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

[th87]

16 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

It was said quite a few posts ago. Easy to lose track of the conversation in some of these threads 

I just reread, and it does seem like some are putting Eli and Ben in the GOAT tier. I disagree - only Rodgers, Manning, Brady, Montana, and Marino (the Dolphins failed him) belong there. 

[th87]

9 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Stick with the same argument.  You said our offense in 2015 sucked because Richard Rodgers wasn't able to threaten the seam vertically.  I countered that Jordy Nelson's absence played a bigger role in that, and you countered with this argument.  Even if you want to go towards your argument, Jordy Nelson wasn't his normal self until around midseason of the 2016 season.  The fact is that aside from 2015, the Packers had a good offense in 2013 and 2014 even without a legitimate TE to attack the middle of the field (after the Finley injury) so why is Jared Cook suddenly the magic piece to fix that offensive issue?  The answer is it isn't.

How is that a different argument? I asserted that RR being bad stagnated our offense. You said, no, it was the loss of Nelson that did that. I asserted that we had Jordy (and RR starting in 2016), and our offense was still stagnant, so it probably couldn't have been that. Only after Cook got healthy and replaced RR did the offense take off. 

Now you assert that it was Jordy becoming his old self that really helped. And now I assert that he missed the Giants and Cowboy playoff games, and the offense was just fine. 

So summary:

No Nelson + RR = offense bad

Nelson + RR = offense still bad

Nelson + Cook = offense good 

No Nelson + Cook = offense still good

So replacing RR with Cook appears to be the difference. And in previous years, we still had Quarless who could threaten the seam.

[RoellPreston88]

5 hours ago, Green19 said:

You can always stop watching the Packers and stop buying Packers apparel. Affect their bottom line. The board will then pressure Murphy to take action. If you really want change...

This is how it would happen. Because the board and the Packers care about money as much or more than winning.

 

I truly believe this, but I'm not sure if I can be upset about it - they are business men after all.

[SpeightTheVillain]

5 hours ago, th87 said:

I just reread, and it does seem like some are putting Eli and Ben in the GOAT tier. I disagree - only Rodgers, Manning, Brady, Montana, and Marino (the Dolphins failed him) belong there. 

If you are referring to me, I am decidedly not.

I was just logically extending the HOF argument to its limits.

I will say that the current Packers have been more successful then one of those 4 quarterbacks, and possibly 3 depending on how far you weigh the luck involved in Super Bowl winning. 

I would honestly put them in the second most successful franchise in the modern playoff format.

I feel like people are angry just because we happen to exist in the same time frame of the most, if not tied for the most (depending on how you view Lombardi's Packers) successful franchise in NFL history. 

[CWood21]

On 10/19/2017 at 6:14 PM, th87 said:

How is that a different argument? I asserted that RR being bad stagnated our offense. You said, no, it was the loss of Nelson that did that. I asserted that we had Jordy (and RR starting in 2016), and our offense was still stagnant, so it probably couldn't have been that. Only after Cook got healthy and replaced RR did the offense take off. 

Because you're essentially trying to insert the notion that the 3rd or 4th option (at best) in our offense is the reason for our struggles.  That's like saying that our dime corner is the reason a healthy defense would struggle.  It's non-sensical.  Does having a TE who can attack the seam open up our offense?  I think we'd be foolish to think otherwise, but the fact that you think that Richard Rodgers' poor play has more to do with the Packers' struggles offensively more than Jordy Nelson' absence is crazy.  When one player gets 100+ targets per year, and the other one gets about half of that why would you think the guy who impacts the game less has a bigger role in the offense?  We've had a good offense with Richard Rodgers as our starting TE, and we've had a bad offense with Rodgers as our starting TE.

[RoellPreston88]

Today was more on MM than TT, but the defense did its usual 2nd half defecation. 

[TheOnlyThing]

1 game in, the non-Aaron Rodgers Packers did not exactly look like a talent-laden crew.

