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

[incognito_man]

3 minutes 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.

SEA had a 4 year stretch from 2012-2015 where they were #1 (significantly) in DVOA. They had a few of the top teams of all time in DVOA in that span. There were more historically good teams in the NFC (other than NE and GB) during that timeframe.

In 2012 losing to SEA cost us a bye and a home game in the divisional round.

In 2013 we were hampered by a collarbone injury. Didn't face Seattle.

In 2014 we lost the NFC Championship to Seattle.

In 2015 we beat Seattle.

That stretch is one of the best of all time, including the 2nd best season in the NFL (after 2007 Pats) since 1991. Denver had a couple good years too (including one that they beat New England in the AFCG) but they don't measure up to that Seattle stretch either.

[th87]

12 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

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. 

TEs that can threaten the seam are incredibly important in this offense.  It was Jared Cook that made a huge difference last year (we sucked when he was out), and why we went after Bennett and Kendricks.

Kind of a consensus.

[TheOnlyThing]

1 hour ago, Green19 said:

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.

No doubt the Pats have benefitted from a weak AFC East outside of Rex's brief run with the Jets.

That said, the 3 other NFC North teams have collectively won a total of 2 playoff games since ARod became a starter. And they have not won a playoff game going on seven years now. 

In addition, since TT took over in 2005, the West has represented the NFC in the Super Bowl 5 times, the South 3 times, the East 2 times (winning both times) and the North 2 times (winning once). 

In the last 30 years, the 3 other NFC North teams have gone to just 1 Super Bowl ... and lost it.

I know NFC North titles are precious to some Packer fans, but it might be argued that Green Bay, like NE, has benefitted from playing in a relatively weak division.

[packerbacker87]

If Brady is out for an entire season, the Patriots are barely a playoff team. That about sums it up. 

[incognito_man]

8 minutes ago, th87 said:

TEs that can threaten the seam are incredibly important in this offense.  It was Jared Cook that made a huge difference last year (we sucked when he was out), and why we went after Bennett and Kendricks.

Kind of a consensus.

Ok, this is a completely different argument now. Since you shifted from the "Richard Rodgers was responsible for our offensive woes" I'll assume you now agree that he wasn't.

 

As far as THIS argument, I completely agree. It is important. I wanted Travis Kelce bad in the draft even though he was/is a knucklehead. I would be thrilled to have John Dorsey take over for TT when he retires. I would have loved to have gotten Kendricks for 1/4 of his price in 2015 (which is his current price we are paying) as well. Not sure he would have had a net positive impact on the team for that contract he signed, however.

His cap hit in year one was higher than: Cobb, Burnett, Nelson, Daniels, Bulaga. The only guys on our roster in 2015 with a higher cap hit were: Rodgers, Matthews, Peppers, Shields, Sitton and Lang.

Do you like Kendricks more than any of those names?

In his 2nd year, his cap hit was higher than Cook's was. Would you have preferred Kendricks to Cook?

He got more than he was worth in 2015. His cap hit is a 1/4 today than what it was. It would have been a bad signing in 2015, it was a really good signing in 2017.

[MantyWrestler]

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. 

[th87]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Ok, this is a completely different argument now. Since you shifted from the "Richard Rodgers was responsible for our offensive woes" I'll assume you now agree that he wasn't.

 

As far as THIS argument, I completely agree. It is important. I wanted Travis Kelce bad in the draft even though he was/is a knucklehead. I would be thrilled to have John Dorsey take over for TT when he retires. I would have loved to have gotten Kendricks for 1/4 of his price in 2015 (which is his current price we are paying) as well. Not sure he would have had a net positive impact on the team for that contract he signed, however.

His cap hit in year one was higher than: Cobb, Burnett, Nelson, Daniels, Bulaga. The only guys on our roster in 2015 with a higher cap hit were: Rodgers, Matthews, Peppers, Shields, Sitton and Lang.

Do you like Kendricks more than any of those names?

In his 2nd year, his cap hit was higher than Cook's was. Would you have preferred Kendricks to Cook?

He got more than he was worth in 2015. His cap hit is a 1/4 today than what it was. It would have been a bad signing in 2015, it was a really good signing in 2017.

Still disagree.  RR's inability to threaten the seam (and block) hampered the offense considerably.  Hence his responsibility for our offensive woes.  Simply replacing him with Cook caused a night-and-day difference.

I'm also not advocating for Kendricks himself back in 2015 - simply a 2017 Kendricks-like player/contract.  A lower-cost veteran to shore up a position of glaring weakness.  This shouldn't be a controversial opinion.

[incognito_man]

Just now, th87 said:

Still disagree.  RR's inability to threaten the seam (and block) hampered the offense considerably.  Hence his responsibility for our offensive woes.  Simply replacing him with Cook caused a night-and-day difference.

