Will Defense improve enough?

[DevilDon]

Woodson will continue to slide. The safety position will improve. Tramon will step up but not to his 2010 dominance. Perry will show promise but not dominance. D line will improve surprisingly.

LOL, you're one of those predictor guys? I have no idea nor will I predict which guys will improve or slide. I will say this though:
I have faith in the Packers draft and develop system. I think Neal is still going to be good, I like House's commitment and M.D. Jennings emergence at safety. Impact draft picks should give you something, Packers had three in the first two rounds. You have to think Perry will be far and away better than anything they've been trying to run on the other side of Clay and Worthy or Hayward are possible as impact players. Situational guys in Dom's defense can have an impact.
My biggest reason for optimism for a good defense is in that we had already drafted certain players at positions that take time to develop or had young inexperienced guys learning the ropes. Shields will benefit from the offseason, Tramon will have had a chance to heal and again, House looks like he's committed and had a full year.
Hoping Neal will return with a vengeance and Guy will be ready to bring it and we have some FA talent to challenge for the Dline.
I'm always an optimist with the Packers but I envision a top 10 D next year.

 

[Jules]

Tackle the guy who has the ball in his hands.

It helps.

 

[ivo610]

LOL, you're one of those predictor guys? I have no idea nor will I predict which guys will improve or slide. I will say this though:
I have faith in the Packers draft and develop system. I think Neal is still going to be good, I like House's commitment and M.D. Jennings emergence at safety. Impact draft picks should give you something, Packers had three in the first two rounds. You have to think Perry will be far and away better than anything they've been trying to run on the other side of Clay and Worthy or Hayward are possible as impact players. Situational guys in Dom's defense can have an impact.
My biggest reason for optimism for a good defense is in that we had already drafted certain players at positions that take time to develop or had young inexperienced guys learning the ropes. Shields will benefit from the offseason, Tramon will have had a chance to heal and again, House looks like he's committed and had a full year.
Hoping Neal will return with a vengeance and Guy will be ready to bring it and we have some FA talent to challenge for the Dline.
I'm always an optimist with the Packers but I envision a top 10 D next year.

Some of those sounds alot like predictions man

 

[slaughter25]

LOL, you're one of those predictor guys? I have no idea nor will I predict which guys will improve or slide. I will say this though:
I have faith in the Packers draft and develop system. I think Neal is still going to be good, I like House's commitment and M.D. Jennings emergence at safety. Impact draft picks should give you something, Packers had three in the first two rounds. You have to think Perry will be far and away better than anything they've been trying to run on the other side of Clay and Worthy or Hayward are possible as impact players. Situational guys in Dom's defense can have an impact.
My biggest reason for optimism for a good defense is in that we had already drafted certain players at positions that take time to develop or had young inexperienced guys learning the ropes. Shields will benefit from the offseason, Tramon will have had a chance to heal and again, House looks like he's committed and had a full year.
Hoping Neal will return with a vengeance and Guy will be ready to bring it and we have some FA talent to challenge for the Dline.
I'm always an optimist with the Packers but I envision a top 10 D next year.

Other than that little nugget I think you have a few good ideas as to what we might expect in the coming months. While I still hope for the best for Neal and his career, I think anything with a vengeance is a bit of a stretch right now. I think he has more worries of making the team with so much new talent in his position and his suspension will not help him either.

 

[Croak]

Other than that little nugget I think you have a few good ideas as to what we might expect in the coming months. While I still hope for the best for Neal and his career, I think anything with a vengeance is a bit of a stretch right now. I think he has more worries of making the team with so much new talent in his position and his suspension will not help him either.

I had also hoped Neal would come around. But now I think he's a bust. Stick a fork in him, he's done.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[DevilDon]

Some of those sounds alot like predictions man

Nope, those are projections man. Plus a healthy side order of hope.
I HOPE Mike Neal comes back with a vengeance. If pushed I will predict this one thing: Packers will be better than 25th on defense. You can bring it back after the season if you'd like.

