skibrett15 Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, incognito_man said: every team of course we're still 19th in DVOA after week 3, and we'll see how we look after the opponent adjustments kick in after this week. I'd expect we are somewhere in the 12-15 range, which seems about right based on what we've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: we're still 19th in DVOA after week 3, and we'll see how we look after the opponent adjustments kick in after this week. doesn't fit my narrative. dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 Just now, incognito_man said: doesn't fit my narrative. dismissed. LOL. We're certainly better than 19th. I'm toying around with the idea that defensive rankings, points allowed, etc. really are only predictive of success vs average NFL teams in regular season games. Once we get to the playoffs, I'd argue that gameplanning, opponent elite offensive talent/matchups, and scheme matter in ways that are very different than those that contribute to the overall regular season success. Yes, those things do matter in the regular season and over time, but a mismatch in any of those factors can just blow a playoff game wide open. Very likely that I'm just taking small sample sizes (playoff games) and blowing them out of proportion, then assigning reasoning based on results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeightTheVillain Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 I think people are looking at this wrong way. Could it be possible that we have built the team this way because they have Rodgers? People think that TT has a philosophy that he would stick with regardless but he has had HOF caliber QB play his whole time here, that definitely effects team building. If we didn't have Rodgers, we would see a much different team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeightTheVillain Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 4 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: So that's a "No" for swapping rosters with HOU or CIN with Rodgers at QB? I guess that's all I need to know, and we can agree to disagree. This is an absurd argument. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE. Rodgers cap hit is roughly 20 million. Houston only has 17 million in cap space. Cinci has 12 million. Having a QB who makes that much does effect what we are able to do with the rest of the roster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 47 minutes ago, SpeightTheVillain said: I think people are looking at this wrong way. Could it be possible that we have built the team this way because they have Rodgers? People think that TT has a philosophy that he would stick with regardless but he has had HOF caliber QB play his whole time here, that definitely effects team building. If we didn't have Rodgers, we would see a much different team. I agree with this. Constructing the team around a top QB vs not. More investment in running game, defense, etc. More cap resources to do so as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 1 hour ago, SpeightTheVillain said: This is an absurd argument. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE. Rodgers cap hit is roughly 20 million. Houston only has 17 million in cap space. Cinci has 12 million. Having a QB who makes that much does effect what we are able to do with the rest of the roster The question was strictly related to talent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeightTheVillain Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 19 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: The question was strictly related to talent But that's the point. Talent costs $$. The difference in salaries between Dalton and Rodgers is worth a Geno Atkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 1 minute ago, SpeightTheVillain said: But that's the point. Talent costs $$. The difference in salaries between Dalton and Rodgers is worth a Geno Atkins I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that the discussion you initially quoted was based purely on which roster had better talent at the non-QB positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeightTheVillain Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that the discussion you initially quoted was based purely on which roster had better talent at the non-QB positions. OK my bad. Not sure I agree with the basic statement, but I thought you were arguing for Rick Smith or Mike Brown over TT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SassyFascistAlphaGuy Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 Teams absolutely stacked with talent on defense with no Elite QB = Minnesota, Cincinnati, Miami, Jacksonville, St. Louis, Baltimore. Yet, we know for a fact that none of those teams have a shot at the Superbowl this year. 0% shot. Why? Because they have no QB that can get them there. An elite QB gives you a shot at the Superbowl every year. Those teams on defense are more talented than GB but I would take GB over each team because of...... Aaron Rodgers. And trust me, so would their coaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 I do not know for a fact that 2017 MIN with Bradford has no chance of winning the SB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugger Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 9 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: Replace Rodgers with Hundley tomorrow, get back everyone who's injured, and IMO it's an uphill battle to make the playoffs. I think the team's performance when Rodgers went down in 2013 speaks for itself, and I don't imagine this iteration of the team would fare any better with Hundley running the offense. When Rodgers went down in 2013 his #1 backup Seneca Wallace went down in the same game and his backup hadn't been around long enough to learn the offense. If, god forbid, Rodgers got hurt again Hundley would run this offense better than or Tolzien did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 11 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: Replace Rodgers with Hundley tomorrow, get back everyone who's injured, and IMO it's an uphill battle to make the playoffs. I think the team's performance when Rodgers went down in 2013 speaks for itself, and I don't imagine this iteration of the team would fare any better with Hundley running the offense. You could make this argument for any team that has to insert their backup QB instead of their actual starting QB. Let's use the Vikings for example, do you think they're better or worse than the Packers across the board? I'm not sure there's a positional group on offense where I'd take their offensive players over ours. I'd definitely take our WR over theirs, I'd take our TE over theirs, and I'd definitely take our OL over theirs. Defensively, they're better and I don't think anyone is going to fight that too hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 Taking the specific example of the Vikings, first they are paying Bradford an 18 mil cap hit this year. There isn't a ton of cash saved. Even ignoring the QB completely Green Bay is better on offense by a significantly wider margin than Minnesota is ahead defensively. There just isn't some huge talent disparity from having a true elite QB. It's just a lazy media talking point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.