If the Packers struggle without Rodgers, is it an indictment on Ted Thompson?

[incognito_man]

10 minutes ago, Green19 said:

Patriots also went like 10 years between Brady's 3rd and 4th Super Bowl. Sure they went to 2 within that time frame but still.

Plus New England had a favorable schedule year in and year out. Outside of the early Jets Rex Ryan years when has any division rival changed them... really? The New England model is a funny thing to reference if you look at everything.

They also have had 2 major cheating scandals as well.

and far weaker competition. The 9ers and Seahawks GB has had to face is better than anything else in the AFC over the last decade or so

[th87]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

And going all-in "every year" is when the Packers are in salary cap hell and contenders for only part of Rodgers' career rather than most of it.  Are you willing to slightly increase your chances of winning knowing full well that there will be seasons where you won't be real contenders?

I don't think we end up in cap hell if we had simply replaced the likes of MD Jennings, Jake Ryan, etc. with low-cost veterans.

For example, replacing RR with someone like Kendricks would have made a huge difference in 2015. I doubt moves like that put us in cap hell. 

I firmly believe we would've won more than 10-11 games a year then. That gives us HFA, and who knows after that. 

I also don't believe the narrative that players don't want to come here.

[squire12]

11 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

and far weaker competition. The 9ers and Seahawks GB has had to face is better than anything else in the AFC over the last decade or so

Pitt, Indy, San Diego, Denver, Baltimore would all beg to differ with you on that.

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, th87 said:

I don't think we end up in cap hell if we had simply replaced the likes of MD Jennings, Jake Ryan, etc. with low-cost veterans.

For example, replacing RR with someone like Kendricks would have made a huge difference in 2015. I doubt moves like that put us in cap hell. 

I firmly believe we would've won more than 10-11 games a year then. That gives us HFA, and who knows after that. 

I also don't believe the narrative that players don't want to come here.

Except for the fact that the vocal majority that have been critical of TT's lack of activity in FA aren't being vocal about the signings of guys like Quinton Dial or RJF.  They're advocating going out and grabbing someone on the level of Martellus Bennett offseason after offseason.  Does anyone truly believe that Lance Kendricks really pushes the needle for the Packers?  Absolutely not.  In fact, his snap counts from this season prove that.

[th87]

26 minutes ago, Green19 said:

Patriots also went like 10 years between Brady's 3rd and 4th Super Bowl. Sure they went to 2 within that time frame but still.

Plus New England had a favorable schedule year in and year out. Outside of the early Jets Rex Ryan years when has any division rival changed them... really? The New England model is a funny thing to reference if you look at everything.

They also have had 2 major cheating scandals as well.

No "but still". In addition to losing two SBs by a hair, they at least advanced to their championship game in 5 of those years. And you're selectively and arbitrarily choosing their worst stretch.

Our division rivals suck too.

[th87]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Except for the fact that the vocal majority that have been critical of TT's lack of activity in FA aren't being vocal about the signings of guys like Quinton Dial or RJF.  They're advocating going out and grabbing someone on the level of Martellus Bennett offseason after offseason.  Does anyone truly believe that Lance Kendricks really pushes the needle for the Packers?  Absolutely not.  In fact, his snap counts from this season prove that.

I don't know if I believe that. Most TT "haters" advocate for depth veterans, and not Haynesworth type signings. 

Most are pretty happy about this past offseason. I doubt we end up in cap hell in the following years as a result of this.

A Lance Kendricks would've opened up a stagnant offense far better than RR did. And we were content slogging through a wasted season with that weakness.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, th87 said:

I don't know if I believe that. Most TT "haters" advocate for depth veterans, and not Haynesworth type signings. 

Most are pretty happy about this past offseason. I doubt we end up in cap hell in the following years as a result of this.

A Lance Kendricks would've opened up a stagnant offense far better than RR did. And we were content slogging through a wasted season with that weakness.

You and I both know that's not the case.  According to PFR, Lance Kendricks is playing in 22.98% of the offensive snaps.  Do you truly believe that someone whose playing less than a quarter of the offensive snaps as someone whose going to open up the offense?  No.  Players like Lance Kendricks, RJF, Quinton Dial, etc. don't change the outcome of a season, nor do they really impact the team.  It's not the argument to be made.

[Green19]

9 minutes ago, th87 said:

No "but still". In addition to losing two SBs by a hair, they at least advanced to their championship game in 5 of those years. And you're selectively and arbitrarily choosing their worst stretch.

Our division rivals suck too.

I'm being selective because others are being selective. You can't just say "Patriots do it... so should we". Conference, division, everything is different. It's literally apples v. oranges.

And even the great patriots had a long dry spell between Super Bowls... cause it's hard. Everything needs to line up.

Just like you said Patriots lost 2 close Super Bowls... McCarthy and Ted lost 2 close NFC championships. We win those we have a shot at Super Bowls... so how would 3 Super Bowls sense 2006 look to everyone?