 

[AmishMafia]

LOL, you're one of those predictor guys? I have no idea nor will I predict which guys will improve or slide. I will say this though:
I have faith in the Packers draft and develop system. I think Neal is still going to be good, I like House's commitment and M.D. Jennings emergence at safety. Impact draft picks should give you something, Packers had three in the first two rounds. You have to think Perry will be far and away better than anything they've been trying to run on the other side of Clay and Worthy or Hayward are possible as impact players. Situational guys in Dom's defense can have an impact.
My biggest reason for optimism for a good defense is in that we had already drafted certain players at positions that take time to develop or had young inexperienced guys learning the ropes. Shields will benefit from the offseason, Tramon will have had a chance to heal and again, House looks like he's committed and had a full year.
Hoping Neal will return with a vengeance and Guy will be ready to bring it and we have some FA talent to challenge for the Dline.
I'm always an optimist with the Packers but I envision a top 10 D next year.

Nope, those are projections man. Plus a healthy side order of hope.
I HOPE Mike Neal comes back with a vengeance. If pushed I will predict this one thing: Packers will be better than 25th on defense. You can bring it back after the season if you'd like.

I think you will become a successful politician.

Now let me ask you, was that a projection or a prediction?

 

[DevilDon]

I think you will become a successful politician.

Now let me ask you, was that a projection or a prediction?

Neither, it was a perception.
All I'm trying to say is that I have feelings but not predicting. I guess after last year's total collapse against the Giants has me shell shocked. I predicted Jordy Nelson, Sam Shields and Marshall Newhouse but missed on Pat Lee, Jamon Meredith and Aaron Rouse. I still stand behind my pick of Starks being a quality back.
I guess I did do a prediction on Mike Neal too so I will stand behind that. I think he's got it.
As for my prediction on Perry, I will maintain that he will be better than everyone who's been there since Matthews was selected but not sure if he'll be a star.

 

[I_am_smoked_cheddar]

We all hope Perry's star rises to prominence . I would think that tackling will be in sharp focus this year. Good old fashioned wrap em up and put him down ! Clear thinking will also be stressed as the rookies learn their jobs . The O & D Lines concern me the most. Will they function as individuls or as a well oiled machine .

 

[757Niner]

That is an interesting article and it should be required reading for a certain poster who believes the running game is equally important as the passing game in today’s NFL.

I saw a brief discussion yesterday on NFL network. They were talking about Jets CB Revis possibly holding out (even though he’s got two years left on his contract). One commentator said it wouldn’t be that significant because the trend is for offenses to flood zones with 3 or even 4 receivers. The other mentioned that the Packers 2010 run to the title really emphasized how offenses exploit opponent’s fourth or fifth coverage guys so the number one cover corner isn’t as important as it previously was. I agree with the article and the premise advanced on NFL network but disagree with the conclusion of the NFL commentators. The greater the emphasis on the passing game, the more important the role of a shut down CB. It’s simple math. If you take away a team’s #1 cover guy, the #2 guy becomes #1, etc. and probably someone with little experience or PT jumps in as the #4 or #5 cover guy.

Its not just about passing offense though. If that were the case, the Saints and the Pats would have been playing in the Super Bowl last year. Its still a team game and I will always believe that the more complete a team is, the better chance they stand to win it all. I think its more critical to have a QB who can make clutch throws and convert 3rd downs than it is to have a formidable passing offense as a whole.

Look at the Steelers SB teams this decade. They used a stingy defense and superior running game as the catalyst for those teams. They also had one of the elite clutch QBs playing today, which was far more important than how effecient their passing game was. Last year, they became more explosive in the passing game with the emergence of Wallace and Brown at WR, altered their play-calling to take full adavantage of their weapons on the outside and fell flat on their face in the wildcard round. Its much more complicated than saying the more yards you pass for, the greater your chances are to win.

I believe one of the reasons the Giants won it all last year because they were probably one of the more balanced teams in the playoffs. They had a potent passing attack and good running game. And they also had a front four on defense that could get after the QB, along with two good safties and and very underated #1 CB. I think most other teams in the playoffs were either a heavy lean on offense or heavy lean on defense, except for maybe the Texans and Bengals but both those teams were lacking experience in the QB department. The Giants won a Super Bowl with a negative point differential....they gave up more points than the scored last year. That flies in the face of the belief that passing for rediculous amounts of yards, which should then lead to more scoring opportunties, is the metric in which good teams are measured.

