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

[incognito_man]

Just now, th87 said:

I'm a fan with eyes who *can* see that RR is too slow to threaten the seam and too bad of a blocker to make a difference in the run game.  I can also be relatively confident that there's someone better out there at a reasonable cost.

However I *can't* go back and watch game tape of other upcoming FAs to make a decision on who definitively would be better.  As a fan, I could make a guess (maybe Daniels, maybe Miller), but that's not my area of expertise.

Maybe we're very different. I'm never reasonably confident about anything I've never looked into. Often, I'm curious and look into it, however!

[SpeightTheVillain]

3 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

If the goal is making the playoffs for the most consecutive seasons it cannot possibly be disputed that the Packers under Ted Thompson have been as successful as any team in the NFL including the Colts with Manning and the Pats with Brady (NE has also been to the playoffs the last 8 seasons).

Of course, under this standard, the Cincinnati Bengals and coach Marvin Lewis have also been a highly successful franchise given their 6 appearances in 7 years (including 5 in a row) between 2009 and 2015.

You can't win the superbowl if your not in the playoffs. Have been every single year under Rodgers but his first. I don't see why TT and MM don't get credit for that kind of run.

Plus, OP was saying HOF QBs = automatic playoffs. This simply isn't true

And yes during that stretch the Bengals were a highly successful franchise. Don't think that is a crazy thing to say

[packfanfb]

3 hours 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.

Tell that to Howard Green. We don't beat the Steelers without him. That's a fact. He made the one play a cheaper UDFA that we usually settle for couldnt make.

[incognito_man]

2 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Tell that to Howard Green. We don't beat the Steelers without him. That's a fact. He made the one play a cheaper UDFA that we usually settle for couldnt make.

that is actually not a fact.

It was a good play by Green, however.

[th87]

2 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Maybe we're very different. I'm never reasonably confident about anything I've never looked into. Often, I'm curious and look into it, however!

I wouldn't consider it a huge leap of faith to believe there are reasonably-priced TEs available every year who are better than RR.  I mean, we signed 3 in two years.

[Pugger]

3 hours ago, MantyWrestler said:

It remains to be seen. We should win half our remaining games. If not, I think it’s on TT a little.

That said, the NFL is set up to work against the Packers here. It’s not like fantasy football where you draft up and down. We continue to be in the bottom of every round because we have been good so it’s harder for TT to shine. 

If we don't win half of our remaining games I think to blame it on Ted is very unfair.   Our GM isn't clairvoyant so there is no way to be prepared for the number of injuries, especially the number of guys hurt on our OL.  I would love to know if another team has been devastated by injuries to one unit like we have been the past 2 seasons.  

[Green19]

5 hours ago, th87 said:

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.

 

The bold is opinion, not objective fact. First, Rodgers is in the conversation for GOAT, but isn't just out right the GOAT because you think so. Secondly, gets you there by default?

Tell Drew Brees that. Tell Ben and Eli that... and they have more Super Bowls then Rodgers.

Elway made the playoffs 10 out of his 16 years. Mario made the playoffs 10 out of his 17 years. Favre made the playoffs 12 out of his 20 years. Joe Montana made the playoffs 11 out of his 16.

Great QBs get you to the playoffs pretty consistently but it's not a given or default. All together those great QBs made the playoffs 62% of the time.

[Green19]

5 hours ago, th87 said:

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.

This statement is based in "ifs" and "coulds".

My main issue with most arguments against Ted or McCarthy is that it's assumed Rodgers is a cure all and has been carrying everyone. This leads to the thinking that if we replace people it can ONLY get better, because Rodgers would achieve 10+ wins and playoffs in any given situation. I don't think Rodgers gets to the playoffs with Indy, 49ers, Cleveland, Bears, etc.

So people can discuss holding both guys responsible for losing in the postseason, but clarify what is meant. Does that mean firing them? If so who would the replacements be? And is it a guarantee these new people will be better? It's the devil you know versus the one you don't. New hires could be way worse and waste 2-3 years of Rodgers' career.

[Packer_ESP]

6 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

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.

The Super Bowl is a one game affair where anything can happen, I don't think it's a good measuring stick to determine if the AFC or NFC are more talented. Let's look at who emerged from the playoffs in each conference:

Since 2008 5 AFC teams have represented the AFC in the Super Bowl (Ravens, Colts, Steelers x2, Broncos x2, Patriots x4). Some argue that Colts / Broncos are the same because of Manning but I won't do that - there's a lot more to a team than the QB and one could argue that the Broncos got there in 2015 despite Manning, not because of him.

For the NFC it's 8 teams (Falcons, Panthers, 49ers, Packers, Saints, Cardinals, Giants x2, Seahawks x2). It looks like the playoff picture is a lot more disputed and open here.

I don't know how you can argue that the AFC is not extremely top heavy. Most of the AFC South has sucked for a long time, same with the AFC East, the North is somewhat competitive but still has the Browns (and the Bengals always disappoint). The West is probably the most competitive division there but Oakland was pretty bad for a long time too.

EDIT: it's not just who emerges from the playoffs, it's who gets there to begin with. This is the list of current post-season droughts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFL_franchise_post-season_droughts

Let's exclude teams that just didn't make the playoffs last season (1 season droughts) and go for actual droughts of 2+ seasons:

8 AFC teams with drougths averaging 7.625 seasons without playoffs

6 NFC teams with droughts averaging 6 seasons

[pollino14]

I'll read this thread later, but I'm going to say it depends on how Hundley does. If he plays average to above average and the team falters, then yes, there will and should be an indictment on someone. If he plays below average, then it's kinda hard to win without a QB and I'd put no blame on him. Depends on how we look. 

[LacyIsGood]

I think TT generally does a great job getting talent on this team.

