Some Super Thoughts

[Smidgeon]

In the last decade (since and including the '00 season), Green Bay is the only team in the top 7 of overall record to not appear in a Super Bowl. And all except Philadelphia and Baltimore had multiple appearances.

Only six teams have over 100 wins in those eleven seasons (New England, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Philly, Green Bay, and Baltimore) with the Giants being the only team to be in two Super Bowls with less than 100 wins in that span.

Some teams in that time that at least made an appearance (with their record ranking since '00):

Arizona - 30th (lost)
Oakland - 27th (lost)
St Louis - 23rd (lost)
Carolina - 21st (lost)
Tampa Bay - 15th (lost)
Seattle - 15th (won)
Chicago - 12th (lost)
New Orleans - 10th (won)

I would argue that over the last decade, the NFL franchises can be grouped into three tiers:

1) The steady teams who year in and year out not only win a lot of games each year, but also have a chance to make it to the Super Bowl and do (New England, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh) due to talent, coaching, and/or ownership structure.

2) The teams on the brink who seem to have that chance, winning a lot of games every year, but haven't quite arrived on the same plateau (Philly, Baltimore).

3) The ones who simply hope that lighting strikes and they make it to the Super Bowl despite having less than a consistant winning tradition.

(I think the Giants and the Packers are tweaner teams for different reasons. The Giants because they've appeared twice but don't win as consistently, and the Packers because they win consistenly but haven't appeared.)

What does all this mean? Practically nothing. Except to note that the Packers are one of the few teams that has proven capable of maintaining a winning tradition, and yet that hasn't translated to a Super Bowl appearance the way one would expect.

IT'S TIME TO TAKE THAT NEXT STEP!

Some interesting things I learned while writing this up:

* Green Bay's record since the '93 season (the start of modern Free Agency) is the third best behind New England and Pittsburgh. Pitt has one more Super Bowl victory, and NE has two more victories and one more loss.

* Since the '93 season, the only team with one of the top 12 records to not appear in a Super Bowl is the Minnesota Vikings. :D

* The top 5 teams all have multiple Super Bowl appearances.

[red]

we should be the team to beat in the NFC

the eagles game was close because we let it be close, if our offense and defense continue to do their thing and ST just doesn't screw up, then i don't know how anyone can beat us

IMO we would have to lose, not get beat

[Joemailman]

In other words, if the Packers don't win it all, it's McCarthy's fault.

[red]

In other words, if the Packers don't win it all, it's McCarthy's fault.

or slocum or james jones or jarrett bush

[Guiness]

Seattle certainly didn't win their SB!

St-Louis was also there twice - won once (2000)

[Smidgeon]

Seattle certainly didn't win their SB!

St-Louis was also there twice - won once (2000)

Baltimore won at the end of the 2000 year and St Louis at the end of 1999 (http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/history).

[Smidgeon]

In other words, if the Packers don't win it all, it's McCarthy's fault.

Actually, I'm tending to think two things. First, Favre's playoff interceptions. Second, it's due.

[vince]

The defense is world class. The offense still feels the pain of losing Finley - and Grant up until Philly.

[Fritz]

I think the injuries - three in particular - will cost this team. I'm thinking Grant, Finley - and Mike Neal. Yes, Mike Neal. I think his loss was big. He seemed to me to be a difference maker (a potential difference maker, at least) who could have helped this team get penetration without blitzing as much and could have taken some load off some of the guys on the line.

[gbgary]

In other words, if the Packers don't win it all, it's McCarthy's fault.

if they make it to the superbowl and have the lead and he gets his intestines all twisted up again and they lose...yes.

[mmmdk]

I think the injuries - three in particular - will cost this team. I'm thinking Grant, Finley - and Mike Neal. Yes, Mike Neal. I think his loss was big. He seemed to me to be a difference maker (a potential difference maker, at least) who could have helped this team get penetration without blitzing as much and could have taken some load off some of the guys on the line.

We are going to win the super bowl; injuries are mute!

[swede]

moot?

[MJZiggy]

We are going to win the super bowl; injuries are mute!

Actually, they usually come with a certain amount of pained hollering. Not quiet at all unless the guy gets knocked out.

[swede]

So knocked out is the mute point...

[mmmdk]

moot?

Mittens?