Alot of other stats involving the passing game, like yards per attempt are more indictive to determine if a offense is performing at a high level. A balanced offense will always trumiph a one dimensional offense. Its the quality of throws from the guy under center who ultimately decides the outcome. They were three QBs last year who threw for over 5,000 yards. Our 29th ranked passing offense went 2-0 against them.

 

[TJV]

Its not just about passing offense though. … Its much more complicated than saying the more yards you pass for, the greater your chances are to win. … That flies in the face of the belief that passing for rediculous amounts of yards, which should then lead to more scoring opportunties, is the metric in which good teams are measured.

Since your post quoted mine: Where in my post did I allege anything you are refuting in your post? My post, including the paragraph you didn’t quote, is mostly about a discussion on NFL network and how important better pressure on opposing QBs will be for the Packers. The only part of my post remotely associated with what you posted is my posting the article should be required reading for a certain poster who has posted on this site that the running game is equally important as the passing game in today’s NFL. Do you agree they are equally important? If so we can discuss that. Otherwise perhaps you should look for the poster or portions of that article you’re attempting to refute.

 

[JTheGreat]

Only time will tell... I hope people arnt expecting a significant jump in our overall play of defense. I personally think we will definitely play alot better this year, but I dont know if we will jump to the middle of the pack as far as defenses go. It may take 2-3 years to get back in the top 10 of defenses....

 

[DoddPower]

Only time will tell... I hope people arnt expecting a significant jump in our overall play of defense. I personally think we will definitely play alot better this year, but I dont know if we will jump to the middle of the pack as far as defenses go. It may take 2-3 years to get back in the top 10 of defenses....

They turned things around pretty quickly during the first year of the 3-4. At least in run defense.

 

[757Niner]

Since your post quoted mine: Where in my post did I allege anything you do are refuting in your post? My post, including the paragraph you didn’t quote, is mostly about a discussion on NFL network and how important better pressure on opposing QBs will be for the Packers. The only part of my post remotely associated with what you posted is my posting the article should be required reading for a certain poster who has posted on this site that the running game is equally important as the passing game in today’s NFL. Do you agree they are equally important? If so we can discuss that. Otherwise perhaps you should look for the poster or portions of that article you’re attempting to refute.

I meant to quote the post which contained the link to the article. My mistake.

 

[DevilDon]

Its not just about passing offense though. If that were the case, the Saints and the Pats would have been playing in the Super Bowl last year. Its still a team game and I will always believe that the more complete a team is, the better chance they stand to win it all. I think its more critical to have a QB who can make clutch throws and convert 3rd downs than it is to have a formidable passing offense as a whole.

This reminds me of an argument I had with my father in law. He maintained that a superior 3-point shooter in the NBA would put a team over the top. I argued that if a shooter was good from 3-point land he would be formidable inside the trey. If you have a QB who is good on 3rd downs doesn't that suggest he's not as good on the first two? I'd rather have the drama of a first down settled on 1st or second down. I'd also like a team that decides the outcome well before the end of the 4th quarter. That's dominating football. That was the Packers last year.

Look at the Steelers SB teams this decade. They used a stingy defense and superior running game as the catalyst for those teams. They also had one of the elite clutch QBs playing today, which was far more important than how effecient their passing game was. Last year, they became more explosive in the passing game with the emergence of Wallace and Brown at WR, altered their play-calling to take full adavantage of their weapons on the outside and fell flat on their face in the wildcard round. Its much more complicated than saying the more yards you pass for, the greater your chances are to win.

The Steelers are a good example. A strong vertical passing game beat them in the SB two years ago. Arguably one of the best defenses in football couldn't stop a formidable passing attack. The "clutch" QB you mention had two INTS in that game including one to seal the game. It's wrong to think of the Steelers as a pass oriented team as you've suggested, they try to be as balanced as possible. Every team in the NFL plays to its strength or they lose right? I think you're on to something.... it's far more complicated than even your premise.

