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

[th87]

6 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

I haven't liked Capers for ages. But I think for different reasons than others. Just seems like the players don't respond to him to me. Maybe he's just out of touch with them even though there are times I like the things he does (obviously times where I wonder wth is going on his mind), it seems like the players get down very quickly when things go wrong. 

I get those "voices are covered" but I think there's value in trying to be balanced. When you don't appear balanced I just personally wonder where your perspective lies.

My thing with Capers is simply the results. I know he's a great football mind. But whatever it is, he's presided over some of the worst defensive collapses ever (but does seem to have  Russell Wilson's number, which is important).

[Norm]

I agree with these things. We paid those guys too much. Clay Cobb are getting too much too. I think you'll find that to be semi standard around the league, that's kind of where I'm at with that stuff. Again, doesn't make it okay, but when I look around and see some of these contracts (I play these mock off season games every year so I'll see just about every damn players deal by the end and I think that opens my eyes a bit) and you go okay, yeah lots of teams have these. 

IDK anymore. I really wanna see the rest of this season and then gauge how I feel, it'll be telling.

[Norm]

Just now, th87 said:

My thing with Capers is simply the results. I know he's a great football mind. But whatever it is, he's presided over some of the worst defensive collapses ever (but does seem to have  Russell Wilson's number, which is important).

Which is fair. I talk about outcomes a lot though. Sometimes you can do "all the right things" and it just doesn't work. Best laid plans type of thing. I think Capers has had it happen too many times to really look and go, well this is still okay. Truly think this is his last year here though.

Not really directed at you but sometimes certain fans think winning the SB is like solving a rubik's cube. There are these series of moves you make and you solve it and win. And since we continue to not, we don't know the series of moves. That's not how I view winning the SB. Things need to go right. Truth is, I think a lot of luck is involved. 

[th87]

2 hours ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Which is fair. I talk about outcomes a lot though. Sometimes you can do "all the right things" and it just doesn't work. Best laid plans type of thing. I think Capers has had it happen too many times to really look and go, well this is still okay. Truly think this is his last year here though.

Not really directed at you but sometimes certain fans think winning the SB is like solving a rubik's cube. There are these series of moves you make and you solve it and win. And since we continue to not, we don't know the series of moves. That's not how I view winning the SB. Things need to go right. Truth is, I think a lot of luck is involved. 

Oh absolutely luck is a huge factor. But I've questioned whether we had done enough to minimize the luck factor as much as possible.

I truly believe we could reach almost-Patriots level of success if we take some relatively "minor" measures, like moving on from Capers and putting a little more attention on the bottom of the roster. I suspect that would minimize the "meltdown" type games.

Maybe we'd still lose on the close ones though. But that would signify a different problem with a different solution. 

I'd just like the Packers to rule my belief out before I'm satisfied with the explanations given.

[packfanfb]

6 hours ago, th87 said:

My thing with Capers is simply the results. I know he's a great football mind. But whatever it is, he's presided over some of the worst defensive collapses ever (but does seem to have  Russell Wilson's number, which is important).

Yet he presided over a huge defensive collapse in the most important showdown he will ever have against Wilson. We always hear about Bostick sure, but what if the defense simply does not give up 3, yes 3 straight TDs to end that game, plus the two-point conversion? People brush that aside because of how the defense played for 55 minutes of that game, but the final 5 minutes of regulation and the OT series was a defensive collapse.

[th87]

9 hours ago, packfanfb said:

Yet he presided over a huge defensive collapse in the most important showdown he will ever have against Wilson. We always hear about Bostick sure, but what if the defense simply does not give up 3, yes 3 straight TDs to end that game, plus the two-point conversion? People brush that aside because of how the defense played for 55 minutes of that game, but the final 5 minutes of regulation and the OT series was a defensive collapse.

Truth. Absolutely. When the defense melts down, it really melts down.

Now I have two teams with superstars artificially propping up coaches.

[TheOnlyThing]

7 hours ago, th87 said:

Now I have two teams with superstars artificially propping up coaches.

Just the coaches?

[CWood21]

17 hours ago, packfanfb said:

Yet he presided over a huge defensive collapse in the most important showdown he will ever have against Wilson. We always hear about Bostick sure, but what if the defense simply does not give up 3, yes 3 straight TDs to end that game, plus the two-point conversion? People brush that aside because of how the defense played for 55 minutes of that game, but the final 5 minutes of regulation and the OT series was a defensive collapse.

So...a single play that if executed correctly ends the game means less than a dozen (or however many) plays in the several final minutes of regulation and OT?  Not a chance.

[packfanfb]

12 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So...a single play that if executed correctly ends the game means less than a dozen (or however many) plays in the several final minutes of regulation and OT?  Not a chance.

