Eliot Wolf name mentioned to Browns

Status
Not open for further replies.

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
But you totally ignored it the first time around. haha. Okay.

The Steelers have appeared in 3 Super Bowls in the last 11 years. A little better than what the Packers have done I would say. Which is sad because we have had the better quarterback, but considerably less talented teams.
. I'd say we are arguing some pretty weak points. My original argument is simple Ted is not a bad GM. Is he the best ever ? No. Are the Packers talentless beyond Rodgers... No. Does the Packers 18 game record with a bunch of scrub backup QB s prove anything? .. no.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
It's a similar scenario.

1) Better backups than what we had. 2013 we were on a 4th string QB, 2017 Hundley has been unprecedently bad.
Who's responsible for the incompetence of our backup QBs??? How are they getting roster spots???

2) Look at how we did when we had a decent backup in Flynn. Flynn had a 3-3 record with the Packers. If you can go .500 with a backup in the NFL, your team is not horrid. Your team is not lacking in talent.
In the 6 games you're alluding to, the defense still gave up an average of over 34 points per game. Where was the defense? The ultra talented defense of the Green Bay Packers?

But you still failed to mention two other games that Matt Flynn played in for most of the game when the starter got hurt and lost. But I'm sure that doesn't fit into your agenda.

3) The Steelers are a great orginazation. Consistently good with a lot of talent. They have a better defense and a better DC than we do. Again, you can partially blame TT for that.
My whole premise has been it's either coaching or talent, but that TT plays a role in it. That's all I'm really trying to get at. So if you're saying TT is partially to blame for that, why is it out of bounds for me to claim that the talent on this team could/should be better? Especially when other teams have shown that it is doable even with a high dollar QB.

4) You are acting like this is just because of Rodgers. This year, we have had more combinations of our starting OL than any other team. I think it's 11 different starting lineups? Something like that. Would you say that might have played a role too? Mike Daniels was injured for a lot of the year. Kenny Clark. Kevin King. Ty Montgomery. It wasn't just Rodgers who got hurt, it was a pile of people. That has an effect. I can't say who was or wasn't hurt for the Pats or Steelers, but I can make a pretty good bet they didn't have 11 different starting OL units out there.
The Green Bay Packers are clearly the only team in NFL history that's had to deal with injuries.

5) we went 2-5-1 using a backup, a third string and a 4th string QB in 2013. Continuing to use that as an argument in your favor is showing a large amount of bias and ignorance.
Take that year out of the equation then. Is it ignorant to suggest that we have a talent deficiency on this current team when in one game this season without Rodgers we failed to force a single punt, and in another game failed to score a single point? We're talking about both sides of the ball, here.

I'm so sick of hearing about injuries as an excuse. Like every other team in the NFL doesn't deal with injuries.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
. I'd say we are arguing some pretty weak points. My original argument is simple Ted is not a bad GM. Is he the best ever ? No. Are the Packers talentless beyond Rodgers... No. Does the Packers 18 game record with a bunch of scrub backup QB s prove anything? .. no.
So after I refute every point you make, you claim we're arguing weak points and side step it. I don't think Ted is a bad GM. However I do think that we have a lot of holes and weaknesses on this team that he's neglected to take care of. The Packers aren't totally talentless, but they shouldn't go from perennial super bowl contenders to bottom dwellers by losing one player (as evidenced by what other teams are able to do without their HOF QB), and yes, the Packers record without Rodgers absolutely means something, whether it's due to the overall talent on the team, or whether its simply bad QB play.

Who's the common denominator with all of the "bad QB play"? Who's acquired these players? And is it totally out of bounds to look to the other side of the ball and mention that the defense has been bad as well while Rodgers has been out during his career? Is that due to bad quarterback play as well?
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
So after I refute every point you make, you claim we're arguing weak points and side step it. I don't think Ted is a bad GM. However I do think that we have a lot of holes and weaknesses on this team that he's neglected to take care of. The Packers aren't totally talentless, but they shouldn't go from perennial super bowl contenders to bottom dwellers by losing one player (as evidenced by what other teams are able to do without their HOF QB), and yes, the Packers record without Rodgers absolutely means something, whether it's due to the overall talent on the team, or whether its simply bad QB play.

Who's the common denominator with all of the "bad QB play"? Who's acquired these players? And is it totally out of bounds to look to the other side of the ball and mention that the defense has been bad as well while Rodgers has been out during his career? Is that due to bad quarterback play as well?
My last statement made my position clear... no need to say anything else... If you think this is debate class whatever... I'm not going to dissect every argument that was made when all of my points have been summed up in the post above. Frankly it doesn't appear that we disagree greatly anyway but you want to continue to argue. I have already stated that Thompson is not perfect and that it may actually be time for him to retire... I probably could say more .. but frankly have become fatigued with this whole thread lol.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
retire? He just drafted King, Jones, Martinez and Clark. He's just getting the hang of this defensive draft thing :) why have him retire now LOL
 

gbgary

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
3,420
Reaction score
185
Location
up the road from jerrahworld
retire? He just drafted King, Jones, Martinez and Clark. He's just getting the hang of this defensive draft thing :) why have him retire now LOL
lol. it's not the drafting so much as not being proactive in free agency. for him it seems it's not about the best team possible as much as it is the cheapest team possible.
 