9 more to go.

[th87]

On 10/21/2017 at 2:45 PM, CWood21 said:

Because you're essentially trying to insert the notion that the 3rd or 4th option (at best) in our offense is the reason for our struggles.  That's like saying that our dime corner is the reason a healthy defense would struggle.  It's non-sensical.  Does having a TE who can attack the seam open up our offense?  I think we'd be foolish to think otherwise, but the fact that you think that Richard Rodgers' poor play has more to do with the Packers' struggles offensively more than Jordy Nelson' absence is crazy.  When one player gets 100+ targets per year, and the other one gets about half of that why would you think the guy who impacts the game less has a bigger role in the offense?  We've had a good offense with Richard Rodgers as our starting TE, and we've had a bad offense with Rodgers as our starting TE.

If you don't think players make huge impacts without showing up in the stat sheet (and this is what you're arguing by giving me RR target numbers), then I don't know what to tell you. 

When has our offense been good with RR as a starter? 

[th87]

On 10/20/2017 at 12:19 AM, SpeightTheVillain said:

If you are referring to me, I am decidedly not.

I was just logically extending the HOF argument to its limits.

I will say that the current Packers have been more successful then one of those 4 quarterbacks, and possibly 3 depending on how far you weigh the luck involved in Super Bowl winning. 

I would honestly put them in the second most successful franchise in the modern playoff format.

I feel like people are angry just because we happen to exist in the same time frame of the most, if not tied for the most (depending on how you view Lombardi's Packers) successful franchise in NFL history. 

This isn't about first or second for me. It's more about whether we've maximized our opportunities. I say no. 

[CWood21]

41 minutes ago, th87 said:

If you don't think players make huge impacts without showing up in the stat sheet (and this is what you're arguing by giving me RR target numbers), then I don't know what to tell you. 

When has our offense been good with RR as a starter? 

I'm convinced you literally have no idea what we're discussing.  I've said that the Packers have had a good offense despite Richard Rodgers being a part of our offense.  In 2015, when you cited the Packers having a "bad" offense with Richard Rodgers as our starting TE, he was 4th in terms of targets.  A year later, he was sixth in terms of targets a mere 5 more targets than Jared Cook.  Do you not understand how the injury to Jordy Nelson forced Richard Rodgers into a bigger role than he should have?  That's why your argument about RR being the "issue" with the 2015 offense being highly unlikely, and at best highly subjective.  Sure, him playing a bigger role wasn't ideal, but why did that happen?  Oh yeah, because Jordy Nelson got injured.

[th87]

10 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'm convinced you literally have no idea what we're discussing.  I've said that the Packers have had a good offense despite Richard Rodgers being a part of our offense.  In 2015, when you cited the Packers having a "bad" offense with Richard Rodgers as our starting TE, he was 4th in terms of targets.  A year later, he was sixth in terms of targets a mere 5 more targets than Jared Cook.  Do you not understand how the injury to Jordy Nelson forced Richard Rodgers into a bigger role than he should have?  That's why your argument about RR being the "issue" with the 2015 offense being highly unlikely, and at best highly subjective.  Sure, him playing a bigger role wasn't ideal, but why did that happen?  Oh yeah, because Jordy Nelson got injured.

You should probably stick to the argument rather than what would be an ironically misplaced application of snark, Mr. Moderator. 

I'll try this again. 

Thesis: As a starter, RR's inability to threaten the seam made it harder for our receivers to get open; this being one of the main reasons for our offensive stagnation.

- With RR as starter, our offense sucked equally when Jordy was out (2015), and when he was in (early 2016).

- With Cook as a starter, our offense performed far better when Jordy was out (2016 playoffs), and when he was in (late 2016).

Conclusion: RR was a huge factor in our offensive struggles. Cook was a huge factor in its recovery.

How is this that hard? If you want to counter this argument, you'll have to show me examples in which we had good offensive output with RR as a starter. 

