Is it time for another winner of multiple Super Bowls?

[Patler]

Everyone gives a lot of reasons why the Packers won't win another SB in the next few years, or a bunch of SBs in a short time frame, but the simple fact is it has happened time and time again. In fact, it really is the norm.

Packers championships and SB's in the '60s
Dallas - '71 & '77 (a bit far separated)
Miami - '72 & '73
Pittsburgh - '74, '75, '78 & '79
Oakland - '76 & '80
San Francisco - '81, '84. '88, '89
Washington - '82, '87 & '91
Giants - '86 & '89
Dallas - '92, '93 & '95
Denver - '97 & '98
Patriots - '01, '03 & '04
Pittsburgh - '05 & '08

Throw in the Bills losing 4 Super Bowls in a row, Minnesota losing 4 in 8 years, Denver losing 3 in 4 years and several winners having SB losses during the time periods when they won, is it really unreasonable to expect a very young, seemingly deep and well-run team like the Packers to get back to the SB at least a couple more times in the next 5-6 years and maybe win another 1 or 2 during that time? After all, they were expected to be a contender before the injuries, and did it even after all the injuries.

Two teams won five of the last 10. NE won 3 and played in 4 of them. Pittsburgh won 2 and played in 3 of them.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a couple SB opportunities in the next 5 years while TT & MM are under contract and many (most) of the key players are just entering their prime years.

[hoosier]

Many of these examples occurred before free agency, and it's hard to draw them all into the same discussion as evidence that dynasties have always been the norm in the NFL. Before free agency, no question: Green Bay, Miami, Dallas and Pittsburgh give plenty of evidence of such a norm. In the era of free agency there are San Fran and Dallas in the 80s and 90s. Are Washington and NYG really examples of teams that won multiple SBs? My recollection is that their cores had change substantially, especially Washington's between the Riggins/Hogs era and the Rypien/Doug Williams days. But maybe I am misremembering.

Since Dallas we have Denver (whose success on the field is at least partially due to their ability to avoid detection in circumventing the salary cap) and New England and Pittsburgh, the two franchises touted as exceptions to the parity rule in today's NFL.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to see GB back in the SB one or more times in the next 5 years. But I can also envision several scenarios where that doesn't happen. Remember that before January the prevailing perception of McCarthy (myself included) was that he was a poor game manager and that his record in building a competent coaching staff was mixed. Has the Packers's unexpected run in last year's playoffs dramatically changed how we see the future of the franchise? Speaking only for myself, last year's remarkable run totally transformed my view of McCarthy. But if the Packers had somehow lost one of the close games played before the SB (both Philly and Chicago almost mounted successful comebacks) McCarthy would still be the coach he is today, but I suspect I would be seeing him in a very different light.

[Patler]

Many of these examples occurred before free agency, and it's hard to draw them all into the same discussion as evidence that dynasties have always been the norm in the NFL. Before free agency, no question: Green Bay, Miami, Dallas and Pittsburgh give plenty of evidence of such a norm. In the era of free agency there are San Fran and Dallas in the 80s and 90s. Are Washington and NYG really examples of teams that won multiple SBs? My recollection is that their cores had change substantially, especially Washington's between the Riggins/Hogs era and the Rypien/Doug Williams days. But maybe I am misremembering.

Since Dallas we have Denver (whose success on the field is at least partially due to their ability to avoid detection in circumventing the salary cap) and New England and Pittsburgh, the two franchises touted as exceptions to the parity rule in today's NFL.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to see GB back in the SB one or more times in the next 5 years. But I can also envision several scenarios where that doesn't happen. Remember that before January the prevailing perception of McCarthy (myself included) was that he was a poor game manager and that his record in building a competent coaching staff was mixed. Has the Packers's unexpected run in last year's playoffs dramatically changed how we see the future of the franchise? Speaking only for myself, last year's remarkable run totally transformed my view of McCarthy. But if the Packers had somehow lost one of the close games played before the SB (both Philly and Chicago almost mounted successful comebacks) McCarthy would still be the coach he is today, but I suspect I would be seeing him in a very different light.

I think the list shows there have been some in every decade including most recently two teams combining to win five in the '90s and two others winning 5 in the '00s. It has happened before FA, in the early stages of FA, and with FA as it has become the last 10 years.

There is really no reason not to think that a couple teams can't do it the next 10 years too, or that one of them can't be the Packers, especially since they just won one that maybe they shouldn't have with all the challenges the season gave them. What the front office needs to do to put out contenders over a period of time changes and evolves. A new CBA could throw in some new wrinkles. But for now at least, TT seems to have a decent handle on it.

