception God forbid he

[coachbuns]

Just now, squire12 said:

can you name the younger posters on the site?

 

Just now, squire12 said:

can you name the younger posters on the site?

Ask Norm ... 

[squire12]

5 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

As you grow older whippersnapper, you'll figure it out.  I have no reason to rub anything in anybody's face.  That's a you problem ... not a me problem.  Also, you think to much what other people may think or portray.  Stick to the Packers and what's wrong with them. 

The irony here is real

[squire12]

Just now, coachbuns said:

 

Ask Norm ... 

you are the one suggesting that posters will not know what bad QB play looks like because they have not seen it.  

[coachbuns]

3 minutes ago, squire12 said:

you are the one suggesting that posters will not know what bad QB play looks like because they have not seen it.  

Nope, you're assuming.  All I said was the Packers sucked for years before Farve and Rodgers and some younger posters probably never saw a Packer team without them.  Didn't say a word about anybody not knowing what bad QB play is or was.  One can tell pretty easily the difference between good and bad don't you think?  Just curious though,  did you go through those Packers years in the 70's and 80's?  Just curious. 

[Norm]

17 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

As you grow older whippersnapper, you'll figure it out.  I have no reason to rub anything in anybody's face.  That's a you problem ... not a me problem.  Also, you think to much what other people may think or portray.  Stick to the Packers and what's wrong with them. 

Let me say this then, I'm not worried about losing an all world QB and going back to the GB dark ages, because we don't have an all world QB right now and we're 8-3.

[Dubz41]

2 minutes ago, Norm said:

Let me say this then, I'm not worried about losing an all world QB and going back to the GB dark ages, because we don't have an all world QB right now and we're 8-3.

That sums it up concisely.  Being grateful for the 25 year run of excellent QB play does not mean we will dive into a Jets/Bears like dearth of QB play.

That being said, I wouln't mind seeing us grab a QB around the third round IF the VALUE matches.

[MacReady]

Just now, Striker said:

4. Have a bottom 16 or just average defense but an elite offense and hope that the top defensive teams just suck so much on offense that you can score a bajillion more points than them.

Nope, doesn't work.  Not a single team in the past 30 years has won a Super Bowl without either a top 10 scoring defense in the regular season or a defense that turned it on in the postseason and held their opponent below 16 points a game.  The 2007 Giants were a damn good defense that went up against a lot of damn good offenses.  In the playoffs, they held their opponents to 14, 17, 20 and 14 points.  The 2011 Giants same story.  In the playoffs, they held their opponents to 2, 20, 17 and 17 points. 

The one team people seem to cite on overpowered offense and "just average" defense was the 2008 Saints.  In the playoffs, that team completely embarrassed Kurt Warner, beat Favre in Brett Favre's best year as a professional QB and then held Peyton Manning, who was MVP that year, to 17 points. 

Darren Sharper was all-pro that year.  Will Smith had 13 sacks.  Hargrove had 5 sacks.  Ellis had 4.  Jonathan Vilma I think was all-pro.  Roman Harper, Malcolm Jenkins, Tracy Porter and Darren Sharper in the secondary. 

They were a good defense that didn't have to show it in the regular season because Brees was consistently blowing teams out and they gave up some easy stuff.  In

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

58 minutes ago, Norm said:

If we think that might happen we should be firing every coach, Gute and scout tomorrow.

It wouldn't happen. It's not a real concern. It's just a reason for people to rub it in younger people's faces that they went through it.

I think that is kind of a cheap shot Norm.  

The real question though, is will fans be happier after Rodgers is gone?

I suspect there is an expectation issue here- the idea that we have a future HOF QB who should be racking up super bowl wins, and since we aren't there is a sense of frustration.  

On the flip side, it is more likely than not that the team goes a significant period of time before they get another future HOF QB, and end up with a team where making the playoffs is a successful season.  A non Rodgers team, sitting at 8-3, would be viewed as an achievement.  The closest I can think of is the post Montana- young run in SF, or the post Aikman run in Dallas.  They aren't exactly pretty pictures.  Would we as a fan base be happy with the Vikings situation over that last 20 years?

I suspect that the notion that the team will quickly rebound following Rodgers exit through trade or retirement is flawed. and that is the point that coachbuns is trying to make.  We are a spoiled fan base having had the QB play we have over the last 25 years.

[Leader]

9 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Would we as a fan base be happy with the Vikings situation over that last 20 years?

Oh please. Anything but a Vikings situation!

[Striker]

5 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Nope, doesn't work.  Not a single team in the past 30 years has won a Super Bowl without either a top 10 scoring defense in the regular season or a defense that turned it on in the postseason and held their opponent below 16 points a game.  The 2007 Giants were a damn good defense that went up against a lot of damn good offenses.  In the playoffs, they held their opponents to 14, 17, 20 and 14 points.  The 2011 Giants same story.  In the playoffs, they held their opponents to 2, 20, 17 and 17 points. 

The one team people seem to cite on overpowered offense and "just average" defense was the 2008 Saints.  In the playoffs, that team completely embarrassed Kurt Warner, beat Favre in Brett Favre's best year as a professional QB and then held Peyton Manning, who was MVP that year, to 17 points. 

