The key question to ask is what would the Packers be like without Aaron Rodgers - or if he was merely a good QB instead of as great as he is? I'm not talking Cutler quality, but let's say maybe Eli Manning or Alex Smith, like that. My answer would be that looking down the rest of the roster, we'd have a pretty bad team - overall, worse that just about anybody else you can name. THAT tells the tale about Ted Thompson. Anybody disagree?
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
I completely disagree. TT has shown he knows how to draft a QB when needed. MM has shown to be able to coach up QBs.
We wouldn't be nearly as good at QB but we would be stable. The organization and team are so important in the NFL. Stability and continuity are so important. Look at the 3 best franchises in the last 20 years. PITT, NE and GB have stayed the course and have been rewarded with above average to excellent play for a long stretch. You can say look at their QBs. But we have seen PITT and NE be able to pop QBs in and out of the lineup with success. We had Wallace and Tolzien losing for us but TT was able to get Flynn to plug the hole long enough to get ARod back.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
People on this forum were jokingly calling for ARod to be traded mid-year and play Hundley. I feel confident that Hundley could come in and hold the fort down (which means go 2-2 or 3-1) for a 4 game stretch if needed during the regular season. Looking forward to seeing his growth in next year's preseason.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
We don't see eye to eye on much....but I agree 100% here. I think we might win 3 or 4 games with Eli on our roster. Our team is built on Aaron being dominant, precise, and winning the turnover battle. We are not a very talented team top to bottom. Look at the Giants this year. Eli was like 29th in QBR this season and they still won 11 games. Look what happens for stretches when Aaron plays mediocre-good...we lose a lot.Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
So maybe we might come up to Browns or Bears quality? The Bears have been pretty stable.
Don't take it back just twenty years, as Favre did approximately what Rodgers does now in his era to keep the team near the top. Consider the 80s. I would suggest that's what we'd be like without Aaron Rodgers and with the present rest of the team.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
With a mediocre QB, the Packers would be much better than the Browns. And a step above the Bears even if you just swap QBs rather than spend the $20 million per year elsewhere.
But a more important point is what QB would Ted have drafted in first three rounds prior to Hundley without AR holding down the fort.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
What you have to do is win the game. A 5-yard loss as a result of a complete whiff of a block still helped win that game. The way the game played out from there, an incompletion in that same circumstance may well have helped lose it. At minimum, it very likely would have eliminated the Packers final game-winning drive.
And again that speaks to the talent level difference. The Packers are 3-7-1 without Rodgers over the years. Pats without Brady are 14-6. That's no coincidence. You think we win more than a couple games with an entire season of Hundley at qb?
This is all meaningless hypothetical conjecture. Ted did draft Rodgers.
If Ted Thompson had not drafted Rodgers, his entire situation would be different - and his approach regarding how he would have composed the team from there on would have been a reflection of that difference.
If so, that QB is out there somewhere now. I certainly don't see another Aaron Rodgers or even close. Without him, we might not be Browns quality - this years team, but we very well might be Bears quality - consistently mediocre. Whether it's bad luck or whatever, with the exception of Rodgers and maybe Clay Matthews, Thompson hasn't drafted any top level players. Look around at other teams; Just about everybody - with a few lame exceptions - has drafted at least a few more than that. It's not even just about hating to sign high level free agents. It's about just barely getting by instead of maximizing things.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
No, it's about maximizing things within the limitations of what the salary cap structure dictates. When you look at the sustained success of this team, suggesting that Ted hasn't done that, after making perhaps the single greatest draft pick in a generation, is staring squarely in the face of an opposite reality.
Yes they would. McCathy has optimized his offense for Rodgers talents. He would need to adjust to Hundley, but they would eventually adjust. NE offense is built for more QBs.
The idea that the Packers are only Rodgers away from the Browns is exactly the kind of thinking that makes the Browns the Browns and the Packers the Packers.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
We're the Browns without Rodgers? That's my vote for the most Preposterous Statement Of The Year. So laughable.
All hail the Ruler of the Meadow!
Who cares how or where the players came from?
Going into this year 100% healthy, the Packers were Super Bowl favorites and widely believed to have one of, if not the deepest and most talented roster in the game. That depth has been put to the test at pretty much every position on defense, and it took Nelson and Cook the better part of the season to get healthy and contribute, going 6 deep down the running back depth chart, etc. but the Packers have a talented team. And they're most talented where it counts the most.
No top level players outside of Rodgers and Matthews? He's drafted the following Pro Bowl players:
Aaron Rodgers
Nick Collins
Greg Jennings
Jordy Nelson
Josh Sitton
B.J. Raji
Clay Matthews
T.J. Lang
Eddie Lacy
Ha Ha Clinton Dix
A few others who are close and/or may well make it:
Bryan Bulaga
Morgan Burnett
Randall Cobb
Mike Daniels
David Bakhtiari
Davante Adams
All this while drafting late almost every year because his teams are in the playoffs almost every year.
Plus Woodson, Pickett, Grant, Peppers, Cook, Williams, Shields, through acquisition ....
Have you watched the Bears lately? They had a few good years in a long stretch of mediocre. Lovie Smith kept the team in the discussion. They have been a tire fire ever since. They have 3 winning seasons in 10 years. They have won 14 games in the last 3 years.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
again...we're going to be drafting at the end of each round again this year, this team has needs that the draft alone CAN'T address, there will be positions opened by retirements and cuts, so FA must be taken advantage of.draft and develope is fine...IF YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING! the Packers have had needs at certain spots for a long time and they've gone unaddressed for the most part. that's why a change in philosophy/gm is in order or, as i said earlier this year, there's a nuclear winter for the Packers in the not so distant future.
did that breeze just change to coming from the north?
I suspect Tex is thinking about the 2013 team that unexpectedly went belly up when Rodgers broke his collar bone. But McGinn jinxed that team by predicting preseason that it would hold up just fine if the unthinkable were to happen and Rodgers go down. He knows better than to do that with this team. Rather than talk about the roster as a whole, let's look at position units.
OL: clearly one of the best if not the best in pass blocking, and certainly at least adequate as run blockers. Check.
WR: much improved from a year ago thanks to return of Nelson, maturation of Adams and late season return to health of Cook. I would say that this unit is at least above average.
RB: with a healthy Lacy this still would have been a position without much depth because of Starks's sudden decline. Montgomery and Ripkowski are at least serviceable as running options, and the struggle to find a running back after Lacy went down had the salutary effect of forcing McCarthy to redesign the passing game in a way that continues to pay benefits.
DL: One productive vet (Daniels), another serviceable vet (Guion) and two rookies who show potential. The unit doesn't have good depth but they have four guys who can at least contribute something.
OLB: Two good starters and a bunch of projects. Depth is not a strength.
ILB: Two serviceable young starters, one decent sub and a strong safety. Depth is mediocre.
Secondary: When Shields went down and Randall and Rollins got hurt or regressed, Capers invented the amoeba defense starring Micah Hyde and a bunch of F.D. safeties nobody's ever heard of.
Special teams: the patience that TT showed with Crosby looks brilliant now, and Schum has been a pleasant surprise as punter and holder. (Has anyone noticed a single bad hold this year?)
Overall the talent level and depth of this team seem to be better than average.
hahahaha That's what I meant by stable - stable on a low level.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