I'm also not advocating for Kendricks himself back in 2015 - simply a 2017 Kendricks-like player/contract.  A lower-cost veteran to shore up a position of glaring weakness.  This shouldn't be a controversial opinion.

ok, who then if not Kendricks?

[CWood21]

51 minutes ago, th87 said:

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. 

First off, let's not pretend like you're not using the power of hindsight to justify your logic.  IF Jennings or Smith go onto have successful careers elsewhere, let's not pretend like there wouldn't be a very vocal argument that the Packers using stopgap veterans like Daniel or RJF blocked the ability to develop those players.  On a related note, let's not pretend like the Packers held onto those players for their entirety of their contract.  Jennings got his 26 career starts in large part due to the fact that they didn't have anyone ahead of him. But let's also not forget how bad Nick Collins was early in his career.  I'm not going to blame the FO or coaching staff for not pulling the plug sooner.  As for D.J. Smith, he got 9 career starts over his first two years.  Both were released prior to the end of their contracts.

As far as the Kendrick/Rodgers discussion goes, calling Richard Rodgers largely responsible for our offensive woes is a stretch at best.  When your best receiver goes down with an injury prior to the start of the season, you're going to be affected.  Blaming it solely on Richard Rodgers is completely off base, and completely unfounded.  Was Rodgers bad?  Absolutely, but this is a terrible argument to make and has no basis in facts.  Despite most everyone agreeing that Lance Kendricks is better than Richard Rodgers, Kendricks is playing in 23% of the offensive snaps while Richard Rodgers is playing in 13% of the defensive snaps.  Again, calling it a sizeable upgrade is a stretch at best.

[skibrett15]

Marty B has been a disappointment.  No way around that.

 

He's having a decent impact in the running game and knows where to be, but he just doesn't produce.  Perhaps he can get it going with Hundley.

[squire12]

2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

Marty B has been a disappointment.  No way around that.

 

He's having a decent impact in the running game and knows where to be, but he just doesn't produce.  Perhaps he can get it going with Hundley.

Agree.  Something about the OL being a complete disaster for the better part of the first 6 games might have an influence on that.  Could also be that he is attracting attention and Nelson, Adams and seeing the benefits of that.   

[th87]

7 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

ok, who then if not Kendricks?

Someone better than RR.  I'm not in an NFL FO, so this is not a fair question for me to answer.  I can only go by the results, and the results showed that RR was a liability.

[incognito_man]

3 minutes ago, th87 said:

Someone better than RR.  I'm not in an NFL FO, so this is not a fair question for me to answer.  I can only go by the results, and the results showed that RR was a liability.

if you don't feel you are in a position to offer a solution how can you possibly think you are in a position to determine that RR was a liability? You literally can't have it both ways. If you don't know how to determine who is better it's impossible to determine that someone must be better. Especially when you're gifted the enormous advantage of hindsight.

[th87]

13 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

First off, let's not pretend like you're not using the power of hindsight to justify your logic.  IF Jennings or Smith go onto have successful careers elsewhere, let's not pretend like there wouldn't be a very vocal argument that the Packers using stopgap veterans like Daniel or RJF blocked the ability to develop those players.  On a related note, let's not pretend like the Packers held onto those players for their entirety of their contract.  Jennings got his 26 career starts in large part due to the fact that they didn't have anyone ahead of him. But let's also not forget how bad Nick Collins was early in his career.  I'm not going to blame the FO or coaching staff for not pulling the plug sooner.  As for D.J. Smith, he got 9 career starts over his first two years.  Both were released prior to the end of their contracts.

As far as the Kendrick/Rodgers discussion goes, calling Richard Rodgers largely responsible for our offensive woes is a stretch at best.  When your best receiver goes down with an injury prior to the start of the season, you're going to be affected.  Blaming it solely on Richard Rodgers is completely off base, and completely unfounded.  Was Rodgers bad?  Absolutely, but this is a terrible argument to make and has no basis in facts.  Despite most everyone agreeing that Lance Kendricks is better than Richard Rodgers, Kendricks is playing in 23% of the offensive snaps while Richard Rodgers is playing in 13% of the defensive snaps.  Again, calling it a sizeable upgrade is a stretch at best.

1.  People had been advocating the replacement of Jennings/RR tier players when they were playing, so I don't see where hindsight comes into play.  Nick Collins was never "bad".  He had a solid first year, took a step back his second, and then went up from there.  Jennings getting 26 starts *is* the problem.  There should've been someone ahead of.  And I also don't buy the idea that veterans block young players' development.  Did Favre block Rodgers'?  Strides are made in camp and practice.

2.  If we didn't have Bennett, Kendricks would be playing a lot more.

[th87]

5 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

if you don't feel you are in a position to offer a solution how can you possibly think you are in a position to determine that RR was a liability? You literally can't have it both ways. If you don't know how to determine who is better it's impossible to determine that someone must be better. Especially when you're gifted the enormous advantage of hindsight.

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.