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

[CWood21]

8 hours ago, RoellPreston88 said:

Many were, but they were promptly ridiculed and ran off the forum.

That's NOT even close to be true.  In fact, most thought about EDGE was similar what the Packers fans felt about the CB position last year.  You had a good veteran (Sam Shields/Nick Perry), and probably relying on their youngsters a bit too much if one of their starters went down with injury.  Most were hopeful that Perry and Matthews would stay healthy, and Fackrell would develop.  And most were ecstatic when the Packers signed Ahmad Brooks.

[CWood21]

6 hours ago, Spartacus said:

In all fairness to his post I have seen over the last couple years a pretty hostile environment to any negativity regarding the Packers. That being said most have been directed at people that make negative comments without really any real reasoning but hes not entirely wrong. 

There's a HUGE difference between being negative and critical, and those lines can get blurred.  How many times did we see posters (not saying anyone that posts consistently in here) only show up when things were going poorly?  Honestly, too many times to count.  Being critical of the Packers is saying something negative, but it's usually backed up by sound logical arguments.  Negative posts generally only tend to come out of the woodworks when things are going poorly, and are usually having the same thing being repeated time and time again.

[Packerraymond]

I've been thinking about this lately in regards to roster talent since the SB.

Super Bowl roster elite players:

Clay Matthews

Nick Collins

Charles Woodson

Aaron Rodgers

BJ Raji (at least he was in 2010 and we thought it would continue)

Super Bowl roster Pro Bowl caliber players:

Tramon Williams

Greg Jennings

Chad Clifton

Jermichael Finley

Josh Sitton

 

Current Packer elite players:

Aaron Rodgers

Current Packer Pro Bowl Caliber:

David Bahkitiari

Mike Daniels

Jordy Nelson (but this might be more Rodgers than Jordy)

The drop off in talent from the loss of guys like Sitton, Lang, Finley, Jennings/Driver, Woodson/Williams/Shields, Raji, Bishop etc has been noticeable. Good news is this off-season will present us a good deal of cap space and 12 draft picks. This could be our 2009 off-season again. Though I'm not sure I'd choose Ted to run it over a guy like John Dorsey who's just sitting there living an hour from GB.

 

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Good news is this off-season will present us a good deal of cap space and 12 draft picks. This could be our 2009 off-season again. Though I'm not sure I'd choose Ted to run it over a guy like John Dorsey who's just sitting there living an hour from GB.

I don't want Ted Thompson in charge of this coming draft, and I don't want 12 draft picks in this draft regardless of who is running this draft. 

[Acrid Josher]

Challenge for anyone who considers themselves good at finding information: find me an NFL-wide sample of team records under backup QBs. The more years included the better. I am not interested in individual teams or a handful of games (these are anecdotal and tend to obscure more than illuminate) - I want samples that include all 32 teams, preferably over many years. I want to know what the baseline expectation is for the average team when someone besides their preferred week 1 starter plays the entire game.

 

Obviously the Packers are not an average team- if you have the best QB and lose him you've lost more value than the average team with an average QB. However it doesn't help to indict our FO/coaches because of poor results if we don't even know if the results we get are poor.

[packfanfb]

2 hours ago, Acrid Josher said:

Challenge for anyone who considers themselves good at finding information: find me an NFL-wide sample of team records under backup QBs. The more years included the better. I am not interested in individual teams or a handful of games (these are anecdotal and tend to obscure more than illuminate) - I want samples that include all 32 teams, preferably over many years. I want to know what the baseline expectation is for the average team when someone besides their preferred week 1 starter plays the entire game.

 

Obviously the Packers are not an average team- if you have the best QB and lose him you've lost more value than the average team with an average QB. However it doesn't help to indict our FO/coaches because of poor results if we don't even know if the results we get are poor.

Not even sure why this matters because while Hundley may be "a" problem, he's not "the" problem. Our defense hasnt forced a punt in 14 straight drives...14 straight!! You know how ridiculous and embarrassing it sounds to even say that out loud? That has nothing to do with Brett Hundley. Whether we have Aaron Rodgers, Brett Hundley, Bart Starr or John Moxon at QB, our defense is our defense.

Hundley played well enough to be in the game against the Lions. He topped 200 yards and didnt have a turnover. But from the very first Lions drive, he never stood a chance because our defense didnt force Detroit to punt even once. 

Still, if you want a comparison just look next door at Minnesota. They seem to be winning just fine with a backup QB, as well as a backup RB and a very weak OL. Why? D.e.f.e.n.s.e. They play defense in Minnesota and it gives them a chance to win week after week. This isnt science.

[Acrid Josher]

4 hours ago, packfanfb said:

Not even sure why this matters because while Hundley may be "a" problem, he's not "the" problem. Our defense hasnt forced a punt in 14 straight drives...14 straight!! You know how ridiculous and embarrassing it sounds to even say that out loud? That has nothing to do with Brett Hundley. Whether we have Aaron Rodgers, Brett Hundley, Bart Starr or John Moxon at QB, our defense is our defense.

