Robert McGinn end of season breakdown

[woodbuck27]

A) Stupid certainly can be classified. B) Stupid was my opinion of the opinion, and therefore you must respect my opinion that the aforementioned opinion was stupid...by your own logic.

It's just that word "STUPID" that I believe is one of the most dangerous words in the English language bobblehead.

That word is destructive and beneath you.

[woodbuck27]

Now you disagree with something I nor anyone said. The OP said that packers lose ARod and we aren't close. Those teams lose their QB and its still close. Nobody said anything about taking BOTH QB's away.

i) "The OP said that packers lose ARod and we aren't close." bobblehead

That's more true than false. It's not a definitive statement...yet I'll go with TRUE.

ii) "The OP said that packers lose ARod and we aren't close. Those teams lose their QB and its still close." bobblehead

From that I interpret that now the matchup consists of both teams losing their starting QB's. The matchup involves backup QB's.

I think your saying if it's the Packers and Aaron Rodgers behind Center. Vs a Top four NFC Team without it's NO. 1 QB and in that case disagreeing that in that case the Packers lose.

Now you have "your opinion" and "his opinion" and that possibly deteriorating into something else.

How much value do you place in such scenario debates?

In my view opinions are worthless in terms of any determination.

Rhetoric based in opinion is at most possibly entertaining.

[Pugger]

Actually the whole team collapsed, as the Badgers always do in the bowl games.

Yes, the team did but had Russell not thrown those INTs the game might have had a different outcome.

[woodbuck27]

"And one last thing: "they" often say that Rodgers is arguably the best QB in the league. He is very good, but with Brady taking his team to the AFC championship for the third consecutive year, is it even a debate (and no, I don't think Payton is either because he needs a great cast to do anything in the playoffs)?"

Not even close imo, Brady is a much better QB than Rodgers, of course Brady also has a much better head coach.

Tom Brady is a system QB and he totally buys into Bill Belichick because BIill Belichick wouldn't have it any other way. It double down works because:

Bill Belichick is an extraordinary motivator of men. He's also very quiet in his manner of leadership. He's outstanding in terms of getting such positive results from his team despite almost any adversity.

I can't wait for his book. It'll be awhile because he doesn't give up many secrets. When he does talk I listen too him in fascination. He's simple in his brilliance.

Who's more like the Great 'Saint Vince' Lombardi ?

Bill Belichick or Mike McCarthy.

You might answer that question but among a whole group of people here that question will be conveniently ignored.

I've observed this and it seems that it's easier to hate brilliance.

Somehow I've managed to NEVER buy into that.

I've always posted this here. I want the combination of TT and MM to be more like Bill Belichick.

Why? Do we need to read the book?

[Fritz]

I think the Packers system was really going well after the super bowl. Then our Clay Matthews, Charles Woodson in his Prime, and Nick Collins of the personnel department all left for jobs in KC, Seattle and Oakland. Clearly they had a lot of talent there. I don't follow it much, but it seems unusual to me that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th members of the football organization left for GM jobs. It tells me they had a dynamic, unusually good personal staff.

Our drafting has sucked since the super bowl. Whether it's just bad luck, or what, it doesn't matter. By the Ron Wolf theory, we should have a minimum 3-4 additional quality starters on the team than we do. We don't because of poor drafting. That is the entire problem with the roster in my opinion. We are 3-4 quality starters away from the contending. Not pro bowlers or super stars, just quality average to above average players at their position. That makes 3-4 current starters into back-up depth, which makes the entire roster look better.

I think if we would have continued the pre-2010 success drafting, we would be contending and a dynamic team.

I'm not advocating for free agency, or drafting only, or really stating an opinion at all. My opinion is really that the Packers roster quality has taken a significant dip since the super bowl and it coincides with the massive organizational changing injury to Nick Collins and the departure of the the front line of personnel staff. The bottom line is we need some better players in a hurry and it is unlikely that they will all come in the draft in the next year or two.