I do, however, share your concerns about MM. Recall that late last year there was much talk about his abysmal record (something like 4-14 at the time) in games decided by 4 or less points. Has he matured, gained experience, whatever? Not sure, but overall the team seemed more relaxed and in control in tight situations at the end of the year and in the playoffs. There was a different feeling. Luck, law of averages taking over, who knows?

[Willard]

....There is really no reason not to think that a couple teams can't do it the next 10 years too, or that one of them can't be the Packers, especially since they just won one that maybe they shouldn't have with all the challenges the season gave them....
This is how I see it. The Pack's win this year was surprising. I think we all knew the Pack had a talented core, but many of us figured it might take another year or two of experience to pull it all together and go for the title (like the 90's when we got knocked out by the 'Boys 3 straight years). This Super Bowl victory is almost like the Pack winning it all after the '93 or '94 season instead of the '96 season--with a MASH unit worth of injuries to boot. Now the Pack enters into their natural prime already experienced and full of confidence. As long as they stay hungry I like their chances to keep the trophy home.

[RashanGary]

I don't think the Packers have peaked, so yeah. They're still on the upswing and the way Ted keeps replenishing with young talent, who knows how long this could go.

We're in great shape, that's for sure.



EDIT: What Willard said would have been fine without my add-on.

[MadScientist]

As much as I like all the kool-aid talk here, there are a few things that worry me.

1) Lack of hunger - Rodgers words sound like they have a Super Bowl hangover that is still lingering, and given how slow the Packers (particularly the O-line) have started in the past few seasons, I don't like how this is playing out.

2) Driver, Woodson and Clifton are getting old, which will leave little depth if they start to fall off. Yes they drafted a new tackle, but with less prep this year, it will be hard for him to be ready. They drafted a receiver, but they are also likely losing Jones. They have Shields, but with Woodson becoming more of a saftey / rover, they need a true 3rd CB

3) This was a 10-6 team last year that just got in. Yes the playoffs run was great, but there was a lot of marginal wins and losses last season, and a lot of sloppy play, even before all the injuries took place. The Packers have to improve on their regular season play, not only will they not repeat, they will likely not make the playoffs.

[Patler]

I don't necessarily expect them to repeat in 2011, but I think the chances of them returning to the SB another time or two in the next 5 years is pretty good. Once they get there, actually winning it is sort of a toss-up and depends on a lot of things unique to their situation at the time.

2011 is likely to end up as a peculiar season, assuming it is even played. No team will go into it "prepared", so we might see some real good teams struggle and some bad teams catch fire. Talent is close in the NFL and the intangibles mean a lot.

[Joemailman]

I don't necessarily expect them to repeat in 2011, but I think the chances of them returning to the SB another time or two in the next 5 years is pretty good. Once they get there, actually winning it is sort of a toss-up and depends on a lot of things unique to their situation at the time.

2011 is likely to end up as a peculiar season, assuming it is even played. No team will go into it "prepared", so we might see some real good teams struggle and some bad teams catch fire. Talent is close in the NFL and the intangibles mean a lot.

A similar situation to the Patriots? They surprised by winning it in 2001 when an unknown Brady replaced an injured Bledsoe. After one down year, they then won in 2003 and 2004.

[esoxx]

Everyone gives a lot of reasons why the Packers won't win another SB in the next few years, or a bunch of SBs in a short time frame

Actually, I haven't heard much, if any, talk about this. Who is everyone?

[Patler]

Actually, I haven't heard much, if any, talk about this. Who is everyone?

Poorly phrased on my part, I agree, but I started this thread after reading random comments from many on here in various threads about why this team is not better set up than the '96 team to win more Super Bowls, about how parity has taken hold in the NFL and would be the biggest roadblock to multiple SBs, that free agency and the salary cap could water-down the team, that dynasties just don't happen anymore, etc.. Then there were a couple of national articles degraded the Packers chances, and some promoting the Bears as the stronger team in the Central Division. Of course, there was also Urlacher's interview comments, but I wouldn't really expect him to say anything else.

I specifically went and looked at the history after reading comments that the Packers were a good team, but multiple SBs just won't happen in the NFL anymore because the league is so different than before free agency.

[bobblehead]

I can play devil's advocate and list reasons why its so hard to win multiple championships in todays game, but on the flip side I said something after we LOST to the falcons. I said that this packers team, when its on, can beat anyone in the league on that teams best day. I stand by that. When they are on, they can beat anyone anytime. That may or may not lead to another championship, but it certainly gives us reason to expect that we have a very good shot. We have talent up and down the roster and on the bench. Young talent and old talent. We will be competitive for years to come.

[Tarlam!]

