Guter's Pooters

[pbmax]

49-33 over his tenure with obvious injury or other luck related reasons for the mediocre years, and still the negative ninnies whine.

I'll take that over some other damn GM who maybe has a feast or famine or tear-down-to-rebuild or other type of stupid mentality.

Four years of modest results, including 3 years of .500. He's got to get it going or the true negative Nellies will be correct that he only won with Ted's players. You cannot blame injury luck over the course of a four year sample.

[Patler]

"Injury" and "luck" are excuses for nothing, especially when evaluating performance over an extended time, such as the past four years. Injuries happen and the GM and coaches have to plan for and adapt to them as they occur. "Luck" tends to even out, you win some and you lose some because of it. Mostly, you make your own luck, both good and bad. If you want to use excuses for "luck" when you lose, maybe we should attribute some of their wins to luck as well, including having Parsons fall into their lap, never having expected to have him last year.

Speaking of Parsons, in my opinion they should get absolutely no break for losing Parsons last year, or at most only the "excuse" value of losing Clark, because they approached the season expecting to play with Clark, not Parsons.

Initially, LaFleur was the fresh, new offense-oriented HC, and may have had the advantage of novelty. As DCs studied and learned his tendencies and approach, they caught up. I think LaFleur has been slow in refreshing himself to stay ahead, but I am hopeful for this year because he has said he would rebuild his offense this off-season. It will be interesting to see if he has in any significant way.

[texaspackerbacker]

Ya'all are like a bunch of spoiled rich brats. You/We are damn lucky not to have a team to root for like 30 or 31 other fan bases around the league. Sheeeeesh

[Fritz]

It's about the trend, Tex. Going in the wrong direction. Every coach ends up burning out. Patler had a good post a few years ago in which he discussed the "shelf life" of an NFL coach. Patler being Patler, he had facts and numbers to back up his arguments.

The older I get, the more I think NFL success is primarily based upon ijury luck. GM's have so much information at their fingertips, and so many subordinates to help them manage the cap, scout the players, and so on, I would hazard the opinion that the gap between the best GM in the league and the worst is much smaller these days than it would have been in, say, the 1990's. I'm not saying there is no difference - just that the difference between best and worst is smaller. I'd say the same is true of head coaches. They're all pretty damn savvy these days. Again, I'm not saying there is no difference between the best and worst head coaches, just that the gap is smaller now than thirty years ago. On the other hand, I do think having a very, very good QB is nearly essential. There IS a huge difference between Drake Mayes or even Sam Darnold and Shedeur Sanders.

So to me it comes down mostly to luck. Other factors play a role: yes, you have to have a GM who can secure the talent, and you have to have a head coach who knows how to utilize it (this might be Matty Flower's weak spot). But if your best players stay healthy throughout the year, you've got a real shot.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

East Detroit, Frtiz, is that the humble side of the 8 Mile Road that Eminem is from, or is that the posh part of ‘Troit?

[Fritz]

It's about the trend, Tex. Going in the wrong direction. Every coach ends up burning out. Patler had a good post a few years ago in which he discussed the "shelf life" of an NFL coach. Patler being Patler, he had facts and numbers to back up his arguments.

The older I get, the more I think NFL success is primarily based upon injury luck. GM's have so much information at their fingertips, and so many subordinates to help them manage the cap, scout the players, and so on, I would hazard the opinion that the gap between the best GM in the league and the worst is much smaller these days than it would have been in, say, the 1990's. I'm not saying there is no difference - just that the difference between best and worst is smaller. I'd say the same is true of head coaches. They're all pretty damn savvy these days. Again, I'm not saying there is no difference between the best and worst head coaches, just that the gap is smaller now than thirty years ago. On the other hand, I do think having a very, very good QB is nearly essential. There IS a huge difference between Drake Mayes or even Sam Darnold and Shedeur Sanders.

So to me it comes down mostly to Injury luck. Other factors play a role: yes, you have to have a GM who can secure the talent, and you have to have a head coach who knows how to utilize it (this might be Matty Flower's weak spot). But if your best players stay healthy throughout the year, you've got a real shot. So I have to disagree with Patler to some extent there. Maybe it's more on a year-to-year basis - the Seahawks had good injury luck last year. Had the Packers not lost Parsons, Wyatt, and Kraft, they might be hoisting the trophy instead of the Seahawks.