[pbmax]

Speaking of mute injuries, did DeSean Jackson have the same injury as Paul Pierce last year? Terrible, debilitating, requiring surgery, until it was time to go back in? Did anyone catch any coverage of his actual ailment?

[gbgary]

lol

[mmmdk]

Actually, they usually come with a certain amount of pained hollering. Not quiet at all unless the guy gets knocked out.

True!

Moot has become a lame word. in LOTR there's a thing called "Entmoot" - a meeting of Ents; somehow the old english word "moot" got torn asunder by cowboys with a mouthful of beans. :lol:

[swede]

...somehow the old english word "moot" got torn asunder by cowboys with a mouthful of beans. :lol:

I've read a lot of Zane Gray and Louis L'Amour. I think the tearing asunder of English archaisms by the cowpokes is meant to evoke the tension of independent actors living within a feudal system.

[mmmdk]

I've read a lot of Zane Gray and Louis L'Amour. I think the tearing asunder of English archaisms by the cowpokes is meant to evoke the tension of independent actors within a feudal system.

Damn straight!

[MichiganPackerFan]

...
Tampa Bay - 15th (lost)
Seattle - 15th (won)
...
Fun research: i enjoyed going through it. I think these two got flip flopped though.


or slocum or james jones or jarrett bush
I know Bush is a favorite whipping boy around here, but I thought he'd played well on special teams and his rare appearances on defense this year. Am I forgetting something from this season?


I think the injuries - three in particular - will cost this team. I'm thinking Grant, Finley - and Mike Neal. Yes, Mike Neal. I think his loss was big. He seemed to me to be a difference maker (a potential difference maker, at least) who could have helped this team get penetration without blitzing as much and could have taken some load off some of the guys on the line.
I think the loss of grant hurt the most and could have led to three more of those close losses turning to victories. ARod would have had a nice fun toy to play with in finley, but i think he was forgetting how to distribute the ball. I hope he remembers that next season. I think the loss of Neal, Harrell and Jolly all hurt for depth. Harrell was finally over the back injury and a whole pile fell on his knee. If it wasn't for bad luck, he'd have no luck at all. Jolly had a inexcusable losing battle to CDS (compulsive dumbass syndrome) Maybe that's what the codeine was for. Vicious circle..

[vince]

I know Bush is a favorite whipping boy around here, but I thought he'd played well on special teams and his rare appearances on defense this year. Am I forgetting something from this season?
Yeah, you're forgetting his jock laying on about the 15 yard line on the first TD the Eagles scored Sunday.

[Smidgeon]

Fun research: i enjoyed going through it. I think these two got flip flopped though.

You're right. Completely missed that. And I read and re-read it several times for punctuation and grammar...

[MichiganPackerFan]

Yeah, you're forgetting his jock laying on about the 15 yard line on the first TD the Eagles scored Sunday.

Didn't he also have a couple really difficult stops too?

[VermontPackFan]

In other words, if the Packers don't win it all, it's McCarthy's fault.

Not so easy, technically it will all be TT's fault for cutting the cord on Bert...:) (insert smiley face here)

[mraynrand]

I like the original post Smidge. Here's something to consider. Of the top teams, each of them has had some down years, resulting in higher picks the next year. The three top teams, with the exception of the Sherman years, place huge value on draft picks, and consistently draft well. The three keys to good drafting: Get a large number of picks that can fill your roster with decent talent. Get a few lower round gems to provide near blue chip players. Get a few blue chip players, especially QBs, that can run your team for a decade or more. How do most teams get blue chip players? You get them with gems and by not screwing up when you have those rare high picks following a down year. TT pretty much failed on this in 2006, but made up for it in spades in 2009. Roethlesburger, Manning, and Rodgers were pretty much picked at a spot in the draft with the expectation they would be blue chip players; Brady was a late round gem. The impressive thing is when organizations don't have frequent down years or down years that get them into the top 5-10 in the draft, but are still able to secure quality players. All the top organizations are alike in this regard.