I believe one of the reasons the Giants won it all last year because they were probably one of the more balanced teams in the playoffs. They had a potent passing attack and good running game. And they also had a front four on defense that could get after the QB, along with two good safties and and very underated #1 CB. I think most other teams in the playoffs were either a heavy lean on offense or heavy lean on defense, except for maybe the Texans and Bengals but both those teams were lacking experience in the QB department. The Giants won a Super Bowl with a negative point differential....they gave up more points than the scored last year. That flies in the face of the belief that passing for rediculous amounts of yards, which should then lead to more scoring opportunties, is the metric in which good teams are measured.

So now the experience factor at QB comes into play. How much do we weigh that into the equation? So if I am to understand your statement, a team wants as close to middling as possible? And further, may I ask, how does giving up more points than gaining equate to the passing game? Are you assuming all points are gained through the air? It's funny you point to the Giants win last year as the way teams want to position themselves to win the Super Bowl. The Packers did it similarly last year. I know you're hoping the 9ers have plenty of injuries and falter during the regular season. I think the Packers will be happy to give you your first loss of the season, better to position your team for the playoffs.

Alot of other stats involving the passing game, like yards per attempt are more indictive to determine if a offense is performing at a high level. A balanced offense will always trumiph a one dimensional offense. Its the quality of throws from the guy under center who ultimately decides the outcome. They were three QBs last year who threw for over 5,000 yards. Our 29th ranked passing offense went 2-0 against them.

Glad to hear you say that, #12 was first in the league per attempt last year. Brees was 6th and Stafford was 13th while your gunslinger was 17th. Looks like your guys are in a world of crap this year unless ole' Smitty can't turn it up a notch hey? Last question champ.... how does one offense triumph over another offense? Do you line up offenses on that vibrating board game against other offenses?
Thanks for coming to our board, we get people from other fan bases all the time coming here to show homage to the amazing Aaron Rodgers. You're always welcome to come and tell us how lucky we are.

 

[FrankRizzo]

Last 6 Super Bowl winning QBs:

Eli
Rodgers
Brees
Roethlisberger
Eli
Peyton
Roethlisberger

Note: No Brady. And the 2 guys with 2 rings there are the 2 guys from the 2004 Draft Class, Eli & Big Ben. Rivers was from that class as well.

To anyone who is trying to pretend there is one magic formula or potion for a Super Bowl championship, forget it. There is not.

There is so much luck involved it's not funny.

Think about it like this, for anyone who plays golf. You play the same damn course today, and tomorrow, and Sunday, and Monday, and Tuesday, and Wednesday.
Same clubs. Same balls. Same tees.

Your score will be different each day. And by a lot in some cases. Drastically different. And that's just YOU vs the course, the same course too.

Imagine playing an opponent. With many different talented players. And smart coaches.
And different weather.

Brees won a Super Bowl. It wasn't like he and the coach and team just figured out how to win a Super Bowl. It happened. They got lucky as hell vs Minny in that title game.
They didn't win it the next year, or the year after, or this year.

Peyton Manning won one. None since.

 

[757Niner]

This reminds me of an argument I had with my father in law. He maintained that a superior 3-point shooter in the NBA would put a team over the top. I argued that if a shooter was good from 3-point land he would be formidable inside the trey. If you have a QB who is good on 3rd downs doesn't that suggest he's not as good on the first two? I'd rather have the drama of a first down settled on 1st or second down. I'd also like a team that decides the outcome well before the end of the 4th quarter. That's dominating football. That was the Packers last year.


The Steelers are a good example. A strong vertical passing game beat them in the SB two years ago. Arguably one of the best defenses in football couldn't stop a formidable passing attack. The "clutch" QB you mention had two INTS in that game including one to seal the game. It's wrong to think of the Steelers as a pass oriented team as you've suggested, they try to be as balanced as possible. Every team in the NFL plays to its strength or they lose right? I think you're on to something.... it's far more complicated than even your premise.


So now the experience factor at QB comes into play. How much do we weigh that into the equation? So if I am to understand your statement, a team wants as close to middling as possible? And further, may I ask, how does giving up more points than gaining equate to the passing game? Are you assuming all points are gained through the air? It's funny you point to the Giants win last year as the way teams want to position themselves to win the Super Bowl. The Packers did it similarly last year. I know you're hoping the 9ers have plenty of injuries and falter during the regular season. I think the Packers will be happy to give you your first loss of the season, better to position your team for the playoffs.