Not saying Bostick gets a pass, that play certainly stands out bc of the magnitude of one play. Offense doesn't get a pass either for not capitalizing on turnovers all game, but we knew going in offense would be hit or miss vs the best defense in football that year and Rodgers on a bum wheel. All I'm saying is, the defense doesn't get a pass either, they didnt finish the game and crumbled when the game was on the line, something we are accustomed to seeing around here.

[packfanfb]

25 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So...a single play that if executed correctly ends the game means less than a dozen (or however many) plays in the several final minutes of regulation and OT?  Not a chance.

This also is a fallacy that has been advanced since day 1. If we recover the onside kick with 2:07 left, Seattle had the 2 minute warning and 1 timeout still. If we dont pick up a first down at best we are punting it back to them with about 1:10 left on the clock. Even if we pin them let's say around the 10 (taking into consideration our field position after the onside kick), would you have have felt good about stopping Seattle after they had just gone 69 yards for a TD in 1:43 without using a timeout? Unless Rodgers picks up a first down after the onside kick, that game STILL comes down to Seattle taking some endzone shots to win in regulation.

[CWood21]

9 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Not saying Bostick gets a pass, that play certainly stands out bc of the magnitude of one play. Offense doesn't get a pass either for not capitalizing on turnovers all game, but we knew going in offense would be hit or miss vs the best defense in football that year and Rodgers on a bum wheel. All I'm saying is, the defense doesn't get a pass either, they didnt finish the game and crumbled when the game was on the line, something we are accustomed to seeing around here.

Nobody is saying give the defense a pass, but the Packers defense went into their prevent defense.  IF the Packers defense doesn't go into their prevent defense, and the Seahawks go down and score than fans are complaining that they didn't have the prevent defense out there.  It's a catch-22.  And it's only an argument that fans can make since the result of the game is negative.  If the Seahawks go onto tie the game, but the Packers win in an overtime it's a small discussion during the week between games, but it's not a weak crutch in a feeble argument.  If you're going to argue that the defense needs change, point to something a little less subjective like 3rd down defense and/or red zone defense.  But trying to use a game where any number of single plays likely changes the outcome of the game isn't valid.

[th87]

42 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Nobody is saying give the defense a pass, but the Packers defense went into their prevent defense.  IF the Packers defense doesn't go into their prevent defense, and the Seahawks go down and score than fans are complaining that they didn't have the prevent defense out there.  It's a catch-22.  And it's only an argument that fans can make since the result of the game is negative.  If the Seahawks go onto tie the game, but the Packers win in an overtime it's a small discussion during the week between games, but it's not a weak crutch in a feeble argument.  If you're going to argue that the defense needs change, point to something a little less subjective like 3rd down defense and/or red zone defense.  But trying to use a game where any number of single plays likely changes the outcome of the game isn't valid.

Man the Seahawks started moving the ball and scoring at will. This was clearly not by design, and a complete collapse. Just one stop wins the game.

[TheOnlyThing]

50 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

 But trying to use a game where any number of single plays likely changes the outcome of the game isn't valid.

Agreed that using a single play or even a single playoff game to judge a defensive coordinator's performance can be deceptive, so let's review the playoff record for the past 6 seasons.

The Packers have made the playoffs the last 6 years and lost short of the Super Bowl each year.

In the games they were eliminated, the Packers allowed 44, 26, 28, 23, 45, and 37 points. That is an average of 34 points.

In those games they allowed 493, 368, 397, 381, 579 and 420 yards. That is an average of 440 yards. 

Oh, and the Pack’s spending on the D ranked 6th (2016), 9th (2015), 2nd (2014), and 9th (2013) overall among NFL teams despite some folks insistence there just were not enough resources available to field a competitive defense because of Aaron Rodgers' contract.

[TheOnlyThing]

2 minutes ago, th87 said:

Man the Seahawks started moving the ball and scoring at will. This was clearly not by design, and a complete collapse. Just one stop wins the game.

Recall Clay went out late in the game, some say he was trying to hide a concussion, and the Seahawks immediately attacked Hawk & Barrington. 

Without Clay at ILB, the defense was just as pathetic in the NFC Championship game against Seattle as it had been in game 1 at Seattle that same season.

[th87]

3 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

Agreed that using a single play or even a single playoff game to judge a defensive coordinator's performance, so let's review the playoff record for the past 6 seasons.

The Packers have made the playoffs the last 6 years and lost short of the Super Bowl each year.

In the games they were eliminated, the Packers allowed 44, 26, 28, 23, 45, and 37 points. That is an average of 34 points.

In those games they allowed 493, 368, 397, 381, 579 and 420 yards. That is an average of 440 yards. 

Oh, and the Pack’s spending on the D ranked 6th (2016), 9th (2015), 2nd (2014), and 9th (2013) overall among NFL teams despite some folks insistence there just were not enough resources available to field a competitive defense because of Aaron Rodgers' contract.

There's enough sample space here to overcome injury/luck arguments.