How big of a part is the QB to the whole team?

[Partial]

GMs get longer because they can typically blame a coach and have an opportunity for a second one.

There is a huge degree of turnover in the NFL, so failure is not accepted. The GM often makes the coach the scapegoat.

Look at the coaches turned over this year alone:
Raiders-fired Lane Kiffin
Broncos-fired Mike Shanahan
Browns-fired Romeo Crennel
Jets-fired Eric Mangini
Rams-fired Scott Linehan
49ers-fired Mike Nolan
Lions-fired Rod Marinelli
Bucs - fired Jon Gruden
Chiefs - Herm Edwards


Then, a few others off the top of my head from recent years were:
Tice, Sherman, Marty Schottenheimer, Whoever was in Az before the Steelers OC took over, etc.

That's basically half the league in 3-4 years.

[woodbuck27]

We're going to find out in the next two years if Thompson has done the job.

Yes. So he still gets a break for the teams results to date and the pressure of the Favre saga.

Can we possibly agree that he has done the job to date? It's only about wins and playoff performances as we go ahead and discuss Ted Thompson and his success as out GM. Also it's about getting it all together.

Now we can hopefully agree that our 'D' was poor last season and especially where it has to succeed or against the run. We have made a significant adjustment for our 'D'. We have to be happy with our QB as he has alot of upside. We have excellent WR's and a maturing OL with depth and we need more fr. our vet's there. Hopefully our running game will stand up.

I'm optimistic. I want Ted Thompson to look great.

GO PACKERS!

[ThunderDan]

After 3 years would you have kept the GM that goes 9-7, 9-7, 9-7 or the one that goes 4-12, 8-8, 13-3 and gets us to the NFC Championship game?

That's what I am trying to point out.

Yeah, I understand Dan. But then, when you look at 6-10 the following year after the Championship game, it weakens your argument.

That's my point. There is a better argument than the one you used. You can defeat this perspective after this year, or, it will defeat you using this argument. But, not many can look at the quality of the football players on the roster and not see improvement from the 2005 team. That's why Thompson gets another year. Potential. That's why Ron Wolf stayed around. That's why Ray Rhodes got canned. Potential. Much better argument.

Jury is still out.

It strengthens my argument.

You can't look at a 13-3 year and say you have the best GM in the league even if you win the Super Bowl. There are too many factors to look stictly at record.

You need to look at the 6-10 also when evaluating TT. But more importantly you need to look at the depth of the team from top to bottom. Packer players that are cut or put on the practice squad are now being frequently picked up by other teams.

You need to look at the coaches and ask yourself do they put our players in the best position to win. Do we have innovators for coaches like Dom Capers or guys that line up the same in the same down and distance every time like Bob Sanders.

[SnakeLH2006]

It's funny how this turned into a TT debate, but again, Partial, the key to correlating QB rating to success is what this thread was about.

I made the point early on about QB rating (conventional formula) equates success overall in my college stat course PowerPoint from 1978-2004. Bossman went and did a throwdown of the of the top 10 QB rated guys from 2002-present and it was at 70% exactly for those QB's making the playoffs. Thanks BTW.

Anyway, you can argue all you want that it isn't the end-all as there are abberations to ANYTHING, yet 70% is a pretty good barometer of good QB play over a season.

2008 Rodgers was an aberration then, good ass QB rating over a full season, 6-10 record (obviously no playoffs) but that was on the D if anything. If he does this over a career, chances are the D will get better, much better for some seasons, and he'll be a SB QB potentially. Passing yards mean nothing. How many SuperBowls did Dan Fouts win? :P You can argue it, but ARod is the right man for the job, based on last season. And again, BTW, didn't he throw for over 4000 yards last year with a killer QB rating? Awesome season. Arod FTW.

[th87]

Do you want a pretty good cake that takes 30 minutes in the oven?

Or do you want an amazing cake that takes an hour in the oven?

I'll take the amazing cake.

[SnakeLH2006]

Do you want a pretty good cake that takes 30 minutes in the oven?

Or do you want an amazing cake that takes an hour in the oven?

I'll take the amazing cake.

Agreed, th87. Snake loves amazing cakes. Some will take a subpar cake even if the entree is excellent, but great cakes are hard to find. Why not have a great cake and a great entree instead of settling for a piss-poor meal cuz your cake sucks and you won't return? So why settle for a shitty cake for one time (year/career) instead of getting a great cake everytime (franchise QB). Good post. Snake loves analogies.

This whole logic turned into settling for a so-so QB instead of a game-changer??? Why not get a stud (Arod looks that part so far) over a game-manager? What logic is there in that?

This might turn into a sig. Ok just did.

Snake likes your post, sir. Thanks for the new sig. You summed it up well.