Glad to hear you say that, #12 was first in the league per attempt last year. Brees was 6th and Stafford was 13th while your gunslinger was 17th. Looks like your guys are in a world of crap this year unless ole' Smitty can't turn it up a notch hey? Last question champ.... how does one offense triumph over another offense? Do you line up offenses on that vibrating board game against other offenses?
Thanks for coming to our board, we get people from other fan bases all the time coming here to show homage to the amazing Aaron Rodgers. You're always welcome to come and tell us how lucky we are.

My post is regarding the story linked in a reply about a page back in which they expound on the premise that the evolution of the passing game as it stands today, is the new blueprint for success in the NFL. There is much more that determines the outcome of a game that just that lone element, which is why I referred to the examples I gave. Apparently I struck a nerve with you somewhere and you took issue to my stance. Whatever. Its matter opinion and if yours differs from mine, so be it. There is just as much luck involved in winning as anything else. A good team is a good team, whether they get it done with a pass-first philosphy or they get it done with running the ball and defense. Its more than one way to skin a cat is the saying. That's what I was implying. But I believe its better to be as balanced as possible on the offensive end. Leaning heavily on any one area leaves you vulnerable, my team included.

 

[Croak]

Last 6 Super Bowl winning QBs:

Eli
Rodgers
Brees
Roethlisberger
Eli
Peyton
Roethlisberger

Note: No Brady. And the 2 guys with 2 rings there are the 2 guys from the 2004 Draft Class, Eli & Big Ben. Rivers was from that class as well.

To anyone who is trying to pretend there is one magic formula or potion for a Super Bowl championship, forget it. There is not.

There is so much luck involved it's not funny.

Think about it like this, for anyone who plays golf. You play the same damn course today, and tomorrow, and Sunday, and Monday, and Tuesday, and Wednesday.
Same clubs. Same balls. Same tees.

Your score will be different each day. And by a lot in some cases. Drastically different. And that's just YOU vs the course, the same course too.

Imagine playing an opponent. With many different talented players. And smart coaches.
And different weather.

Brees won a Super Bowl. It wasn't like he and the coach and team just figured out how to win a Super Bowl. It happened. They got lucky as hell vs Minny in that title game.
They didn't win it the next year, or the year after, or this year.

Peyton Manning won one. None since.

This is probably one of the best analogies that I've read in a while. Each game IS different and somewhat unpredictable.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[DevilDon]

My post is regarding the story linked in a reply about a page back in which they expound on the premise that the evolution of the passing game as it stands today, is the new blueprint for success in the NFL. There is much more that determines the outcome of a game that just that lone element, which is why I referred to the examples I gave. Apparently I struck a nerve with you somewhere and you took issue to my stance. Whatever. Its matter opinion and if yours differs from mine, so be it. There is just as much luck involved in winning as anything else. A good team is a good team, whether they get it done with a pass-first philosphy or they get it done with running the ball and defense. Its more than one way to skin a cat is the saying. That's what I was implying. But I believe its better to be as balanced as possible on the offensive end. Leaning heavily on any one area leaves you vulnerable, my team included.

I only answered point by point what you posted. Not in any way struck a nerve. If a fan of another team comes here and argues against fans of the Packers it should be grounded in truth. I just pointed out the flaws in your examples. As a general idea I agree a team wants to be balanced in all phases. That isn't always possible however and said team would do well to use the strengths of the team as it is. No sense trying to be a running team when you don't have an O-line or RB to make it so right? So I agree that you don't have to be an offensive juggernaut to win these days in the NFL, your 9ers proved that last year, but it doesn't hurt and it's not a hindrance to success.
I also argue that luck doesn't have as much to do with it as you suppose. Good teams are good teams for awhile. You don't see the Ravens, Patriots, Steelers, Packers and Saints are consistently good teams? There are up and down years but it's not as fickle as luck. Though I agree there is SOME element of luck involved.
You seem to be a pretty good chap so I'll also admit it's nice to see a once proud franchise like the 9ers turned around. They were spectacular back in the day.