Remember that before January the prevailing perception of McCarthy (myself included) was that he was a poor game manager and that his record in building a competent coaching staff was mixed. Has the Packers's unexpected run in last year's playoffs dramatically changed how we see the future of the franchise? Speaking only for myself, last year's remarkable run totally transformed my view of McCarthy. But if the Packers had somehow lost one of the close games played before the SB (both Philly and Chicago almost mounted successful comebacks) McCarthy would still be the coach he is today, but I suspect I would be seeing him in a very different light.

This is so true. And if they'd lost to the Iggles, Rodgers can't win a playoff game!

[Iron Mike]

Is it time for another winner of multiple Super Bowls?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRtogcyuk4Q

[Tarlam!]

I really love the sound bites!

[Brandon494]

Who in the NFC scares you? No one in the NFC West and no one in our division. Only two teams that actually have a shot to beat us IMO are the Saints and Falcons and we already saw what ARod did against their defense in the playoffs. Anyone who does not believe we will not be competing for multiple championship are either fooling themselves or does not know anything about football.

[KYPack]

Who in the NFC scares you? No one in the NFC West and no one in our division. Only two teams that actually have a shot to beat us IMO are the Saints and Falcons and we already saw what ARod did against their defense in the playoffs. Anyone who does not believe we will not be competing for multiple championship are either fooling themselves or does not know anything about football.

Is the NFC East out of business, Brandon?

[Brandon494]

No they aren't but I don't see the Skins, Cowboys, or the Giants competing with us either. Maybe the Eagles.

[esoxx]

Has the Packers's unexpected run in last year's playoffs

Huh?

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?21273-Go-Big-or-Go-Home

[Iron Mike]

Who in the NFC scares you? No one in the NFC West and no one in our division. Only two teams that actually have a shot to beat us IMO are the Saints and Falcons and we already saw what ARod did against their defense in the playoffs. Anyone who does not believe we will not be competing for multiple championship are either fooling themselves or does not know anything about football.

Don't forget we're adding Jermichael Finley and Ryan Grant to the mix this year......

[Tarlam!]

I'm glad they open at Lambeau. But, I hope the coaches and players aren't buying into Brandon's polemic.

- Detroit for one can't be underestimated. Sure they have issues with their secondary and keeping their QB upright, but it's on Turkey Day.
- Tampa only lost out on stats last season. I know it's a home game, but those boys can play.
- It's never easy to win at the Georgia Dome and anybody thinking they won't be looking for revenge doesn't know much about football.

And Chicago games have their own rules.

There's areason the games are played.

[hoosier]

Huh?

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?21273-Go-Big-or-Go-Home

Unexpected by mere mortals.

[hoosier]

Who in the NFC scares you? No one in the NFC West and no one in our division. Only two teams that actually have a shot to beat us IMO are the Saints and Falcons and we already saw what ARod did against their defense in the playoffs. Anyone who does not believe we will not be competing for multiple championship are either fooling themselves or does not know anything about football.

What Rodgers did last year against the Falcons in the playoffs was one game. The Packers went on an incredible run, starting with the Giants in Week 16 and ending in the SB. If it is that team that is going to show up every week in 2011, then yeah, nobody can hold a candle to them. But that team did not show up every week last year and I see no reason to expect it to show up every week this coming season. Nor do I think they can necessarily turn it on and off at will. And if they ever get to the point where they think they can then I will know they cannot. :-)

[Fritz]

Tampa? Atlanta? There'll be plenty of competition, Brandon. Plenty.

[Fred's Slacks]

Actually, Philly is the team that scares me the most in the NFC. Ton's of talent on offense, and when Vick is in the zone, he can be almost unbeatable (though that doesn't happen often).

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Dallas will probably be a factor this year as well. I see Dallas, Philly, NO, ATL, STL, and GB as the six teams that make it this year. If not Dallas, TB and maybe a team from our division will take one of the last wild card spots.

[Pugger]

Who in the NFC scares you? No one in the NFC West and no one in our division. Only two teams that actually have a shot to beat us IMO are the Saints and Falcons and we already saw what ARod did against their defense in the playoffs. Anyone who does not believe we will not be competing for multiple championship are either fooling themselves or does not know anything about football.

I wonder if the Falcons will be all that scary. After they saw what we did to their defense in the playoffs they morgaged their future by upgrading their offense?

[Pugger]

What Rodgers did last year against the Falcons in the playoffs was one game. The Packers went on an incredible run, starting with the Giants in Week 16 and ending in the SB. If it is that team that is going to show up every week in 2011, then yeah, nobody can hold a candle to them. But that team did not show up every week last year and I see no reason to expect it to show up every week this coming season. Nor do I think they can necessarily turn it on and off at will. And if they ever get to the point where they think they can then I will know they cannot. :-)

Rodgers and our offense did it in the regular season too. Rodgers' fumble into the end zone and another ST meltdown were the reasons we lost that first game.