 

[CWood21]

Just now, th87 said:

You should probably stick to the argument rather than what would be an ironically misplaced application of snark, Mr. Moderator. 

I'll try this again. 

Thesis: As a starter, RR's inability to threaten the seam made it harder for our receivers to get open; this being one of the main reasons for our offensive stagnation.

- With RR as starter, our offense sucked equally when Jordy was out (2015), and when he was in (early 2016).

- With Cook as a starter, our offense performed far better when Jordy was out (2016 playoffs), and when he was in (late 2016).

Conclusion: RR was a huge factor in our offensive struggles. Cook was a huge factor in its recovery.

How is this that hard? If you want to counter this argument, you'll have to show me examples in which we had good offensive output with RR as a starter. 

 

You said that Richard Rodgers inability to threaten the seam was the reason our offense struggled in 2015.  I countered and said that Jordy Nelson's injury was the bigger reason for their struggles.  I then cited the fact that Richard Rodgers' bigger role was a direct result of Jordy Nelson's absence.  I'll ask you again, do you think Richard Rodgers would have had as big a role as he did in 2015 had Jordy stayed healthy?    Stop making the assumption that just because the Packers offense jumped with a different TE, when the obvious answer is staring you right in the face.  We had a good offense in 2014 and a good offense in 2016, what was the one constant in that?  Jordy Nelson.

[th87]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

You said that Richard Rodgers inability to threaten the seam was the reason our offense struggled in 2015.  I countered and said that Jordy Nelson's injury was the bigger reason for their struggles.  I then cited the fact that Richard Rodgers' bigger role was a direct result of Jordy Nelson's absence.  I'll ask you again, do you think Richard Rodgers would have had as big a role as he did in 2015 had Jordy stayed healthy?    Stop making the assumption that just because the Packers offense jumped with a different TE, when the obvious answer is staring you right in the face.  We had a good offense in 2014 and a good offense in 2016, what was the one constant in that?  Jordy Nelson.

But Nelson regained his role in 2016, and the offense still sucked with RR as a starter. 

You're arguing that this was because Nelson wasn't back to form yet, and I disagree - Nelson doesn't look any better physically today than he did in say, week 4 of 2016.

So process of elimination leads me to believe that RR was the bigger reason. You can disagree if you want, but don't make baseless statements like my argument is changing or whatever. In very few circumstances in which RR has received significant snaps has this offense been successful. 

In 2014, Quarless was the starter.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, th87 said:

But Nelson regained his role in 2016, and the offense still sucked with RR as a starter. 

You're arguing that this was because Nelson wasn't back to form yet, and I disagree - Nelson doesn't look any better physically today than he did in say, week 4 of 2016.

So process of elimination leads me to believe that RR was the bigger reason. You can disagree if you want, but don't make baseless statements like my argument is changing or whatever. In very few circumstances in which RR has received significant snaps has this offense been successful. 

In 2014, Quarless was the starter.

Do you truly believe that Jordy Nelson was 100% when the season started in 2016?  No.  If you believe that the difference between Jordy a year or so removed from an ACL surgery and 4 years leads me to believe you've never suffered a knee injury.  You don't trust your knee for sometime after.

You're jumping to the conclusion based on a faulty assumption.  Correlation doesn't equal causation.  Just because he was a bigger part of the offense (in large part due to Jordy's injury), doesn't mean he was the problem with the offense.  If the player is put into a position he's not supposed to be in, does that make it his fault?  No, the injury to Jordy forced that issue ergo Jordy's ACL tear was the cause, and RR's increase in targets was the affect.

[HyponGrey]

Are we forgetting that essentially the same chiefs team as the year before when they had the #1 overall pick all of a sudden made the playoffs with after grabbing Alex Smith? How are the Broncos doing again? 

The only indictment against Ted I have is that the mass amount of picks he sunk into the D did near diddly. Can't say he didn't try, but talent and coaching either didn't meet or didn't measure up.