 

[DevilDon]

Last 6 Super Bowl winning QBs:

Eli
Rodgers
Brees
Roethlisberger
Eli
Peyton
Roethlisberger

Note: No Brady. And the 2 guys with 2 rings there are the 2 guys from the 2004 Draft Class, Eli & Big Ben. Rivers was from that class as well.

To anyone who is trying to pretend there is one magic formula or potion for a Super Bowl championship, forget it. There is not.

There is so much luck involved it's not funny.

Think about it like this, for anyone who plays golf. You play the same damn course today, and tomorrow, and Sunday, and Monday, and Tuesday, and Wednesday.
Same clubs. Same balls. Same tees.

Your score will be different each day. And by a lot in some cases. Drastically different. And that's just YOU vs the course, the same course too.

Imagine playing an opponent. With many different talented players. And smart coaches.
And different weather.

Brees won a Super Bowl. It wasn't like he and the coach and team just figured out how to win a Super Bowl. It happened. They got lucky as hell vs Minny in that title game.
They didn't win it the next year, or the year after, or this year.

Peyton Manning won one. None since.

I agreed Frank, but with a caveat. It's not anywhere near as important as you suggest. Consider the game of a professional golfer, their game can vary some but not nearly as much as yours or mine (I'm assuming you're not a professional golfer). If you carry that argument further then you have to say that Aaron Rodgers was very lucky last year indeed, never mind the fact that he's a student of the game, has amazing physical tools and is unbelievably accurate. His release is the quickest I've ever seen and he can run on defenses if need be. Lucky?
Is Greg Jennings lucky? The guy shouldn't be as good as he is so maybe he's just lucky right? He's got the best hands around and runs supreme routes and is also a student of the game.
I just don't see how if you are a superior player luck comes into it. So yea, if you're Charlie Peprah you can use a little luck but that's what makes a football club. Outstanding talent, as much as you can afford to have to put consistency into the final product.
Every year people ask Aaron Rodgers what he will work on the next year and every year he says "consistency". You're right it has a place in the game but the great ones don't wait for luck to happen, they do it with superior skills.
I used to think the draft carried alot of luck with it but I'm not so sure anymore. TT seems to hit more than he misses and that can't be luck either. Sooner or later the law of averages will catch up with the lucky.
Winning the lottery is lucky, winning the Super Bowl is skill (mostly).

 

[FrankRizzo]

Was it skill by Rodgers in 2010 that in week 17, DeSean Jackson broke the heart of the Giants with a last-second punt return TD to beat and eliminate the Giants?
How about the Lions, who were still terrible and hadn't won a road game in about 2 years, winning at a 10-6 Tampa Bay team? Had that not happened, Tampa Bay, not the Packers, would have gotten that 6th playoff seed. We had no control over that.

Also, when we beat the Eagles by 5 in the wildcard game, their Pro Bowl kicker happened to have a rare off day. He shanked to normally-chip-shot field goals. Had he only shanked one of them, they could have beaten us at the end with a FG.... and they still almost beat us. I admit and recognize there was some luck there.

Then against the Steelers, we benefitted from 3 turnovers, and still barely won. Turnovers are much skill, but there's certainly an element of luck to them, as we keep finding out when we play the Giants in the playoffs, or the Cardinals when they had Warner. No turnovers for us. Same teams, just different outcomes and different bounces of the balls.

Anyway, one can't win a Super Bowl on luck alone. Gotta be a very good to great team as well. And we are, thankfully. As long as we don't get bad luck with the injuries, we're gonna contend for Super Bowls for quite awhile!
We're very fortunate.
Also a bit lucky that Rodgers slid to us in 2005! That was a gift on a silver platter and it was great for us that Teddy Ballgame had the Ballz to make that pick in his first ever draft as Packers GM!

 

[DevilDon]

Was it skill by Rodgers in 2010 that in week 17, DeSean Jackson broke the heart of the Giants with a last-second punt return TD to beat and eliminate the Giants?
How about the Lions, who were still terrible and hadn't won a road game in about 2 years, winning at a 10-6 Tampa Bay team? Had that not happened, Tampa Bay, not the Packers, would have gotten that 6th playoff seed. We had no control over that.

