What Would You Give For A 5Th Lombardi Trophy

[GB-Brandon]

Can we really sit around and feel we got robbed because Rodgers only gave us the 5th highest playoff rated passer rating of all time and not No.1? Well, once again while he did have better weapons back then they were not elite other then maybe 2011 when we just had so many weapons.

I don’t think so.

[Patler]

Well many of the runs we had the 30th-32nd ranked defense and the Packers couldn’t figure it out and improve the defense year after year. That was probably the most glaring problem without digging to deep into it on a macro level.

This brings up something I have wondered about. Since the '70s, except for sporadic, short periods, some lasting only a season or less, the Packers can't seem to put together a strong, let alone dominant defense. Why is that? This has been the scenario under numerous GMs, changing scouting staffs, numerous head coaches and even more D-coordinators. Even their better defenses have often had significant warts.

The leadership has changed many times over. The supporting staff even more. They have invested significant draft capital in the defense. When they do dip into free agency, it seems the more significant forays have been for defense.

Other franchises, under numerous GMs, coaches and coordinators can field strong defenses.

[Patler]

I don't think it is just about losing big games. It's playing poorly, coaching strangely or looking ill-prepared, and losing. Those are the games that are hard to accept.

QBs, including Rodgers, play poor games and still win. If we are judging choking by a single player, wins or losses should be secondary to the analysis. Instead, they are almost the entirety of the analysis.

Exactly. There are numerous separate evaluations, and we tend to blur them.

Is the roster adequately constructed to make a run?
Do the coaches get out-coached in preparing the team and/or making decisions during the game?
Do the players, especially the star players, rise to the occasion, make critical plays at critical times?

[GB-Brandon]

This brings up something I have wondered about. Since the '70s, except for sporadic, short periods, some lasting only a season or less, the Packers can't seem to put together a strong, let alone dominant defense. Why is that? This has been the scenario under numerous GMs, changing scouting staffs, numerous head coaches and even more D-coordinators. Even their better defenses have often had significant warts.

The leadership has changed many times over. The supporting staff even more. They have invested significant draft capital in the defense. When they do dip into free agency, it seems the more significant forays have been for defense.

Other franchises, under numerous GMs, coaches and coordinators can field strong defenses.

Yeah that’s a big one. Hmmm, yeah. The thing is people think I’m all about WR’s etc etc but I love defense. I played defense. I’m all about defense. I’ve just given up on the Packers building a formidable defense. It’s dysfunctional from the top down. They can’t establish a vision and then adequately carry out the vision with the correct personnel. In the 70’s and 80’s and partly in the 90’s it was different because the playing field wasn’t necessarily level so I attribute a lot of it to that. Beyond those years it was purely incompetence with coaching and personnel other then a few years here and there where they were able to put something together. I know sales organizations that went out of business after 20 years because they could never really hire the “Right Guys.”

I wrote a post about this after the Niners playoff game last year. When I think of defense I think of MEAN, NASTY PEOPLE UP FRONT that want to bully people around. Guys that are going to disrupt and cause chaos. Fletcher Cox would be a good example. Aaron Donald obviously a good example. I think of guys in the middle of the defense that are fast and can fly to the football with GREAT INSTiNCTS. We just saw what Devin White can do. Devin Bush would be another example. Darius Leonard. It starts there right with the FRONT SEVEN. It’s nothing new. Until you can build this the other stuff is just fluff IMO. Now I know things have changed and defenses are running lighter upfront with the way the game has transformed but it will still always start with winning upfront.

We held onto Capers for 8 years with kind of this finesse defensive scheme that had lightning in the bottle success because we had HOF play in the secondary by Woodson and Collins. One got old and the other got hurt and Ted Thompson spent the next 6-7 years trying to replace them drafting DB after DB with most of our top draft picks which didn’t work out and subsequently depleted other areas of the roster. That was pretty much it.

Now we’re rolling with Pettine and he has more talent to work with then Capers had in his later years and he isn’t getting it done. My only defense to Pettine is they kind of didn’t “Finish The Project” so not only could one say “They should of drafted a Receiver” one could also say “They should of finished the Defense” while they went on whatever draft plan that was because we all new after last season we needed more help upfront. We all new we had a problem at ILB. Now maybe Kamal Martin will come back and help but mainly the Packers have just overall been dysfunctional hiring the right people and then getting that person the correct personnel.