Carl 2

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
351
Reaction score
33
What in the world does Bill Belichick's record prior to joining the Patriots have to do with our conversation? You just threw that in there, for what reason I'm not sure. But the thing that I do know for sure is that you didn't address a single one of my points in this post.

I brought up what two teams were able to do in place of their hall of fame quarterback while they were out for injury, and you bring me Bill Belichick's record as a head coach 20+ years ago. :confused:

But hey. Since you couldn't address/refute the point I was making, I'll play along and switch the conversation around. You want to tell me the last time the Cleveland Browns won 11 or more games? Also, would you like to tell me the last time that the Cleveland Browns won a playoff game? That would happen to be when Bill Belichick was their head coach twenty three years ago. How often in the history of the Cleveland Browns have they been relevant? They are the most poorly run NFL franchise now and historically that I can think of.

But you want to try to diminish his coaching ability. The man has won at the highest level as a head coach AND a coordinator. Got the sorry Browns to the playoffs and actually WON a playoff game. And he's 14-6 without Tom Brady since he's been the head coach of the New England Patriots. Give me a break.

What about the Steelers? Are we just going to dismiss what they have been able to do without Big Ben?

Sorry. Figured you were bringing up BB without Brady, not just the Patriots.

BB isnt 14-6 without Brady in NE. He was 6-10 his first year there and then 0-2 before Brady replaced Bledsoe.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
Sorry. Figured you were bringing up BB without Brady, not just the Patriots.

BB isnt 14-6 without Brady in NE. He was 6-10 his first year there and then 0-2 before Brady replaced Bledsoe.
Again, and my apologies if I didn't make myself clear. I'm referring specifically to when the quarterback goes down sometime during the season. The popular opinion for many on this forum is that when the quarterback goes down and they are elite, any team would fall off the rails. I referred to two specific examples of teams that have been successful with a backup in place of their hall of fame quarterback, citing winning records in both scenarios. 9-6 without Big Ben, 14-6 without Brady since he became a starting QB.

Why is it so out of the realm of possibility to expect the Packers to be even halfway decent without Rodgers???
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
Again, and my apologies if I didn't make myself clear. I'm referring specifically to when the quarterback goes down sometime during the season. The popular opinion for many on this forum is that when the quarterback goes down and they are elite, any team would fall off the rails. I referred to two specific examples of teams that have been successful with a backup in place of their hall of fame quarterback, citing winning records in both scenarios. 9-6 without Big Ben, 14-6 without Brady since he became a starting QB.

Why is it so out of the realm of possibility to expect the Packers to be even halfway decent without Rodgers???
It's not out of the realm of possibility.... and that's why I have conceded that Thompson does have some responsibility insofar as the fact that he has not had any decent backup QBs on the roster. However I would say the sample size is pretty small here in order to draw such grand conclusions.... You have provided a couple of examples namely the Patriots and the Steelers that support your point. Perhaps it is my responsibility to come up with a bunch of examples that refute it...but frankly I'm too lazy to do it right now.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
It's not out of the realm of possibility.... and that's why I have conceded that Thompson does have some responsibility insofar as the fact that he has not had any decent backup QBs on the roster. However I would say the sample size is pretty small here in order to draw such grand conclusions.... You have provided a couple of examples namely the Patriots and the Steelers that support your point. Perhaps it is my responsibility to come up with a bunch of examples that refute it...but frankly I'm too lazy to do it right now.
The premise I'm being fed is that when a hall of fame quarterback goes down, teams fall off the rails. There are only how many hall of fame quarterbacks in the NFL the past several seasons? Difficult to come up with a whole bunch of examples.

I'm saying why can't we be more like the Patriots and Steelers. Those teams are much more equip to deal with an injury to their quarterback because of all the complimentary talent up and down the roster that the Packers don't have.
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
The premise I'm being fed is that when a hall of fame quarterback goes down, teams fall off the rails. There are only how many hall of fame quarterbacks in the NFL the past several seasons? Difficult to come up with a whole bunch of examples.

I'm saying why can't we be more like the Patriots and Steelers. Those teams are much more equip to deal with an injury to their quarterback because of all the complimentary talent up and down the roster that the Packers don't have.
No need for the QB to be a future HOF... the real point is that any team that relies on its offense more heavily than its defense will need an adequate backup QB . the Packers have not had one.. the Pats have. The better the starter is... the more drastic the drop in performance is likely to be. I will say that it is interesting that the Pats seem to keep having pretty well prepared backups on their roster... I don't know if they do more to develop them... or perhaps more importance is placed on the position on draft day... but I will agree that the Packers need to put more of an effort in in that area. I still do not believe that the Packers overall roster is terrible.. or that Thompson is a bad GM, but would like to see more emphasis placed on the backup QB position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Latest posts

Top