I don't think the Packers' drafting has "sucked." Not at all. For example, it would be hard to argue that if the Packers had had Clay Matthews, Casey Hayward, and oh, say, Jermichael Finley against San Fran they would still have lost. Had it been Hayward instead of Hyde trying to pull down that pick at the end, would the game have ended differently? And that doesn't count Johnny Jolly, Mike Neal, Sam Shields, and so on and so on.

I also don't think recent first rounders have been bad choices; but they've been choices that have gotten injured frequently. Had Sherrod not gotten hurt there is much debate about how good he'd be (I'm on the side that believes he'd be starting now), and I also think Perry has flashed again this season, and Bulaga was solid before getting hurt again, and that it's too soon to say with Datone Jones.

Having said that, I also do think that with the big Rodgers and Matthews contracts, there is much more pressure to hit on more draft picks. Thompson can hardly afford flops at key positions, and he's had two recently in my opinion: Jerel Worthy and Jerron McMillan. McMillan was a key fail. He didn't need to be an All Pro but he needed to develop, and be a solid partner. And he didn't. In addition, like a few of Thompson's d-line picks, Worthy just doesn't fit the scheme. Nor does Raji in my opinion, and that's why I think he'll be gone. I do hope the D. Jones picks indicates that Thompson understands now that he can't just draft good players; he has to draft guys that can fit the scheme.

But I don't know if Thompson has much choice in how he's doing business in terms of drafting versus signing free agents. It's probably harder to come by a Russel Wilson/Colin Kaepernick/Aaron Rodgers every four years so you don't have to pay an excellent young QB a big contract than it is to hit on a higher percentage of draft picks.

But whoever made the point about Capers needing to simplify (Was it Maxie?) is correct, too. If Capers runs a scheme that is designed for experienced players, then he needs to adjust the scheme because he's not going to have many five-year-plus vets due to the nature of the NFL now. Unless he wants a bunch of vets who are cheap because they're at the end of their careers, and having those players will not increase the team speed on defense that McGinn was also calling for a couple weeks ago.

It's the nature of the NFL. Ron Wolf was not constrained the way that NFL GM's are now; he retired in part because those constraints were coming into place and he didn't like them.

And I agree too with whoever said MM needs to rethink his backup QB plan because of the new CBA. He may have to suck it up and keep Tolzien or whoever he drafts on his 53 so he can keep Flynn as the backup. He'll lose a precious special teams spot, but he may have no choice unless he wants to not have a young developing QB any more for a while.

So: draft defense up the middle (ILB, nose tackle, safety), choosing guys who are suited to the kind of 3-4 Capers employs, get someone in who can figure out why more Packers get hurt than other players on other teams do, have Capers simplify for his young defense, re-sign Shields and Neal, let Raji walk (he does not fit this scheme and does not want to play it, I don't think), re-sign Flynn, and see how it goes next year.

[bobblehead]

i) "The OP said that packers lose ARod and we aren't close." bobblehead

That's more true than false. It's not a definitive statement...yet I'll go with TRUE.

ii) "The OP said that packers lose ARod and we aren't close. Those teams lose their QB and its still close." bobblehead

From that I interpret that now the matchup consists of both teams losing their starting QB's. The matchup involves backup QB's.

If that is what he meant, it was a very poorly constructed...everything. Obviously if we lose Rodgers we aren't going to win, but if in turn they lose their QB then it would be close. That isn't what he meant though. He meant that if we lose rodgers and they keep QB1 they kill us. If we have Rodgers and they lose QB1 its a close game. I contest that. Its ridiculous. Make every team in the playoffs immediately lose their starting QB and the Packers walk to the SB.

[bobblehead]

Who's more like the Great 'Saint Vince' Lombardi ?

Bill Belichick or Mike McCarthy.

You might answer that question but among a whole group of people here that question will be conveniently ignored.

You mean which one was a brilliant offensive mind and which one was a brilliant defensive mind...I agree, MM is more like Vince.