[hoosier]

Rodgers and our offense did it in the regular season too. Rodgers' fumble into the end zone and another ST meltdown were the reasons we lost that first game.

There were several games where the offense as a whole--or key parts of it--just laid an egg. Such as Mia (Rodgers appeared out of sync with his receivers, defense couldn't stop the run and made Henne look like a professional QB), Wash (passing game still out of sync, pass defense gave up too many huge plays in second half), at Det (OL was absolutely pathetic). You could also argue that the losses against Chi and Atl revealed a team that was better than its opponent but just couldn't put them away.

[get louder at lambeau]

at Det (OL was absolutely pathetic).

Due largely to a lack of decent LG play after Colledge went down to injury. And it doesn't look like Colledge will be back this year. Maybe Lang will step up, but it is yet to be seen if our OL will experience growing pains this year without the guy who was a starter on our OL in 95% of the games over his five years in the NFL. Losing him would not be addition by subtraction, IMO. Not this year, anyway.

[Fritz]

The offensive line experiences growing pains every damn year, it seems.

[mraynrand]

The offensive line experiences growing pains every damn year, it seems.

It's like watching reruns of a bad sitcom!

http://images.tvrage.com/shows/4/3747.jpg

[hoosier]

Due largely to a lack of decent LG play after Colledge went down to injury. And it doesn't look like Colledge will be back this year. Maybe Lang will step up, but it is yet to be seen if our OL will experience growing pains this year without the guy who was a starter on our OL in 95% of the games over his five years in the NFL. Losing him would not be addition by subtraction, IMO. Not this year, anyway.

I remember it being pretty crappy all around. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/111768244.html

[get louder at lambeau]

I remember it being pretty crappy all around. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/111768244.html

Crappy all around, but only the LG was crappy enough to get benched. Just sayin, College is under-appreciated. He's not great, but he has been a starter almost every game since being drafted, and when he went out, the next guy up got destroyed and benched, and the line had their worst game of the year.

[hoosier]

Crappy all around, but only the LG was crappy enough to get benched. Just sayin, College is under-appreciated. He's not great, but he has been a starter almost every game since being drafted, and when he went out, the next guy up got destroyed and benched, and the line had their worst game of the year.

I don't disagree. The more I think about it, the more it seems we could say that about most of the OL positions in recent years. Unless I am forgetting somene, and with the exception of Wells, all of the guys who have tried to step in as replacements have been ineffective. Am I missing someone who has actually been able to do the job coming off the bench?

[Gunakor]

Unless I am forgetting somene, and with the exception of Wells, all of the guys who have tried to step in as replacements have been ineffective. Am I missing someone who has actually been able to do the job coming off the bench?


Bryan Bulaga. Though he'll be an everyday starter at RT for 2011 and beyond, Tauscher was the starting RT last season until he got hurt. Bulaga came off the bench and performed very admirably in his stead.

[RashanGary]

If I had to list the best 5 OL on our roster for 2011. . . and I'm not saying how they played last year. I'm projecting improvement/decline levels too.

Sitton - Bulaga - Clifton - Wells - Colledge

Sherrod - Lang as top backups

A bunch of people battling it out for 2 or 3 spots.


Not bringing back Colledge would burn us IMHO. We don't have enough depth not to and he's not a premium player. He'll get a reasonable salary. Unless there is something going on with the young guys I don't know about, we're very thin on the bench.

McDonald and Lang have both gotten praise from McCarthy. Maybe they'd be fine. Just knowing what I know, I think Colledge will be here.

[get louder at lambeau]

Bryan Bulaga. Though he'll be an everyday starter at RT for 2011 and beyond, Tauscher was the starting RT last season until he got hurt. Bulaga came off the bench and performed very admirably in his stead.

Lang could be argued too, with his work at tackle in '09 and at least being better than Spitz at LG. He wasn't great, but he showed some promise. With his wrist healed up, he might be a player.

[vince]

Based on what I've seen from Lang on the field and McDonald in training camp doing footwork drills, combined with what has been said about him by McCarthy & Co. and knowing the kind of fighter and worker he is with his background, I think both have a good chance to develop into solid players. I'm hoping one of them steps up and takes over for the perpetually inconsistent Colledge.

[mission]

I think Lang will have his breakout year with a full offseason of strength training.

[smuggler]

And Chicago games have their own rules.

There's areason the games are played.

Thank God we won't have to watch James Jones fumble away another game to the Bears ever again. He did it in 2007 and 2010, both in the first matchup with them in each respective season.

[Brandon494]

I think Lang will have his breakout year with a full off-season of strength training.

That's a good call. He has to be the top guy to take over at LG if Colledge decides to sign elsewhere. He showed a lot of promise as a rookie before he injured his wrist.