It's the coaching staff that has been a let down the past three years IMO.  I don't even want MM gone though.  I think this terrible setback with Rodgers will be enough for them to rethink what they have been doing offensively.  

Capers is alright too, but I think the defense is a bit stale.  It might just be time to move on there.  

[TheOnlyThing]

7 hours ago, Green19 said:

The bold is opinion, not objective fact. First, Rodgers is in the conversation for GOAT, but isn't just out right the GOAT because you think so. Secondly, gets you there by default?

Tell Drew Brees that. Tell Ben and Eli that... and they have more Super Bowls then Rodgers.

Elway made the playoffs 10 out of his 16 years. Mario made the playoffs 10 out of his 17 years. Favre made the playoffs 12 out of his 20 years. Joe Montana made the playoffs 11 out of his 16.

Great QBs get you to the playoffs pretty consistently but it's not a given or default. All together those great QBs made the playoffs 62% of the time.

Elway, Favre, and Montana were all great QBs. However, Elway and Montana played during a different era of football. One in which, for example, RBs were still seen as critically important to a team's success.

As for Favre, it is true he only made the playoffs 12 of 20 years. Of course, that record is more than a bit misleading as it includes his rookie year in Atlanta when he threw 4 passes and two of his last three seasons when he was with the Jets & Vikes, respectively.

And by that measure, Rodgers has made the playoffs only 9 of 12 seasons including his first two when he was a little used backup.

For many Packer fans, the true comparators to Aaron Rodgers are Tom Brady and to a lesser extent Peyton Manning. Truly transcendent QBs who played several seasons while Rodgers was the QB of the Pack in the case of Manning or are still playing in the case of Brady.

Manning made the playoffs 15 of the 17 years he played, missing out only in his rookie season and fourth season.

Brady meanwhile, has been to the playoffs 14 of 17 years , including the last 8 in a row. And that includes 2008 when he played 1 game tore his knee and the Pats finished 11-5 but not in the playoffs as well as his rookie season when he threw all of 3 passes.

While Rodgers has made the playoffs at a similar clip as Manning and Brady lending credence to the argument that having a QB of their stature nearly guarantees a playoff appearance, there is one area in which the three QBs differ.

Brady has played in 7 Super Bowls and won 5. Manning played in 4 Super Bowls and won 2. 

 

[SpeightTheVillain]

1 hour ago, TheOnlyThing said:

Elway, Favre, and Montana were all great QBs. However, Elway and Montana played during a different era of football. One in which, for example, RBs were still seen as critically important to a team's success.

As for Favre, it is true he only made the playoffs 12 of 20 years. Of course, that record is more than a bit misleading as it includes his rookie year in Atlanta when he threw 4 passes and two of his last three seasons when he was with the Jets & Vikes, respectively.

And by that measure, Rodgers has made the playoffs only 9 of 12 seasons including his first two when he was a little used backup.

For many Packer fans, the true comparators to Aaron Rodgers are Tom Brady and to a lesser extent Peyton Manning. Truly transcendent QBs who played several seasons while Rodgers was the QB of the Pack in the case of Manning or are still playing in the case of Brady.

Manning made the playoffs 15 of the 17 years he played, missing out only in his rookie season and fourth season.

Brady meanwhile, has been to the playoffs 14 of 17 years , including the last 8 in a row. And that includes 2008 when he played 1 game tore his knee and the Pats finished 11-5 but not in the playoffs as well as his rookie season when he threw all of 3 passes.

While Rodgers has made the playoffs at a similar clip as Manning and Brady lending credence to the argument that having a QB of their stature nearly guarantees a playoff appearance, there is one area in which the three QBs differ.

Brady has played in 7 Super Bowls and won 5. Manning played in 4 Super Bowls and won 2. 

 

This is a ridiculous and circular argument. You just made the point for me. Why are those two the only comparable?

Perhaps because they are literally the only 2 you could make an argument for being more successful, and they are specifically chosen to fit your agenda?

Brees, Roethlisberger, and Eli Manning all have a shot at Canton. Where are they on your comparisons? What about the 9 players already in Canton who played in the modern playoff format? 

[jontat83]

There are damning indictments already with the Defense this team has put out for years and those playoff exits. Ted and his staff control the player acquisition, drafting evaluation and HC hiring and McCarthy controls the coaches and has stuck by Capers.

If the Packers miss the playoffs it won't be anything new in my mind. This team has already had major failings.

[Green19]

4 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

For many Packer fans, the true comparators to Aaron Rodgers are Tom Brady and to a lesser extent Peyton Manning. Truly transcendent QBs who played several seasons while Rodgers was the QB of the Pack in the case of Manning or are still playing in the case of Brady.

The statement given to me was the GOAT gets you to the playoffs by default. I looked at other GOATs... they don't just make the playoffs. To your point... yes it doesn't account for rookie years but again you can't just cherry pick, I judged them off just "their careers". Some become great before others.

Over their careers they are 62%. That's fact. 

Also just picking Brady and Manning is cherry picking. Ben and Eli have as many Super Bowls as Manning but their teams have missed playoffs during their run so they don't fit your arguement.

Look I get it... everyone wants what the Patriots have. But let's not act like that is the norm, or even a realistic standard.

I agree that that's what teams and front offices should push for but as fans and historians you have to step back and realize what the Patriots have done is very unique.

Better QB talents then Tom Brady have collectively less Super Bowls then him (Elway, Rodgers, Favre, Marino). How can that be explain? 

Again if people want to discuss a systematic break down of why Ted and McCarthy are long over due to be remove because their coaching is stale, their talent evaluation is flawed...I'm game. But don't act like just because  they can't do what the patriots have done... with a better QB, is a viable argument. Elway and Marino are just as amazing talented as Rodgers... one has 2 Super Bowls the other 0.