[pbmax]

What, I was commenting on the Rodgers being the best QB thing, simply comparing QB's apples to apples. Do you really think Rodgers is better, he has a lot of play off wins to get yet to convince me.

Yes, I happen to believe this. Its very close, but I think he is better. In general, Brady has played behind better protection and Rodgers is the superior deep thrower. Brady is Montana like in his accuracy and timing on short to medium throws. Each holds the ball longer than Peyton and take punishment as a result, but throws fewer INTs.

What I like about Belichick's offense is that they will completely change character between games to attack weaknesses. The downside is that if they guess wrong, you can shut that offense down for 3/4 of a game occasionally.

McCarthy concentrates on fewer points of attack and sticks with his plan and sticks with it for a half. He will alter the approach after halftime. If McCarthy has guessed wrong, you are behind the eight ball in the 3rd Quarter. He needs to more deeply integrate his newly empowered run game with his pass game in a way that produces an advantage (play action for instance) no matter where the safeties line up.

[Striker]

If that is what he meant, it was a very poorly constructed...everything. Obviously if we lose Rodgers we aren't going to win, but if in turn they lose their QB then it would be close. That isn't what he meant though. He meant that if we lose rodgers and they keep QB1 they kill us. If we have Rodgers and they lose QB1 its a close game. I contest that. Its ridiculous. Make every team in the playoffs immediately lose their starting QB and the Packers walk to the SB.

Seahawks backup is Tarvaris Jackson.

49ers is Colt McCoy

Yeah, it wouldn't be close. I'd dare either of those guys to beat you with their arm. No matter how good those defenses are, they will get worn down by constant 3 and outs.

[Pugger]

Seahawks backup is Tarvaris Jackson.

49ers is Colt McCoy

Yeah, it wouldn't be close. I'd dare either of those guys to beat you with their arm. No matter how good those defenses are, they will get worn down by constant 3 and outs.

Denver's backup is Brock Osweiler - who some say is pretty good - and NE's is Ryan Mallett. I wonder if any of these teams had lost their starting QB would they had even made the playoffs?

[Striker]

Denver's backup is Brock Osweiler - who some say is pretty good - and NE's is Ryan Mallett. I wonder if any of these teams had lost their starting QB would they had even made the playoffs?

If the Seahawks and/or 49ers lost their QBs, they'd have a rough go of it. Arizona and the Rams have good defenses that can easily bottle up the run, and have enough players in their respective secondaries that shaky backups would have had a rough go of it.

Denver might have, though it would have been rough with the Chiefs and Chargers in the division (probably delivering more losses) though the AFC wildcard was 9-7 so it could have been close. Patriots probably, just because the rest of the AFC East is so bad.

[denverYooper]

Denver's backup is Brock Osweiler - who some say is pretty good - and NE's is Ryan Mallett. I wonder if any of these teams had lost their starting QB would they had even made the playoffs?

Denver would get shellacked playing Osweiler against playoff teams. He's just too green.

[red]

Denver's backup is Brock Osweiler - who some say is pretty good - and NE's is Ryan Mallett. I wonder if any of these teams had lost their starting QB would they had even made the playoffs?

maybe if they played in the nfc north where every other team tries their hardest to lose

[woodbuck27]

If that is what he meant, it was a very poorly constructed...everything. Obviously if we lose Rodgers we aren't going to win, but if in turn they lose their QB then it would be close. That isn't what he meant though. He meant that if we lose rodgers and they keep QB1 they kill us. If we have Rodgers and they lose QB1 its a close game. I contest that. Its ridiculous. Make every team in the playoffs immediately lose their starting QB and the Packers walk to the SB.

Examining this statement:

The Green Bay Packers with Aaron Rodgers Vs any of the TOP FOUR NFL teams. With their far superior defense's and without their NO. 1 QB will lose to the Green Bay Packers.

Is that statement true?

Upon a close examination it's a maybe!?

The Packers offense will matchup very well Vs the Opponents Offense. That's not the end all to be all in terms of you lose in the playoffs and your out !