[texaspackerbacker]

This brings up something I have wondered about. Since the '70s, except for sporadic, short periods, some lasting only a season or less, the Packers can't seem to put together a strong, let alone dominant defense. Why is that? This has been the scenario under numerous GMs, changing scouting staffs, numerous head coaches and even more D-coordinators. Even their better defenses have often had significant warts.

The leadership has changed many times over. The supporting staff even more. They have invested significant draft capital in the defense. When they do dip into free agency, it seems the more significant forays have been for defense.

Other franchises, under numerous GMs, coaches and coordinators can field strong defenses.

It's true, the Packers haven't had a dominant D - with those few short periods like the Reggie White years since Lombardi. And it transcends coaches and GMs. Yeah, why is that?

My theory is LUCK. Oh, we've had a few quality free agents, usually second tier or aging, but some have been pretty good. What we haven't had many of, though, is really top of the line draft picks. There was Clay Matthews. Maybe Jaire will turn out to be long term star quality. Kenny Clark maybe. Probably there were a few others you could name over several decades, but damn few - less than a lot of teams who have had those dominant defenses. Maybe the GMs are to blame, but more than likely, they just didn't have very good luck in hitting with those draft picks.

[GB-Brandon]

It's true, the Packers haven't had a dominant D - with those few short periods like the Reggie White years since Lombardi. And it transcends coaches and GMs. Yeah, why is that?

My theory is LUCK. Oh, we've had a few quality free agents, usually second tier or aging, but some have been pretty good. What we haven't had many of, though, is really top of the line draft picks. There was Clay Matthews. Maybe Jaire will turn out to be long term star quality. Kenny Clark maybe. Probably there were a few others you could name over several decades, but damn few - less than a lot of teams who have had those dominant defenses. Maybe the GMs are to blame, but more than likely, they just didn't have very good luck in hitting with those draft picks.

No No No No No No!!!!!!! There is some bad luck with a guy like Nick Collins going down with a career ending injury. But a lot of these bad draft picks you just can’t attribute to “Bad Luck”. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that these guys are so smart and know better then us then flip it and say it’s bad luck when they don’t turn out like it’s betting on ponies.

[GB-Brandon]

See in Green Bay nobody ever gets held accountable. It’s takes like 5 years longer then anywhere else. Mostly because of “Aaron Rodgers.”

Yet if Aaron Rodgers throws two picks man oh man!!

[sharpe1027]

This brings up something I have wondered about. Since the '70s, except for sporadic, short periods, some lasting only a season or less, the Packers can't seem to put together a strong, let alone dominant defense. Why is that? This has been the scenario under numerous GMs, changing scouting staffs, numerous head coaches and even more D-coordinators. Even their better defenses have often had significant warts.

The leadership has changed many times over. The supporting staff even more. They have invested significant draft capital in the defense. When they do dip into free agency, it seems the more significant forays have been for defense.

Other franchises, under numerous GMs, coaches and coordinators can field strong defenses.

Dominant defenses tend to partially be a byproduct of possession offense. We have not had that.

[GB-Brandon]

Dominant defenses tend to partially be a byproduct of possession offense. We have not had that.

They can also usually stop the run!!! Something we know nothing about and haven’t for a long long long time.

[Patler]

No No No No No No!!!!!!! There is some bad luck with a guy like Nick Collins going down with a career ending injury. But a lot of these bad draft picks you just can’t attribute to “Bad Luck”. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that these guys are so smart and know better then us then flip it and say it’s bad luck when they don’t turn out like it’s betting on ponies.

The Packers have had some bad luck for sure, like Collins and Shields. Then Raji was up and down, but retired very early. Suddenly, three positions that should have been filled for anther 5 years are in need of immediate replacement. Early in his career, you would have expected Matthews to be an impact player for 10-12 years. Instead, his impact was short-lived. They never developed a solid, long term core on defense even though it looked like they had the makings for it on four levels.

[Zool]

This brings up something I have wondered about. Since the '70s, except for sporadic, short periods, some lasting only a season or less, the Packers can't seem to put together a strong, let alone dominant defense. Why is that? This has been the scenario under numerous GMs, changing scouting staffs, numerous head coaches and even more D-coordinators. Even their better defenses have often had significant warts.