Success should be measured on playoff appearances because if you get into the dance anything can happen... Aaron's lone Super bowl proves the that.

Ted and McCarthy have gotten Green Bay to 8 straight appearances. They have put the team in the best position to win a Super Bowl consistently.

If people want to discuss a regime change because it's gotten stale... that's fine. I get that. But don't act like Ted and McCarthy haven't been one of the most successful GM/HC duo in the modern NFL.

[Green19]

I would also add those 2 patriot super bowl loses came to the same team that knocked out Green Bay those years. So if even the patriots couldn't beat them, how could the Packers hope to? Again if we are using the Patriots as the benchmark.

The patriots just had the benefit of not needing to see them until the Super Bowl.

[th87]

25 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

You and I both know that's not the case.  According to PFR, Lance Kendricks is playing in 22.98% of the offensive snaps.  Do you truly believe that someone whose playing less than a quarter of the offensive snaps as someone whose going to open up the offense?  No.  Players like Lance Kendricks, RJF, Quinton Dial, etc. don't change the outcome of a season, nor do they really impact the team.  It's not the argument to be made.

Couldn't disagree more. Dials and Houses prevent you from starting the likes of MD Jenningses and DJ Smiths. That means teams can't spam attack these weakest links constantly.

Regarding Kendricks, he's far better than RR, who was our starter for 2015, and largely responsible for our offensive woes. And RR plays 13% this year. So yeah, a player like him would've been a sizeable upgrade that year. 

[TheOnlyThing]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

and far weaker competition. The 9ers and Seahawks GB has had to face is better than anything else in the AFC over the last decade or so

There have been 9 Super Bowl winners since ARod became QB in 2008:

Pitt, New Orleans, GB, NYG, Baltimore, Seattle, NE, Denver, and NE.

I count 5 AFC wins by 4 different AFC teams compared to 4 NFC wins by 4 different NFC teams.

I don't see the huge disparity in talent between the NFC and AFC over the past 9 years.

[incognito_man]

R Rodgers was ranked right around 30 in DVOA from 2014 to 2016, he wasn't any worse in any of these years. In 2014 Quarless was ranked slightly ahead of him, in '15 and '16 Rodgers was our highest ranked TE.

He didn't have any impact on any perceived offensive woes in 2015. The TE is just not important enough here to have that sort of negative impact.

Perhaps our OLine (ranked 8th and 13th in 2014) was more responsible for any woes in 2015 (ranked 25th and 23rd) in rush and pass respectively. 

[Packerraymond]

There's so many contributing factors you can't place a blanket statement putting the blame on anyone in particular.

#1 you cant win without good QB play. If Brett Hundley flat out sucks and we don't win, I mean sure that's Ted and Mike's fault I guess, but am I going to be overly upset and demand heads roll because our backup QB is bad? No.

#2 Do we ever get healthy? We aren't going to win many games being down to our last 5 OL and 3 DBs on the roster. If we lose 2-3 starters a game all season long this season was lost whether we had Aaron or not.

#3 If we get healthy, Brett plays pretty well but obviously not Rodgers level (think mid/high 80s QBR, 1.5-2 TD/INT ratio) and this team finishes at or below .500 (that's going 4-6 or worse) than yes, this roster isn't good and Ted has been riding Aaron's coat tails. 

[th87]

41 minutes ago, Green19 said:

I'm being selective because others are being selective. You can't just say "Patriots do it... so should we". Conference, division, everything is different. It's literally apples v. oranges.

And even the great patriots had a long dry spell between Super Bowls... cause it's hard. Everything needs to line up.

Just like you said Patriots lost 2 close Super Bowls... McCarthy and Ted lost 2 close NFC championships. We win those we have a shot at Super Bowls... so how would 3 Super Bowls sense 2006 look to everyone?

Success should be measured on playoff appearances because if you get into the dance anything can happen... Aaron's lone Super bowl proves the that.

Ted and McCarthy have gotten Green Bay to 8 straight appearances. They have put the team in the best position to win a Super Bowl consistently.

If people want to discuss a regime change because it's gotten stale... that's fine. I get that. But don't act like Ted and McCarthy haven't been one of the most successful GM/HC duo in the modern NFL.

TT and MM have been one of the most successful, certainly.  I just think they can be better with slight approach changes.

I also don't think success should be measured by playoffs only.  Not when you have the GOAT player - he'll get you there by default.

 

[th87]

31 minutes ago, Green19 said:

I would also add those 2 patriot super bowl loses came to the same team that knocked out Green Bay those years. So if even the patriots couldn't beat them, how could the Packers hope to? Again if we are using the Patriots as the benchmark.

The patriots just had the benefit of not needing to see them until the Super Bowl.

Because the Packers could be better than the Patriots if they're not spinning their wheels on replacement-level players for longer than they need to.