** The Green Bay Packers and Head Coach Mike McCarthy must win the battle of the clock by rushing a lot.

To get there MM has to establish and stick with the Packers running game throughout the game. Every game it has to be that. Is there any problem there? Yes there certainly is:

Mike McCarthy too often fails to stick with that running game no matter it's success because he somehow feels pressure to showcase his STAR players. That's the case and right in our Packer fan faces.

** Mike McCarthy has to (along with Aaron Rodgers and the RB's mostly) ensure ball control.

Passing against excellent defenses is risky. That's especially true in terms of the most excellent defenses and defending against the PASS.

** The team must win the Turn Over battle which is (tricky to unlikely) with the Green Bay Packers DC Dom Capers considerably weaker defense.

Remember that the TOP Four of Five NFL Total Defenses Rankings are in the NFC and belong to Elite NFC Teams ... (1) Seattle, (2) Carolina, (4) San Francisco and (5) New Orleans.

Other NFC Team defenses that are superior to the Green Bay Packers NFL 25th Ranked Defense are:

After the above and in "Order of Ranking" ... It's:

(6) Arizona; (8) New York GIANTS; (15) St. Louis; (16) Detroit; (17) Tampa Bay; (18) Washington and . . .

Then it's (25) Green Bay.

That's the eleventh (11th) of sixteen (16) defense's in the NFC. That's seven (7) ranked positions below the 18th ranked Washington Redskins.

** The Green Bay Packer must win with their Special Teams play and that's simply not rational thinking in terms of expecting that and the Green Bay Packers ST play. Based on going back how long and that sucking !

That translates to a tremendous effort and success in order to step forward as a much improved Green Bay Packers Defense AND Special Teams performance. Towards continuing that throughout the regular seasons schedule and assisting the Green Bay Packers to a playoff berth and any hope of a long playoff run.

That cannot be achieved by Magic Thinking woulda's - coulda's - shoulda's. Blame set down on injuries. As injuries translates to missing experience and thus development for non Vet roster players.

Injuries simply water down a roster that's for all intents and purposes incapable of stepping up to ensure success and next man up. Because of the Green Bay Packer rosters average age being young and inexperienced in regards to second stringers defense.

Look what Ted Thompson is faced with, given the last three seasons of overall failure in terms of playoff runs NOT; and so many roster spots held down by players headed to Free Agency.

How does Ted Thompson and MM weight that with this obvious fact:

Change is necessary and/or better contributions in terms of coaching and /or roster moves to upgrade the Packers DEFENSE and as a result raise any real hope and schemes projected towards achieving positive outcomes.

Anything sup par to this is "like pissing into a north wind", guaranteed failing. Another or... the fourth year of extreme mediocrity for the Green bay Packer defense and failure in the playoff's.

Bank on it. TT and MM have to institute a real change for the Green bay Packers Defense and ST's or we fail again in 2014.

That's a LOCK down surety.

SO...bobblehed if the Packers do little in terms of change for their defense and it doesn't appear as that's going tp happen in the immediate future.

Expect the Green Bay Packer to fail in the playoffs if they even get there.

Expect us Packer fans to be locked into discussion and the same issues and the Green Bay Packer Defense.

Expect "the same Ole Same Ole lame ass excuses" for TT, MM, Dom Capers and Shawn Slocum.

That means a focus of dedication to a change in scheme and very hard work to hop into a NFL Top Ten Position Ranked Defense.

NO ! Having Aaron Rodgers going up against the Top Ranked Teams without their NO> 1 QB is no real gurantee that The Green Bay packers as this team presently exists will walk through the NFC and land in Super Bowl XLVIX.

That's very likely NOT happening.

My logic is far from STUPID. My logic is rationally sensible. My logic spells out the TRUTH.

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/instant_reaction_bob_mcginn_rips_packers/15530606?linksrc=story_team_green_bay_packers_auto_module_head_15530606

Instant Reaction: Bob McGinn rips Packers

January 13, 2014 Jacob Westendorf

GO PACKERS !