[Smidgeon]

I like the original post Smidge. Here's something to consider. Of the top teams, each of them has had some down years, resulting in higher picks the next year. The three top teams, with the exception of the Sherman years, place huge value on draft picks, and consistently draft well. The three keys to good drafting: Get a large number of picks that can fill your roster with decent talent. Get a few lower round gems to provide near blue chip players. Get a few blue chip players, especially QBs, that can run your team for a decade or more. How do most teams get blue chip players? You get them with gems and by not screwing up when you have those rare high picks following a down year. TT pretty much failed on this in 2006, but made up for it in spades in 2009. Roethlesburger, Manning, and Rodgers were pretty much picked at a spot in the draft with the expectation they would be blue chip players; Brady was a late round gem. The impressive thing is when organizations don't have frequent down years or down years that get them into the top 5-10 in the draft, but are still able to secure quality players. All the top organizations are alike in this regard.

And New England does it by trading players a year early for bad teams' first round picks...

[mraynrand]

And New England does it by trading players a year early for bad teams' first round picks...

Or worthless players for a #3!

[vince]

The problem with the Packers in this analysis is there is a complete change of philosophy right smack dab in the middle of your data. The short-term philosophy failed and the long-term philosophy may well be in the process of working.

[mraynrand]

The problem with the Packers in this analysis is there is a complete change of philosophy right smack dab in the middle of your data. The short-term philosophy failed and the long-term philosophy may well be in the process of working.

It was only a three year span of the short term philosophy - Sherman only controlled (completely) 02, 03, and 04 - and I don't recall, but I thought Hatley was either uninvolved, sick, or deceased for the '04 draft. Favre, Green, and the O-line helped bridge that gap.

[Patler]

I like the original post Smidge. Here's something to consider. Of the top teams, each of them has had some down years, resulting in higher picks the next year. The three top teams, with the exception of the Sherman years, place huge value on draft picks, and consistently draft well. The three keys to good drafting: Get a large number of picks that can fill your roster with decent talent. Get a few lower round gems to provide near blue chip players. Get a few blue chip players, especially QBs, that can run your team for a decade or more. How do most teams get blue chip players? You get them with gems and by not screwing up when you have those rare high picks following a down year. TT pretty much failed on this in 2006, but made up for it in spades in 2009. Roethlesburger, Manning, and Rodgers were pretty much picked at a spot in the draft with the expectation they would be blue chip players; Brady was a late round gem. The impressive thing is when organizations don't have frequent down years or down years that get them into the top 5-10 in the draft, but are still able to secure quality players. All the top organizations are alike in this regard.

I don't want to quibble, because I agree with your general, overall statement. However, there are two details I will comment on.

First, I don't agree that Rodgers was taken at a spot where you expect to get a blue chip player. That would presume that there are 24 blue chip players in every draft, and there aren't. Not even close.

Second, I think you are a bit harsh regarding the 2006 draft. Do I wish Hawk was better? Sure, but he has been a starter for 5 years and he filled a huge need that the team had at the time. In retrospect, there are players picked lower that would have been better values, but getting a guy who is likely to be a 10 year starter somewhere in the NFL is hardly a failure.

[vince]

It's downright depressing looking at TT's 2007 draft. He's made up for it with the others but man that one was bad.

Harrell, Jackson, Jones, Rouse, Barbre, Clowney, Hall, Bishop, Crosby, Wynn, Harris

[swede]

It's downright depressing looking at TT's 2007 draft. He's made up for it with the others but man that one was bad.

Harrell, Jackson, Jones, Rouse, Barbre, Clowney, Hall, Bishop, Crosby, Wynn, Harris

Well, it wasn't Raji-Matthews, but aren't five of those players still with the team?

[mmmdk]

Substract the Tuna from the G-men and no super bowls! Some guys never learn.

[vince]

Well, it wasn't Raji-Matthews, but aren't five of those players still with the team?
You'd like to see 3 starters from a draft. I guess you could call Bishop and Crosby starters.

[vince]

Substract the Tuna from the G-men and no super bowls! Some guys never learn.
No sense in letting the facts get in the way of a good storyline.

[mraynrand]

Substract the Tuna from the G-men and no super bowls! Some guys never learn.

Subtract Belichick from the Tuna, and maybe you get Marty Schottenheimer.

[mmmdk]

No sense in letting the facts get in the way of a good storyline.

...but I believe we can win it all. Lombardi trophy coming home BABY. Stubby ain't that bad. What a legend McCarthy can build...'cos Bears, most likely, will be next.

[mraynrand]

Well, it wasn't Raji-Matthews, but aren't five of those players still with the team?