Hundley played well enough to be in the game against the Lions. He topped 200 yards and didnt have a turnover. But from the very first Lions drive, he never stood a chance because our defense didnt force Detroit to punt even once. 

Still, if you want a comparison just look next door at Minnesota. They seem to be winning just fine with a backup QB, as well as a backup RB and a very weak OL. Why? D.e.f.e.n.s.e. They play defense in Minnesota and it gives them a chance to win week after week. This isnt science.

 Because it quite obviously is a major problem, and the verdict on how the team as a whole is predicated should be taken in the context of how teams perform in similar situations. Pretending that any QB would get us the same or even close to similar record with this defense is ignoring the entire context of why this question is even being asked in the first place.

Hundley did not play "well enough to the in the game" against the Lions. Quoting a stat line that starts with "200 yards" should be enough to show you it wasn't enough in the modern NFL against a team with a poor defense, but even that stateline, buffed as it was by garbage time drives well after the game was decided with barely 3 first half points, belies the depth of woes on the field during the game.

People citing anecdotal comparisons that favorably support their biases is exactly the reason I'm asking this question. "This isn't science" is an intellectually lazy approach to a situation where we could have a rationale, stat-supported opinion with a little detective work.

[packfanfb]

8 hours ago, Acrid Josher said:

 Because it quite obviously is a major problem, and the verdict on how the team as a whole is predicated should be taken in the context of how teams perform in similar situations. Pretending that any QB would get us the same or even close to similar record with this defense is ignoring the entire context of why this question is even being asked in the first place.

Hundley did not play "well enough to the in the game" against the Lions. Quoting a stat line that starts with "200 yards" should be enough to show you it wasn't enough in the modern NFL against a team with a poor defense, but even that stateline, buffed as it was by garbage time drives well after the game was decided with barely 3 first half points, belies the depth of woes on the field during the game.

People citing anecdotal comparisons that favorably support their biases is exactly the reason I'm asking this question. "This isn't science" is an intellectually lazy approach to a situation where we could have a rationale, stat-supported opinion with a little detective work.

So you think we lost to Detroit bc of Hundley? What was he supposed to do, score a TD on every possession? My god.

[Pugger]

39 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

So you think we lost to Detroit bc of Hundley? What was he supposed to do, score a TD on every possession? My god.

I don't think we lost because of Hundley but Brett just hasn't look good out there since the MN game.  He bails as soon as he feels pressure and his accuracy isn't there.  If we had a competent QB we would've been able to keep drives alive and perhaps score more points.  When your defense is as dreadful as ours against the pass you need a functioning offense and we don't have that yet either.  I hope we see improvement in his play over the next 8 games or else we'll need to find someone else to be Rodgers' understudy in 2018.

[Acrid Josher]

We're OK scoring 0 points in the first half save for a special teams miracle FG then? Or is the only possible alternative to that scoring on every drive?

If you wanna have a real discussion drop the hyperbole.

[CWood21]

On 11/11/2017 at 7:55 AM, packfanfb said:

So you think we lost to Detroit bc of Hundley? What was he supposed to do, score a TD on every possession? My god.

Why must it be one extreme or the other?  DeShone Kizer went 21-37 with 232 passing yards, 1 TD, and 1 INT.  Eli Manning went 22-32 for 239 yards, 1 TD, and 1 INT.  Case Keenum went 16-30 for 219 yards.  Brett Hundley went 26-38 for 245 yards.  What's the similarities between those four games?  Well nothing.  The Lions' D held three of the four teams to 17 points or less.  And they won two of those games.  The only team they gave up more than 17 points was Cleveland, who ended up giving up 24 points.  IF the defense plays halfway decent, that's a completely different game.

[RoellPreston88]

This is the team put together by TT and coached by MM. 

 

Thoughts?

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, RoellPreston88 said:

This is the team put together by TT and coached by MM. 

 

Thoughts?

You can start by creating actual discussion rather than posting purely with the intent of trolling.

[TheOnlyThing]

1 hour ago, RoellPreston88 said:

This is the team put together by TT and coached by MM. 

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

Either the HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL coach is overrated or the talent of the roster put together by the GREAT GM has been highly exaggerated or both.

 

 

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

Thoughts?

Either the HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL coach is overrated or the talent of the roster put together by the GREAT GM has been highly exaggerated or both.

 

 

Do you doomsday guys like sit around on game day and imagine like the rest of the forum has woken up, said their prayers to Mark Murphy, bowed at the statues of TT and then made some sort of sacrificial ritual at the life size painting of Mac we have hung on our walls all in the name of victory for the almighty Packers?

Must be a shame only you guys can see the light and all us sheep are clueless!!!