Certainly skill by DeSean Jackson right? He just hadn't done it consistently all year. Lions beat an inconsistent Tampa Bay team right? If Tampa had played to their regular season ability we'd not have this discussion. I'd love to hear what you and a Lion fan's take on this would be. Was it "lucky" Detroit won the game? At some point they have to win one don't they Frank? I mean, streaks are nice and all but let's be honest, they day will come when the Lions beat the Pack at home right? Would it be lucky?

Also, when we beat the Eagles by 5 in the wildcard game, their Pro Bowl kicker happened to have a rare off day. He shanked to normally-chip-shot field goals. Had he only shanked one of them, they could have beaten us at the end with a FG.... and they still almost beat us. I admit and recognize there was some luck there.

Again, Akers is consistent on most days but not this day. How is that lucky? He didn't get it done. Rodgers does it week in and week out without an "off" week. Same with Clay Matthews. Good isn't lucky. Good keeps consistency. If Woodson misses a tackle is that "luck" for the other team?

Then against the Steelers, we benefitted from 3 turnovers, and still barely won. Turnovers are much skill, but there's certainly an element of luck to them, as we keep finding out when we play the Giants in the playoffs, or the Cardinals when they had Warner. No turnovers for us. Same teams, just different outcomes and different bounces of the balls.

Well if you're going to say turnover aren't designed and lucky how to you consolidate the Packers being one of the best the last few years at turnovers? They work on it Frank. I hope I never refer to the facemask of Rodgers in the Cardinals game as a turning point. He had Jennings, flat out had him for a TD but missed the throw. Well now, we're back to skill right? Consistency? None of that crap mattered or shouldn't have if skill had met the match.

Anyway, one can't win a Super Bowl on luck alone. Gotta be a very good to great team as well. And we are, thankfully. As long as we don't get bad luck with the injuries, we're gonna contend for Super Bowls for quite awhile!
We're very fortunate.
Also a bit lucky that Rodgers slid to us in 2005! That was a gift on a silver platter and it was great for us that Teddy Ballgame had the Ballz to make that pick in his first ever draft as Packers GM!

We're fortunate in the fact that our team is a well oiled machine and is consistently poised to threaten for the title. Not the other way around. We're not lucky to be where we are because of luck. This is an organization that is built to compete from the ground up. Yes, lucky Rodgers was there but let's be honest.... why the hell didn't anybody else take him? It's not luck, it's being good, TT saw the value didn't he?
If the NFL was like a game of poker you'd have a point but it's not right? This stuff is planned and poured over constantly. Do you really maintain that the teams who've had continued success are just lucky? The Packers lost their first playoff game, you know, like any other game in the regular season. They went 15-2 and you think it was luck????
Playoff games have more meaning but it doesn't mean teams play much different. What got the Packers a 15-1 regular season should reasonably get them a playoff victory. Don't read too much into the loss, they lost two games for heaven's sake. They might be hoisting the Lombardi if they had "lucked" into a victory against the Giants.
There was no one lucky play that could have saved that game. It was skill. The Packers were flat but clearly the superior team. You know this Frank.
Luck had nothing to do with it.

 

[HyponGrey]

Certainly skill by DeSean Jackson right? He just hadn't done it consistently all year. Lions beat an inconsistent Tampa Bay team right? If Tampa had played to their regular season ability we'd not have this discussion. I'd love to hear what you and a Lion fan's take on this would be. Was it "lucky" Detroit won the game? At some point they have to win one don't they Frank? I mean, streaks are nice and all but let's be honest, they day will come when the Lions beat the Pack at home right? Would it be lucky?


Again, Akers is consistent on most days but not this day. How is that lucky? He didn't get it done. Rodgers does it week in and week out without an "off" week. Same with Clay Matthews. Good isn't lucky. Good keeps consistency. If Woodson misses a tackle is that "luck" for the other team?


Well if you're going to say turnover aren't designed and lucky how to you consolidate the Packers being one of the best the last few years at turnovers? They work on it Frank. I hope I never refer to the facemask of Rodgers in the Cardinals game as a turning point. He had Jennings, flat out had him for a TD but missed the throw. Well now, we're back to skill right? Consistency? None of that crap mattered or shouldn't have if skill had met the match.


