Jump to content

The Curse of having a Franchise QB


Green19

Recommended Posts

I know...  the title is dramatic and most every fan base would say "cry me a river". But a recent topic in the sporting world media is... Green Bay has an average to below average roster "talent wise" and would be nothing without Aaron Rodgers.

So it got me thinking... is the GB roster truly average across the board, from a talent stand point? Are teams like the Titans, Bears, Minnesota, Texans far more superior "talent wise" as media members and shock jocks claim? Or is it the curse of having a franchise QB that people can't see past the QB and teams with franchise QBs win only because they have one. And teams without one are crazy talented because they are winning without one.

Just interested on everyone's thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It's just a BS talking point.

 

Right now, the Packers talent LOOKS average. Both Bulaga and Bahktari are two of the best RT and LT in the NFL. Mike Daniels is a top flight DT. Nick Perry is a legit #1 edge rusher.

 

The teams that have played vs Atlanta-Det? Yeah probably average to slightly below, but that's 4 studs that haven't been on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most teams without a top 10 cube will struggle mightily in todays NFL. Curiously enough the Packers with a top 1-2 QB haven't been able to get back to the SB in 7 years despite having the "best" GM in the game. They're consistently undermanned and making rookie mistake in crucial moments - a testament to keeping an unexperienced and cheap roster - however one which becomes exposed to teams which take a more acute 2-4 year approach in building their squads. Those windows also coincide with normal roster turnover and a typical NFL career. You can win regular season games and take your rookie lumps in games 1-16 with HOF QB play,  however the coaches and coordinators who's teams make the playoffs are going to target your teams weakest link until you can stop them, unfortunately this teams weakest link always seams to be youthfulness inexperience at crucial positions, at crucial times in the winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB is without a doubt the one position that wins you games in the NFL.  If it is a curse to have a franchise QB, then I'm happy that GB is cursed.

I'd love a defense to go with him.  And we are kind of getting there.  If you have a franchise QB, you change your draft philosophy.  Defense, defense, defense.  Find a pass rush, find corners and hope your franchise QB puts you up a few scores and turn it into a passing game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

QB is without a doubt the one position that wins you games in the NFL.  If it is a curse to have a franchise QB, then I'm happy that GB is cursed.

I'd love a defense to go with him.  And we are kind of getting there.  If you have a franchise QB, you change your draft philosophy.  Defense, defense, defense.  Find a pass rush, find corners and hope your franchise QB puts you up a few scores and turn it into a passing game.

Oh believe me, I'm happy where GB is at with Rodgers. My point is more...

Is it a lazy talking point because everyone just wants to focus on Rodgers and make him EVEN BETTER... or is GB's roster truly average talent wise sans Rodgers?

Are Nelson, Cobb, Adams average talents? Bennett, Kendricks average? Haha, Burnett, Jones average? Matthews, Perry, Brooks? Daniels, Lowery, Clark, Dial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Bennett, Kendricks, Jones, Brooks, Lowry, Clark, and Dial are all arguably average players or worse.

Ya put Clark at average for his position? I'd have him and Bennett, well the Bennett I knew above that line. Brooks on it. Everyone else below. Josh Jones is probably a ?? If that's who we're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Ya put Clark at average for his position? I'd have him and Bennett, well the Bennett I knew above that line. Brooks on it. Everyone else below. Josh Jones is probably a ?? If that's who we're talking about.

I think Clark is a solid player, but the man has 0 sacks and 19 career tackles.

I just haven't been impressed with Bennett. He's 30 now and I'm not sure how he looks into the future. Limited wheels aren't going to improve and he's already limited in the passing game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I think Clark is a solid player, but the man has 0 sacks and 19 career tackles.

I just haven't been impressed with Bennett. He's 30 now and I'm not sure how he looks into the future. Limited wheels aren't going to improve and he's already limited in the passing game

I would agree that Bennett has been less impressive than I anticipated thus far.   I just see his body type and potential knowledge of finding spots in the D to get /be open.  He needs to be a move the chains option on 3rd down and another redzone target option.   The big plays are Nelson, Adams and Cobb, with Bennett drawing enough attention to open more space for those 3.

Lets see how the next few games go with a hopefully more healthy OL.  GB starting OT have played a grand total of what...7 quarters of a possible 32.  Get that turned around and the offense likely looks vastly different on many fronts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I think Clark is a solid player, but the man has 0 sacks and 19 career tackles.

I just haven't been impressed with Bennett. He's 30 now and I'm not sure how he looks into the future. Limited wheels aren't going to improve and he's already limited in the passing game

Rodgers needs to throw it to him properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I think Clark is a solid player, but the man has 0 sacks and 19 career tackles.

I just haven't been impressed with Bennett. He's 30 now and I'm not sure how he looks into the future. Limited wheels aren't going to improve and he's already limited in the passing game

Was Clark drafted to be a pass rusher or a guy to engage linemen so others could be free to get after the QB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Green19 said:

But a recent topic in the sporting world media is... Green Bay has an average to below average roster "talent wise" and would be nothing without Aaron Rodgers.

I disagree with this.  Where exactly are the Packers deficient talent wise? I would say LB and CB, and we would probably like the pass rush to have a little more teeth.  The offense could also use a little more speed, and a true stud RB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...