I was checking in at 18to88.com the other day (colts fan website thats one of the best websites around as far as teams go) and caught this line in a post about possibly taking Andrew Luck with their pick next year in the draft..
"People point at the Packers situation as an ideal, but forget that they wasted a season recovering from the Favre/Rodgers fiasco. They went from a Super Bowl caliber team to 6-10 in 2008. Yes, they won the Super Bowl in 2010, but they could have won it in 2008 or 2009 if they hadn't screwed around. "
Now I dont think I could have disagreed more with that statement. It sounded like piling on of Aaron Rodgers, and well, that just not something I can let stand. So I took my argument up with the author.
"I am unsure if this is a general league perspective or just your perspective but I would like to point out, under Rodgers in 2008 the Packers offense did not miss a beat. It was the defense that struggled. The offense was 4th in the league in 2007 and went to 5th in the league in 2008. While the defense went from 6th in 07 to 22nd in 08."
his response : I'm well aware of the debate about the 08 Packers, and I know full well about the injuries on D and the problems. They also struggled in close games, however, going 1-7. Now, that might normally be attributable to 'bad luck', but often statistical bad luck has other explanations. I believe that team struggled with the negativity and pressure that surrounded the Favre move. Rodgers struggled down the stretch of many games. In three of those close losses, the defense gave up 20 points or fewer.
My response: Lets talk about the QB struggles. In 2007 Brett Favres passer rating was 95.7 for the season. He dipped more than 10 points below that 6x. Aaron Rodgers in 08 had a season avg passer rating of 93.8 and dipped below that by more than 10 points 5x.
Arod should take the majority of the blame for some of the losses. No doubt about it. Tampa Bay game stands out. As far as the defense in 07 the defense allowed 27 or more points scored on them 3x. In 08 that happened 6x.
And finally his again: Again, you are missing the point. The way the mess went down didn't just
affect just the QB. It affected the entire team. 1-7 in one score games is statistically unlikely. So, we can either say the Packers just had terrible luck or we can admit that perhaps there was some outside force exerting
unusual pressure on the players causing them to play particularly poorly in
high pressure situations that year. This isn't Madden. They didn't swap out
one set of stats with the name "Favre" on it for another with the name
"Rodgers" and it affected nothing but the algorithms. They upset the
balance of the team and put it through hell for months. A situation that
extreme is going to have effects that are felt for awhile.
While that's generally a difficult thing to speculate on, I think everyone
can agree there was a unique pressure on that team unlike what any team has faced in a long time from the media and fans. Given the poor play of not
only Rodgers but many players in the close games, I think saying that the ridiculous way management handed the transition helped to sink the season.
I understand why Pack fans want to rewrite history to pretend that wasn't
the case. I understand why stat people stick to what is knowable and say,
bad luck. I also think that given the preponderance of the evidence it's reasonable to conclude that the team suffered because of the poor front and coaching management of the transition.
Like I said, I'm fine with people disagreeing. It's a debatable position for sure. I think mine is entirely rational, however, and based on known facts about the season.
So the question is, was it the packers fault for "******** around" or was it just the defense and some bad shakes in games that led to the team winning less games than the season before?
"People point at the Packers situation as an ideal, but forget that they wasted a season recovering from the Favre/Rodgers fiasco. They went from a Super Bowl caliber team to 6-10 in 2008. Yes, they won the Super Bowl in 2010, but they could have won it in 2008 or 2009 if they hadn't screwed around. "
Now I dont think I could have disagreed more with that statement. It sounded like piling on of Aaron Rodgers, and well, that just not something I can let stand. So I took my argument up with the author.
"I am unsure if this is a general league perspective or just your perspective but I would like to point out, under Rodgers in 2008 the Packers offense did not miss a beat. It was the defense that struggled. The offense was 4th in the league in 2007 and went to 5th in the league in 2008. While the defense went from 6th in 07 to 22nd in 08."
his response : I'm well aware of the debate about the 08 Packers, and I know full well about the injuries on D and the problems. They also struggled in close games, however, going 1-7. Now, that might normally be attributable to 'bad luck', but often statistical bad luck has other explanations. I believe that team struggled with the negativity and pressure that surrounded the Favre move. Rodgers struggled down the stretch of many games. In three of those close losses, the defense gave up 20 points or fewer.
My response: Lets talk about the QB struggles. In 2007 Brett Favres passer rating was 95.7 for the season. He dipped more than 10 points below that 6x. Aaron Rodgers in 08 had a season avg passer rating of 93.8 and dipped below that by more than 10 points 5x.
Arod should take the majority of the blame for some of the losses. No doubt about it. Tampa Bay game stands out. As far as the defense in 07 the defense allowed 27 or more points scored on them 3x. In 08 that happened 6x.
And finally his again: Again, you are missing the point. The way the mess went down didn't just
affect just the QB. It affected the entire team. 1-7 in one score games is statistically unlikely. So, we can either say the Packers just had terrible luck or we can admit that perhaps there was some outside force exerting
unusual pressure on the players causing them to play particularly poorly in
high pressure situations that year. This isn't Madden. They didn't swap out
one set of stats with the name "Favre" on it for another with the name
"Rodgers" and it affected nothing but the algorithms. They upset the
balance of the team and put it through hell for months. A situation that
extreme is going to have effects that are felt for awhile.
While that's generally a difficult thing to speculate on, I think everyone
can agree there was a unique pressure on that team unlike what any team has faced in a long time from the media and fans. Given the poor play of not
only Rodgers but many players in the close games, I think saying that the ridiculous way management handed the transition helped to sink the season.
I understand why Pack fans want to rewrite history to pretend that wasn't
the case. I understand why stat people stick to what is knowable and say,
bad luck. I also think that given the preponderance of the evidence it's reasonable to conclude that the team suffered because of the poor front and coaching management of the transition.
Like I said, I'm fine with people disagreeing. It's a debatable position for sure. I think mine is entirely rational, however, and based on known facts about the season.
So the question is, was it the packers fault for "******** around" or was it just the defense and some bad shakes in games that led to the team winning less games than the season before?