6 players!

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DBkpSmOzJ5A/0.jpg

[vince]

If only Marty Schottenheimer wouldn't have taught Ernest Byner to fumble in that game, he coulda been a good coach.

[mmmdk]

In Seattle the crowd is the 12th man...Stubby makes it a 13th man. How's that gonna unfold? Packers roll on & Lombardi throphy back in Green Bay. YEAH!!! Bring on anyone, anywhere! Don't matter 'cos we win.

[mraynrand]

I don't want to quibble, because I agree with your general, overall statement. However, there are two details I will comment on.

First, I don't agree that Rodgers was taken at a spot where you expect to get a blue chip player. That would presume that there are 24 blue chip players in every draft, and there aren't. Not even close.

Second, I think you are a bit harsh regarding the 2006 draft. Do I wish Hawk was better? Sure, but he has been a starter for 5 years and he filled a huge need that the team had at the time. In retrospect, there are players picked lower that would have been better values, but getting a guy who is likely to be a 10 year starter somewhere in the NFL is hardly a failure.

OK, I agree with you on the 24th pick point (but Rodgers was supposed to go higher!)

The point about Hawk and the #5 pick is it really hurts your team to be bad enough to get a #5 pick and then not have that pick be a blue chipper. There were extenuating circumstances, since there were many other busts and disappointments at the top of that draft (which supports your first point), but that always seemed to me to be the ideal time for TT to trade down. I think he thought Hawk was going to be an Urlacher in his impact.

The final overall point is that the teams on the top, that stay on the top, pick well more often than not. I think we pretty much know TT has the kind of high percentage on picks to keep the Packers in that top 5 of successful teams.

[mraynrand]

If only Marty Schottenheimer wouldn't have taught Ernest Byner to fumble in that game, he coulda been a good coach.

That only would have tied the game - Shittenheimer would have figured out a way to lose it in OT.

[Smidgeon]

Harrell, Jackson, Jones, Rouse, Barbre, Clowney, Hall, Bishop, Crosby, Wynn, Harris
Well, it wasn't Raji-Matthews, but aren't five of those players still with the team?

6 players. Harrell isn't gone yet.

[swede]

6 players. Harrell isn't gone yet.

I was going to get an argument from someone either way. I knew I should have gone with 5 and a half.

btw--who was Harris again?

[vince]

Clark Harris was a TE who didn't make the cut, although he is still in the league I believe as a long snapper. At least he was last year.

I'm as big a TT supporter as any (I think he's the best in the business), but I never thought I'd encounter someone citing Justin Harrell as support for the '07 draft! :cnf:

OK, maybe that draft isn't totally worthless like some Vikings drafts or Sherman drafts, but it certainly wasn't Thompson's finest weekend.

That said, I strongly believe the Packers roster (including the IR'd players) has as much or more young developing talent on it than any other in the league. You can't ask for anything else from a GM.

[Smidgeon]

Clark Harris was a TE who didn't make the cut, although he is still in the league I believe as a long snapper. At least he was last year.

I'm as big a TT supporter as any (I think he's the best in the business), but I never thought I'd encounter someone citing Justin Harrell as support for the '07 draft! :cnf:

OK, maybe that draft isn't totally worthless like some Vikings drafts or Sherman drafts, but it certainly wasn't Thompson's finest weekend.

That said, I strongly believe the Packers roster (including the IR'd players) has as much or more young developing talent on it than any other in the league. You can't ask for anything else from a GM.

Harrell's back injury (and now ACL) isn't TT's fault. He flashed as a rookie and got some really bad luck since. It doesn't mean it was a bad pick. It was an unlucky pick. Just like Terrance Murphy.

[vince]

Harrell's back injury (and now ACL) isn't TT's fault. He flashed as a rookie and got some really bad luck since. It doesn't mean it was a bad pick. It was an unlucky pick. Just like Terrance Murphy.
Agreed. It's been an unlucky pick, which by definition is bad. Not TT's fault though.

[pbmax]

If only Marty Schottenheimer wouldn't have taught Ernest Byner to fumble in that game, he coulda been a good coach.

OK. OK. Enough with reliving that game, that player and that coach. I went through this once this week with Harv's video thread, I am not tearing open that wound again. Never has there been a more painful game. Blowout, yards from tying it up with all the momentum and GAH!

