Super Bowl Thread

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

How hard is it to say the Eagles have a really nice roster? Because they do.

That's what everyone else said and you called it unsustainable. Nick Foles isn't the Eagles QB, Carson Wentz is. They have a young QB, a good defense and a solid group of OL and skill guys. They will be around for awhile. I called them the greatest threat to us back in October, they blossomed a lot faster then I thought.

I'm not saying they don't have a nice roster, I just don't think they're this model franchise that you seem to believe they are.  They won the turnover battle more often than not, won the 3rd down conversion more often than not.  It's not really crazy to understand why they had the success they did.  I'm saying I don't think they magically created that and found a sustainable level of success.  If they do it again next year, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.  But we've seen enough teams who go through the season where the balls bounce their way.  It happens, it's the NFL.

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, squire12 said:

How is that much different that what GB did to win a Super Bowl in 2010?  Woodson, Pickett FA that worked out.   Hit on draft picks Rodgers, Collins, Matthews, Raji etc.  Was GB able to continue it.  NO... if the metric is winning the super bowl.  

You cant say that PHI won't be able to sustain it until you see how things play out over the next few years.  Odds are they won't be able to, but outside of NE, no team has sustained their success to that level.  Lets see if PHI is able to make a string of playoffs and deep playoff runs.

That's my point.  Luck plays a HUGE part in it, which is why I think the notion that the Eagles have found some sort of recipe for success to be laughable.  They didn't do anything differently than every other franchise, they just managed to have luck on their side.  You can't put a metric on that.

And you're right, I can't say for certainty that it's not sustainable.  I do have history on my side that suggests that what Philadelphia has done isn't sustainable.  Does that mean it will be right?  No, just means more often than not it's not going to happen.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, CWood21 said:

That's my point.  Luck plays a HUGE part in it, which is why I think the notion that the Eagles have found some sort of recipe for success to be laughable.  They didn't do anything differently than every other franchise, they just managed to have luck on their side.  You can't put a metric on that.

And you're right, I can't say for certainty that it's not sustainable.  I do have history on my side that suggests that what Philadelphia has done isn't sustainable.  Does that mean it will be right?  No, just means more often than not it's not going to happen.

Who said they did anything differently than any other team? I literally just said we probably spent as much in FA as they did last year.

The point is, they used every avenue possible to build that team (trades for Darby, Ajayi, I guess Peters awhile back), some FA's (Jeffrey, Long, Brooks) and some really nice draft picks (Graham, Cox, Mills, Ertz, etc). I'm expecting and hoping Gutey to do the same because we're way ahead of where the 2016 Eagles were.

[JBURGE]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Who said they did anything differently than any other team? I literally just said we probably spent as much in FA as they did last year.

The point is, they used every avenue possible to build that team (trades for Darby, Ajayi, I guess Peters awhile back), some FA's (Jeffrey, Long, Brooks) and some really nice draft picks (Graham, Cox, Mills, Ertz, etc). I'm expecting and hoping Gutey to do the same because we're way ahead of where the 2016 Eagles were.

Don't forget Pat Robinson!!!

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Who said they did anything differently than any other team? I literally just said we probably spent as much in FA as they did last year.

The point is, they used every avenue possible to build that team (trades for Darby, Ajayi, I guess Peters awhile back), some FA's (Jeffrey, Long, Brooks) and some really nice draft picks (Graham, Cox, Mills, Ertz, etc). I'm expecting and hoping Gutey to do the same because we're way ahead of where the 2016 Eagles were.

But because the Eagles won the Super Bowl and the Packers missed out on the playoffs because of the Rodgers injury we have to change the way we think?  No.  There's nothing wrong with dabbling in FA or making the occasional trade, but the notion that building a sustainable model through those avenues is preposterous especially when there are enough teams in the past who have shown that's not a viable option to build a franchise.  Let's not sugarcoat this and make it more complicated than it has to be.  They had a TON of luck on their side, and that's not taking anything away from them.  There's not a single Super Bowl winner you wouldn't argue had luck on their side.