When the Packers won it all in 2010, we were amazed at the number of injuries that team overcame. Sure. But their biggest losses were Ryan Grant, Nick Barnett, and Jermchael Finley. But Aaron Rodgers, Greg Jennings, BJ Raji, Clay Mathews, Charles Woodson, and Tramon Williams all stayed healthy that year.

PS - I grew up closer to the east side that is more the Eminem part than the Grosse Pointe part.

[bobblehead]

Without reading much past the first post I'll say this. Rhyan was a bad pick and a worse second contract imo. He is below average and we paid him. Awful.

[texaspackerbacker]

Fritz, you and I absolutely agree that luck with injuries is a primary, probably the primary determinant of NFL team success.

Where I would disagree with you is the thing about a downward trend. Last year, of course, it was injuries for sure. In the years prior, we had the aging of Rodgers and the transition to Love that brought some downturn, but hardly a trend. In the same time frame, we had Adams decide to leave.

I also agree with you that having a very very good QB is essential. You can count on one hand in the history of the NFL where that wasn't the case.

As for "shelf life" of coaches, that's very much an overgeneralization. I'd say for every one who can't adjust, you have several who innovate and stay on top. I see LaFleur as a lot closer to the latter.

[Fritz]

Without reading much past the first post I'll say this. Rhyan was a bad pick and a worse second contract imo. He is below average and we paid him. Awful.

I didn't count Rhyan because he did end up as a starter and even got a second contract. That might be a soft stool, but it's not a poot.

[Patler]

After Parsons was hurt, the Packers were what, 0-5?

If they had played the entire season with Clark but not Parsons, as they had planned, how would they have done?

What does that say about Gute and the coaching staff?

[Joemailman]

After Parsons was hurt, the Packers were what, 0-5?

If they had played the entire season with Clark but not Parsons, as they had planned, how would they have done?

What does that say about Gute and the coaching staff?

We don't know for sure, but their interior defense would have been much better with Clark in the middle. Trading Clark right before the season was to start created a gaping hole in the d-line, a whole made bigger when Wyatt went down.

[Joemailman]

Without reading much past the first post I'll say this. Rhyan was a bad pick and a worse second contract imo. He is below average and we paid him. Awful.

We'll see. He had never started a game at Center before thrown in there middle of last year with a revolving door of Guards next to him. Reports out of camp have been pretty good. He could improve. If not, they can get out of the deal after 2026 and save 5.3 million on the cap.

[pbmax]

We'll see. He had never started a game at Center before thrown in there middle of last year with a revolving door of Guards next to him. Reports out of camp have been pretty good. He could improve. If not, they can get out of the deal after 2026 and save 5.3 million on the cap.

That kind of 3 or 4 year deal even with significant money upfront seems to be non-debilitating to the cap at these numbers. Its like one step above the old sign a street free agent vet for some cash up front and the minimum year 1 salary. It does keep putting dead dollars on the cap but not with the same effect as say trading Clark did.

Its hard to wrap your mind around because deals like this and Hobbs seemed expensive and uncertain. But cap wise it's not a killer.

On the other hand, Banks deal, especially with the restructure, means he's gonna be here a couple of years.

[Fritz]

I think the Hobbs and Banks signings - most especially Banks, because they got out of Hobbs's deal after one year - tell us that Guter pooted on those two signings. He's had some good signings, but not those two. Banks's contract is an egregious mistake, it would seem. Unless he suddenly starts blocking like granite and being the enforcer he was supposed to be and starting every game.

[Joemailman]

I think the Hobbs and Banks signings - most especially Banks, because they got out of Hobbs's deal after one year - tell us that Guter pooted on those two signings. He's had some good signings, but not those two. Banks's contract is an egregious mistake, it would seem. Unless he suddenly starts blocking like granite and being the enforcer he was supposed to be and starting every game.

I'd settle for Banks just being healthy and being a solid LG. He doesn't necessarily have to justify his contract for the Packers to be better. Availability is the best ability.