[Patler]

It's downright depressing looking at TT's 2007 draft. He's made up for it with the others but man that one was bad.

Harrell, Jackson, Jones, Rouse, Barbre, Clowney, Hall, Bishop, Crosby, Wynn, Harris

You are depressed by a draft 4 seasons ago that brought a very decent 3rd down back, a #3 wide receiver who makes plays but has warts, a starting fullback who is a solid ST guy, a starting linebacker, your placekicker and another player still with the team? Expecting a bit too much perhaps! :)

If every 6 years that type of draft is his worst, the Packers will be in outstanding shape.

[vince]

You are depressed by a draft 4 seasons ago that brought a very decent 3rd down back, a #3 wide receiver who makes plays but has warts, a starting fullback who is a solid ST guy, a starting linebacker, your placekicker and another player still with the team? Expecting a bit too much perhaps! :)

If every 6 years that type of draft is his worst, the Packers will be in outstanding shape.
OK so I'm not really depressed about it... :) I was just reflecting back on the Thompson era. I already softened my original description, but if you're going to press me on it then here goes.

I'm not high on the top end of that draft - at all. Bishop is a starter that you can readily find in the middle of a lot of drafts, Crosby is a strong-legged kicker that hasn't distinguished himself from the rest of the kickers in the league. Hall the special teams demon. I like him - for a special teams demon. Jones is inconsistent to this point and has been a liability as much as an asset - and may not even be retained. Jackson - good blocker/3rd down back. Poor runner. 2nd round pick. No need to even mention Harrell or Clowney or Rouse or Barbre or Clarke - almost zero out of that bunch. Maybe less than that even.

Relatively speaking - not TT's finest hour. I agree that the team is in excellent shape when you look at TT's body of work, which is the only objective way to evaluate the value of a GM.

[Patler]

OK so I'm not really depressed about it... :) I was just reflecting back on the Thompson era. I already softened my original description, but if you're going to press me on it then here goes.

I'm not high on the top end of that draft - at all. Bishop is a starter that you can readily find in the middle of a lot of drafts, Crosby is a strong-legged kicker that hasn't distinguished himself from the rest of the kickers in the league. Hall the special teams demon. I like him - for a special teams demon. Jones is inconsistent to this point and has been a liability as much as an asset - and may not even be retained. Jackson - good blocker/3rd down back. Poor runner. 2nd round pick. No need to even mention Harrell or Clowney or Rouse or Barbre or Clarke - almost zero out of that bunch. Maybe less than that even.

Relatively speaking - not TT's finest hour. I agree that the team is in excellent shape when you look at TT's body of work, which is the only objective way to evaluate the value of a GM.

I think Bishop is more than a starter that you can find in the middle of a lot of drafts; his recent contract would suggest that he is.
I value guys on the team filling roles, even if they aren't the best in the league. I know I like Crosby a lot more than some on here, perhaps more than you do. Same for Jones and Jackson. Its not Jackson's fault he has been asked to fill a role he isn't suited for. Left as a 3rd down back he is quite valuable. Maybe Jones isn't good enough to start, but he isn't being asked to. He is a #3 and productive in spite of his short commings.

I might even argue the next draft was as bad, or worse. In order, TT drafted:

Nelson - a #4 WR
Brohm - a waste
Lee - a #4, 5 or 6 corner
Finley- a TE who has been a flash, but not more due to a lost rookie year and injuries
Thompson - gone due to injury, but not showing much before that
Sitton - a right guard, perhaps the easiest spot to fill on the line.
Giacomini - a waste
Flynn - a backup QB who played and lost a game. Anyone can lose a game
Swain - a #5 WR

The top of that draft had three second round picks that are not very big factors. Only Nelson is really contributing much. Overall, I think that draft is contributing less right now than the previous year's draft.

BUT - it is nice to argue over which is worse among drafts that produced starters and reserves. :grin:

[Fritz]

Well, if Patler says that Jones is a receiver with warts, and if those warts are on his hands, that explains the drops.

[vince]

Finleyt and Sitton alone blow away the '07 draft. 2 all-pro guys. Plus Flynn and Nelson. No comparison IMO

[Smidgeon]

Can I withdraw my original post? Now that it's no longer accurate... :D