I mean, does anyone think that the Packers are going to avoid FA and trades this offsseason?

[squire12]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

But because the Eagles won the Super Bowl and the Packers missed out on the playoffs because of the Rodgers injury we have to change the way we think?  No.  There's nothing wrong with dabbling in FA or making the occasional trade, but the notion that building a sustainable model through those avenues is preposterous especially when there are enough teams in the past who have shown that's not a viable option to build a franchise.  Let's not sugarcoat this and make it more complicated than it has to be.  They had a TON of luck on their side, and that's not taking anything away from them.  There's not a single Super Bowl winner you wouldn't argue had luck on their side.

I mean, does anyone think that the Packers are going to avoid FA and trades this offsseason?

We have no idea what Gutekunst will do.  

It just seems that trading a 3-5th round pick for a proven NFL productive player is not something that you are looking at doing to fill a hole on the roster.  Does it have to be done every year, maybe, maybe not.  But the goal should be to use every avenue possible to build the best roster possible to compete for Titles (division, conference and super bowl). 

I would advocate that the shorter term view needs to be utilized more than the longer term view with Rodgers being 34.  

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

But because the Eagles won the Super Bowl and the Packers missed out on the playoffs because of the Rodgers injury we have to change the way we think?  No.  There's nothing wrong with dabbling in FA or making the occasional trade, but the notion that building a sustainable model through those avenues is preposterous especially when there are enough teams in the past who have shown that's not a viable option to build a franchise.  Let's not sugarcoat this and make it more complicated than it has to be.  They had a TON of luck on their side, and that's not taking anything away from them.  There's not a single Super Bowl winner you wouldn't argue had luck on their side.

I mean, does anyone think that the Packers are going to avoid FA and trades this offsseason?

Yes, we need to change the way we think from Ted's era. I think Gutey coming out and one of the first things he said was literally "we have to use every avenue of player acquisition" proves my point. Nothing the Eagles did was unsustainable. You're wrong there. This isn't 2009 pre-CBA where teams were strapped up against the cap. The TV deals gave a huge influx of cash to the whole league. No deal they threw out is going to keep them from signing their best in-house players. The players they traded for are on rookie deals, so there again is little cap implications. They didn't invent any sort of system, of the playoff teams this year most of them have a group of FA and traded players on their roster. It was the Packers that were the odd team out. Those 2014-2016 teams had what Peppers and Kuhn as players from outside organizations on them? That's the extreme opposite end of the spectrum from the crazies that want every FA and trade. Most of the recent elite teams have been happily in the middle.

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, squire12 said:

We have no idea what Gutekunst will do.  

It just seems that trading a 3-5th round pick for a proven NFL productive player is not something that you are looking at doing to fill a hole on the roster.  Does it have to be done every year, maybe, maybe not.  But the goal should be to use every avenue possible to build the best roster possible to compete for Titles (division, conference and super bowl). 

I would advocate that the shorter term view needs to be utilized more than the longer term view with Rodgers being 34.  

Unless you have reason to believe he won't be true to his word, he seemed to more than imply that he'll be more active than Ted Thompson in FA and via trade acquisitions.  Could he revert to what TT did?  He could, but it seems unlikely.  The Packers aren't going to abandon their core principle as a draft and develop team, but they're not going to be the extreme that they were under Ted Thompson.  It's a happy medium that needs to be struck.

[Packerraymond]

5 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Unless you have reason to believe he won't be true to his word, he seemed to more than imply that he'll be more active than Ted Thompson in FA and via trade acquisitions.  Could he revert to what TT did?  He could, but it seems unlikely.  The Packers aren't going to abandon their core principle as a draft and develop team, but they're not going to be the extreme that they were under Ted Thompson.  It's a happy medium that needs to be struck.

