Jump to content

NFL News & Notes

Leader

By Leader
in Green Bay Packers

 Share

Recommended Posts

OneTwoSixFive

OneTwoSixFive

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I like how it's becoming commonplace folks to recognize that it's relatively easy to find success (after you suck) and immensely difficult to maintain it.

I've been beating that drum for years.

Maybe I'm influential afterall!

That may be because success is different for the two cases. If you have sucked, winning from 0 to 4 games a season for several years, then a 7/8/9 win season is success for that team. If you are more like Green Bay in recent years, you would need 10/11/12/13 wins to call it success. Being a Packers fan, who have been successful for years, it may seem easier to find success than if you are (for example) a Jets fan. Remember the post-Lombardi Packers, they couldn't turn it around for a quarter century.

It just isn't that easy to find postseason success. Bears, Lions, Jets, Browns, Texans, Bills, Jags, Titans, Bengals, 49ers were all bottom-feeders for many years. Eventually, after many bad years, some of the perennial losers are finally rising. The Jags, Titans and 49ers, are all teams finally on the up now, but it took them years and years of futility, before they turned it around. There are also a ton of teams that sit for many years around the 50/50 wins and losses record and cannot seem to make the jump to a higher level. There are also teams like the Saints and Falcons, who have a real good year, maybe two, and then slide back to mediocrity again.............they are the kind of teams that fit your conjecture best. Even when a generous third of all teams get to the postseason, it isn't easy to win even one knockout game (it would be interesting to see a graphic that shows how many teams have had a postseason win or more, this last decade).

I'd also say that injury can be a huge determining factor in a teams fortunes - an injury plagued year/or a key-players-injured year/or a cluster-injuries at one position year, can all derail a team and contribute heavily to the rise and fall of their wins over several seasons. In conclusion, I don't think it's easy to find success, you have to rely on injury luck, you need an above average QB, and you need the coaches and front office that supports the team efficiently.

I certainly do agree it's hard to maintain success over a decade, or even decades, as their are so many things stacked against it. Draft order, opponents decided by previous seasons wins, cap pressure due to increased wage demands by players on successful teams, poaching of players and coaches by less succesful teams, all contribute to drag teams back to mediocrity. Like a fish in the grip of an octopus, its many tentacles are hard to overcome for long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wgbeethree

wgbeethree

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

That may be because success is different for the two cases. If you have sucked, winning from 0 to 4 games a season for several years, then a 7/8/9 win season is success for that team. If you are more like Green Bay in recent years, you would need 10/11/12/13 wins to call it success. Being a Packers fan, who have been successful for years, it may seem easier to find success than if you are (for example) a Jets fan. Remember the post-Lombardi Packers, they couldn't turn it around for a quarter century.

It just isn't that easy to find postseason success. Bears, Lions, Jets, Browns, Texans, Bills, Jags, Titans, Bengals, 49ers were all bottom-feeders for many years. Eventually, after many bad years, some of the perennial losers are finally rising. The Jags, Titans and 49ers, are all teams finally on the up now, but it took them years and years of futility, before they turned it around. There are also a ton of teams that sit for many years around the 50/50 wins and losses record and cannot seem to make the jump to a higher level. There are also teams like the Saints and Falcons, who have a real good year, maybe two, and then slide back to mediocrity again.............they are the kind of teams that fit your conjecture best. Even when a generous third of all teams get to the postseason, it isn't easy to win even one knockout game (it would be interesting to see a graphic that shows how many teams have had a postseason win or more, this last decade).

I'd also say that injury can be a huge determining factor in a teams fortunes - an injury plagued year/or a key-players-injured year/or a cluster-injuries at one position year, can all derail a team and contribute heavily to the rise and fall of their wins over several seasons. In conclusion, I don't think it's easy to find success, you have to rely on injury luck, you need an above average QB, and you need the coaches and front office that supports the team efficiently.

I certainly do agree it's hard to maintain success over a decade, or even decades, as their are so many things stacked against it. Draft order, opponents decided by previous seasons wins, cap pressure due to increased wage demands by players on successful teams, poaching of players and coaches by less succesful teams, all contribute to drag teams back to mediocrity. Like a fish in the grip of an octopus, its many tentacles are hard to overcome for long.

This is very true. Another site I read had an expectation poll.

86% of the people expect them to win at least 11 games.

80% of people expect them to at least make the conference championship.

55% of people expect them to win the Superbowl.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leader

Leader

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Whats your take on this? I think the NYJ's position is the dominant one throughout the leage - no? Should they be on the hook for a players contract if that player is released and playing on another team?

Darnold’s experienced agent, Jimmy Sexton, wants a deal with no offsets, which would allow the quarterback to receive his entire Jets salary while getting paid by another team if the Jets release him. The Jets want an offset so Darnold won’t be allowed to double-dip. You can understand the Jets wanting to protect themselves knowing Darnold’s contract slotted to be worth an estimated $30.2 million will be fully guaranteed, but his ability to be a franchise quarterback isn’t. It would seem what’s good enough for Baker Mayfield, the first quarterback pick in the draft, and Josh Allen, who has Sexton as agent, should be good enough for Darnold. Mayfield and Allen both have contracts that include offsets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leader

Leader

Posted
  • Author
Posted
56 minutes ago, Norm said:

Both Carr and gruden went out of there way to say he can still run. But he's a ****ty athlete GMO lol

Yeah.....but Carr put in an interesting way: "He's one of the fastest skill guys that we have still"

I've no doubt Jordy can still run. How he runs in Week 12-16 - we'll see - but I'm way past the entire thing. The team decided it was time to cut bait and did. Without wishing Nelson any ill, I've moved on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...