Darren Sharper was all-pro that year.  Will Smith had 13 sacks.  Hargrove had 5 sacks.  Ellis had 4.  Jonathan Vilma I think was all-pro.  Roman Harper, Malcolm Jenkins, Tracy Porter and Darren Sharper in the secondary. 

They were a good defense that didn't have to show it in the regular season because Brees was consistently blowing teams out and they gave up some easy stuff.  In

 

I'm going off of DVOA vs. PF. The teams I was referring to are the combo of the Eagles/Pats and the Pats/Falcons. I suppose I could have added the "get hot" part as a part of #4.

[Dubz41]

4 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I think that is kind of a cheap shot Norm.  

The real question though, is will fans be happier after Rodgers is gone?

I suspect there is an expectation issue here- the idea that we have a future HOF QB who should be racking up super bowl wins, and since we aren't there is a sense of frustration.  

On the flip side, it is more likely than not that the team goes a significant period of time before they get another future HOF QB, and end up with a team where making the playoffs is a successful season.  A non Rodgers team, sitting at 8-3, would be viewed as an achievement.  The closest I can think of is the post Montana- young run in SF, or the post Aikman run in Dallas.  They aren't exactly pretty pictures.  Would we as a fan base be happy with the Vikings situation over that last 20 years?

I suspect that the notion that the team will quickly rebound following Rodgers exit through trade or retirement is flawed. and that is the point that coachbuns is trying to make.  We are a spoiled fan base having had the QB play we have over the last 25 years.

I'm not sure that was Norm's point.  If I dare to speak- Norm was pointing out that just because some of us were watching the 'great nothingness' doesn't mean we have any special insight into the post Rodgers era.  My kids have never known anything but Favre-Rodgers, but that doesn't mean they don't understand what might be in the offing if Rodgers is unable to perform to his contract.  Trading him now is unfeasible, who would want him with his recent tape?  I only hope MLF can show him the gutless performances he's turned in the last two trips to the west coast.  I don't need another HOF QB, I just want someone to run the damn offense and hit a slant once in a while.

It's not all AAron's fault.  He's just the easiest target right now.  Then it's the new defensive whipping boy- Martinez.  But, if we look just a hair longer we would see that Savage hasn't been the same since his injury. King and Alexander aren't making any plays.  The contract with Lowry may have been a mistake. Plenty of blame to go around, yet we are still 8-3.

[coachbuns]

45 minutes ago, Norm said:

Let me say this then, I'm not worried about losing an all world QB and going back to the GB dark ages, because we don't have an all world QB right now and we're 8-3.

fair enough .. peace.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

14 minutes ago, Dubz41 said:

I'm not sure that was Norm's point.  If I dare to speak- Norm was pointing out that just because some of us were watching the 'great nothingness' doesn't mean we have any special insight into the post Rodgers era.  My kids have never known anything but Favre-Rodgers, but that doesn't mean they don't understand what might be in the offing if Rodgers is unable to perform to his contract.  Trading him now is unfeasible, who would want him with his recent tape?  I only hope MLF can show him the gutless performances he's turned in the last two trips to the west coast.  I don't need another HOF QB, I just want someone to run the damn offense and hit a slant once in a while.

It's not all AAron's fault.  He's just the easiest target right now.  Then it's the new defensive whipping boy- Martinez.  But, if we look just a hair longer we would see that Savage hasn't been the same since his injury. King and Alexander aren't making any plays.  The contract with Lowry may have been a mistake. Plenty of blame to go around, yet we are still 8-3.

I think there is a lot of venting going on right now and over reacting to the venting.

They had two west coast trips where they didn't have their head in the games.  It was frustrating to watch, but not the end of the world.  

 

[coachbuns]

33 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I think that is kind of a cheap shot Norm.  

The real question though, is will fans be happier after Rodgers is gone?

I suspect there is an expectation issue here- the idea that we have a future HOF QB who should be racking up super bowl wins, and since we aren't there is a sense of frustration.  

On the flip side, it is more likely than not that the team goes a significant period of time before they get another future HOF QB, and end up with a team where making the playoffs is a successful season.  A non Rodgers team, sitting at 8-3, would be viewed as an achievement.  The closest I can think of is the post Montana- young run in SF, or the post Aikman run in Dallas.  They aren't exactly pretty pictures.  Would we as a fan base be happy with the Vikings situation over that last 20 years?

I suspect that the notion that the team will quickly rebound following Rodgers exit through trade or retirement is flawed. and that is the point that coachbuns is trying to make.  We are a spoiled fan base having had the QB play we have over the last 25 years.

Ragnar, you said it better than I did. 

[squire12]

59 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

Nope, you're assuming.  All I said was the Packers sucked for years before Farve and Rodgers and some younger posters probably never saw a Packer team without them.  Didn't say a word about anybody not knowing what bad QB play is or was.  One can tell pretty easily the difference between good and bad don't you think?  Just curious though,  did you go through those Packers years in the 70's and 80's?  Just curious. 

SO you have no idea who has seen what in the GB packer fandom.