This is exactly what I'm saying, so how is this any different than Philadelphia? Of their starters: Wentz, Agholor, Kelce, Ertz, Johnson, Cox, Graham, Barnett, Kendricks, Mills are a really good group of drafted home grown guys, then you have Long, Blount, Jenkins, MCleod and Jeffrey as a nice crop of FA's and Peters, Darby and Ajayi as trade additions. Seems about as happy medium as you can be to me. They have a really good core of draft picks, filled in some positions of weakness via FA and then made some deals for some rookie deal guys.

[CWood21]

10 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Yes, we need to change the way we think from Ted's era. I think Gutey coming out and one of the first things he said was literally "we have to use every avenue of player acquisition" proves my point. Nothing the Eagles did was unsustainable. You're wrong there. This isn't 2009 pre-CBA where teams were strapped up against the cap. The TV deals gave a huge influx of cash to the whole league. No deal they threw out is going to keep them from signing their best in-house players. The players they traded for are on rookie deals, so there again is little cap implications. They didn't invent any sort of system, of the playoff teams this year most of them have a group of FA and traded players on their roster. It was the Packers that were the odd team out. Those 2014-2016 teams had what Peppers and Kuhn as players from outside organizations on them? That's the extreme opposite end of the spectrum from the crazies that want every FA and trade. Most of the recent elite teams have been happily in the middle.

I don't think anyone thinks that the method that Ted implied is the best solution.  In the same breath that nobody thinks that the Dan Snyder path is the right one either.  I think that's where you to find the happy medium, and I'd venture to guess it's closer to TT than Dan Snyder.  I'd make the argument that we're looking more at signings like Jahri Evans or Quinton Dial than the Albert Haynesworth or Olivier Vernon's of the world.  That's not to say we won't splurge on those big FAs, I just don't think they're going to be as often as some think it will be.

[CWood21]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

This is exactly what I'm saying, so how is this any different than Philadelphia? Of their starters: Wentz, Agholor, Kelce, Ertz, Johnson, Cox, Graham, Barnett, Kendricks, Mills are a really good group of drafted home grown guys, then you have Long, Blount, Jenkins, MCleod and Jeffrey as a nice crop of FA's and Peters, Darby and Ajayi as trade additions. Seems about as happy medium as you can be to me. They have a really good core of draft picks, filled in some positions of weakness via FA and then made some deals for some rookie deal guys.

I'm not the one whose arguing that the Packers are any different than the Packers.  The Packers were active in FA this past season, and the Bennett signing blew up in their face and the Packers missed the playoffs.  It'd be like me making the correlation from that and assume that they shouldn't dabble in FA.  It worked out for Philadelphia.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, CWood21 said:

I'm not the one whose arguing that the Packers are any different than the Packers.  The Packers were active in FA this past season, and the Bennett signing blew up in their face and the Packers missed the playoffs.  It'd be like me making the correlation from that and assume that they shouldn't dabble in FA.  It worked out for Philadelphia.

2017 was the first year we took that approach and other than Bennett it worked nice. House was way better than Goodson, Hawkins or Pipkins who would've been the fill in guys of future teams, Evans was a really nice fit and Brooks was mediocre but still better than Biegel and Fackrell. We need to continue on this path.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

2017 was the first year we took that approach and other than Bennett it worked nice. House was way better than Goodson, Hawkins or Pipkins who would've been the fill in guys of future teams, Evans was a really nice fit and Brooks was mediocre but still better than Biegel and Fackrell. We need to continue on this path.

Is there anything to believe that Gute won't continue that?  Based on what transpired last offseason and confirmed with the FO restructure, I think it's pretty clear that the Packers aren't going to be completely inactive in FA anymore.

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Is there anything to believe that Gute won't continue that?  Based on what transpired last offseason and confirmed with the FO restructure, I think it's pretty clear that the Packers aren't going to be completely inactive in FA anymore.

Nope I think we continue on that path, which has me excited for the change.

[CWood21]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Nope I think we continue on that path, which has me excited for the change.

Agreed.  And I think that's why we're going to have probably the most active offseason discussion that I think we've seen out of the Packers forum since I joined.  We're going to see tangible change.