The leadership has changed many times over. The supporting staff even more. They have invested significant draft capital in the defense. When they do dip into free agency, it seems the more significant forays have been for defense.

Other franchises, under numerous GMs, coaches and coordinators can field strong defenses.

The 97 and 98 teams were pretty damned good but couldn't sustain.

[GB-Brandon]

The Packers have had some bad luck for sure, like Collins and Shields. Then Raji was up and down, but retired very early. Suddenly, three positions that should have been filled for anther 5 years are in need of immediate replacement. Early in his career, you would have expected Matthews to be an impact player for 10-12 years. Instead, his impact was short-lived. They never developed a solid, long term core on defense even though it looked like they had the makings for it on four levels.

It’s very hard to keep good defenses together as there are just so many moving parts to them being good or elite. In fact, through attrition and free agency and the salary cap it is next to impossible. The only way is to draft very effectively and the Packers just didn’t do enough of that to keep the defense going.

Even the Seahawks famed 2013 defense has finally hit rock bottom. Neck injuries to Kam Chancellor and Cliff Averil. Tough free agency decisions with Sherman, Thomas, Bennett and several others. They weren’t able to draft and replace through the draft as fast as guys were lost to injury or walked out the door for more $.

When your talking about an effective offense an elite QB can cover up so many of the deficiencies which makes it less reliant on all the moving parts and we have also seen that first hand with the Packers.

[RashanGary]

32 teams, for the most part have lifetime career personnel guys making decisions on how to fit the most talent they possibly can beneath the cap.

The Patriots have been the gold standard of success the last 20 or so years. They tend to let team's draft and develop talent and then scoop them up for cheap after their roomie deals. Guy Lawrence of the Packers is an example. But there are many. And then they created an offense that was built around the short game, allowing them to scoop up cheap, players who might not be complete, but are able to do a few things well. Same for defense... They have a bunch of cheap vets that can do a lot of things so/so, but not stars (outside of Gilmore right now.) They can play man alright, cover 3 zone alright, quarters and cover 2. They don't really have a base defense outside of being whatever they feel like being that week. They prioritize experience and versatility over dominance and win because it's cheaper to get experienced players who don't dominate than expensive ones who have an extreme strength.

When the league zigs, the patriots zag. They'll build a plan around wherever other people don't want and by doing that, they can pillage the scrap heap. See Cam Newton for example.

The Packers are one of the other 31 teams doing it the other way, trying to find stars and win through physical dominance compared to winning with experience and versatility.

[RashanGary]

Fackrell is a guy I wish we would have kept over signing Preston. Fackrell would have been really cheap, probably 4 years, 15M or so. He can cover, he can run, he can pass rush a little too. He's a good all around player and cheap. By keeping fackrell over Preston we’d have more money to keep other guys.

Billy Turner was a bad signing. Just a so/so player making a bunch of money. Wagner is a solid vet for cheap.

Bkhtiari..... He's so expensive, I sure hope we can find a replacement because that expense pretty much dooms the last year's of Rodgers prime. Rodgers at 35M and Bakh at maybe 15 for the first couple years of his deal that would skyrocket in later years is still 50M/ year for just two players. A cap of about 180M next year with half going to the offense.... Wed have 90-50= 40M for the rest of the offense. Adams at 15 means 25 for the whole rest of the offense. Turner at 8 leaves 17 for the whole offense. 1M per year for the other 20 guys and we're out of money.

[GB-Brandon]

Fackrell is a guy I wish we would have kept over signing Preston. Fackrell would have been really cheap, probably 4 years, 15M or so. He can cover, he can run, he can pass rush a little too. He's a good all around player and cheap. By keeping fackrell over Preston we’d have more money to keep other guys.

Billy Turner was a bad signing. Just a so/so player making a bunch of money. Wagner is a solid vet for cheap.

Bkhtiari..... He's so expensive, I sure hope we can find a replacement because that expense pretty much dooms the last year's of Rodgers prime. Rodgers at 35M and Bakh at maybe 15 for the first couple years of his deal that would skyrocket in later years is still 50M/ year for just two players. A cap of about 180M next year with half going to the offense.... Wed have 90-50= 40M for the rest of the offense. Adams at 15 means 25 for the whole rest of the offense. Turner at 8 leaves 17 for the whole offense. 1M per year for the other 20 guys and we're out of money.

They really like Billy Turner.