We're fortunate in the fact that our team is a well oiled machine and is consistently poised to threaten for the title. Not the other way around. We're not lucky to be where we are because of luck. This is an organization that is built to compete from the ground up. Yes, lucky Rodgers was there but let's be honest.... why the hell didn't anybody else take him? It's not luck, it's being good, TT saw the value didn't he?
If the NFL was like a game of poker you'd have a point but it's not right? This stuff is planned and poured over constantly. Do you really maintain that the teams who've had continued success are just lucky? The Packers lost their first playoff game, you know, like any other game in the regular season. They went 15-2 and you think it was luck????
Playoff games have more meaning but it doesn't mean teams play much different. What got the Packers a 15-1 regular season should reasonably get them a playoff victory. Don't read too much into the loss, they lost two games for heaven's sake. They might be hoisting the Lombardi if they had "lucked" into a victory against the Giants.
There was no one lucky play that could have saved that game. It was skill. The Packers were flat but clearly the superior team. You know this Frank.
Luck had nothing to do with it.

What do you call a rare deviation from consistency in a highly skilled player if not luck? I agree that luck is not as big a factor as some believe, but I also believe it is a bigger factor than you portray. Sometimes a player will slip, sometimes you just happen to be at the right place at the right time, but you still need the skill to take advantage of said opportunity. Would you prefer the term "fortunate?" It's essentially a synonym of "luck" but carries a different connotation.

 

[TJV]

IMO FrankRizzo is overstating the role of luck as it relates to the sustained success the Packers have experienced under Thompson’s leadership. The age-old saying is “Luck is when opportunity meets preparation”, or a variation of that quote. In any field of endeavor, when you assess a particular individual or organization getting “lucky” over and over again IMO your assessment should change from assigning “luck” to that circumstance to assessing competent management (in the case of an organization) is being exercised. So I disagree with the notion, “There is so much luck involved it’s not funny.”

In any particular game of football or golf luck can play a significant role in determining the outcome. But the error of this kind of thinking is ‘failing to see the forest for the trees’. In every instance mentioned, the 2010 Packers were prepared for the vicissitudes of the NFL schedule. IOW what good would it have been if the Packers made the playoffs and weren’t prepared to take full advantage of that opportunity? Were the turnovers the Packers took from the Steelers in the Super Bowl luck? On the first, Howard Green got great pressure on Roethlisberger which affected the flight of the ball allowing Collins to intercept it. Either Green and Collins were well prepared or they took advantage of the opportunity the Steelers presented. On the next one, Clay made a call so Pickett would change his charge inside and after the play Clay exclaimed he knew that play was coming. That looks like great preparation studying tape to me. Bush made a great play in coverage on the third turnover. He too attributed that to seeing that play on tape. Was Collins’ return of his INT for a TD luck? Well, there were three “pick-sixes” in the 2011 playoffs, all of them by the Packers. OTOH, were the turnovers the Packers committed in their last playoff game “bad luck” or poor execution? I’d argue the latter.

I’ve posted the INTs the Packers have forced each season with Capers as DC. At some point an objective observer has to acknowledge those stats display something far beyond “luck”. Even as bad as the Packers’ pass rush and pass D were last season, they led the league in INTs and three seasons of great INT numbers is not luck, it is a result of the design of the defense – that’s indicative of the “forest” being overlooked.

Of course the Packers can’t dictate which players other teams pick but the drafting of Aaron Rodgers was more preparation than luck. I say that because Thompson was acting on what in hindsight has clearly been his modus operandi: When the opportunity arises he picks the player in the higher “talent tier” regardless of the immediate needs of the team. From all we’ve read, the Packers targeted another couple of players at that spot but rather than pick for need, Thompson followed the prepared plan he brought with him to Green Bay.

The irony for me is this same poster predicts a perfect record for the Packers in 2012. If he believes “so much luck (is) involved”, did he forget that the team playing the “lucky” team is experiencing “bad luck”? Is luck such a big factor it’s not funny, or not? A corollary to the “luck” quote above is “luck is a loser’s excuse to a winner’s opportunity” or more bluntly, “luck is a losers excuse”.

 

[I_am_smoked_cheddar]

WE NEED BETTER TACKLING !!! DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS !!!