GoPGo
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,862
- Reaction score
- 150
This team with a 3rd. tier QB is about a 5 win team.
What team isn't?
This team with a 3rd. tier QB is about a 5 win team.
Not at all... I even appreciate it when he throws a 2 yard pass because it's a better play than half the QB's in the league can doI'm beginning to think that Packers fans had REALLY begun to take #12 for granted.
This team would win 5 games without Roders for the season. People are overreacting over the loss of Rodgers. The Oakland Raiders have won 3 games already this year for goodness sakes!
What team isn't?
what three games..the two teams they have beat are the Steelers and the Chargers. Neither one of those teams will be in the playoffs.
They moved it 404 yards against the Eagles and 313 yards against the Bears without him. That's 717 yards in the last 7.5 quarters. I'd say they're moving the ball just fine.
This team would win 5 games without Roders for the season. People are overreacting over the loss of Rodgers. The Oakland Raiders have won 3 games already this year for goodness sakes!
You can't replace Rodgers or compare any other team (outside of New England, Denver and New Orleans) to the Packers situation.
Yeah I can. The Packers field a better overall roster than the Raiders do even without Rodgers. We're also talking about a hypothetical season so we can assume that all the current unjuries would not be as large a factor. And why in a discussion about winning at least five games would three teams that will probably hit double digit wins matter?
Rodgers is great. Rodgers greatness hides things such as an average offense line (weak at both tackle spots) and below-average defense. You could compare the situation to Peyton Manning and the Colts two years ago. With Manning, the Colts were a Super Bowl contender. Manning's quick release hid the offensive line's bad play and the horrible defense they played each year. Without Manning, the Colts won two games. TWO GAMES
Getting to your second point, look at every Packers season since 2009. When are "unjuries" not prevalent for the Packers?
Not comparable. The Packers have better WRs and RBs than that Colts team (Colts basically had Reggie Wayne and Pierre Garcon and that's it). The question was "with our current roster" and so we can assume a healthy TE and Cobb since you want to compare them to the 2011 Colts who were, outside Manning, relatively healthy. As much flack as people want to throw at our defense, our defense this year is 15th in points per game despite the massive amount of injuries. The Colts in 2011 gave up the fifth most points in the NFL. This team minus Rodgers is much better than the Colts team in 2011.
You're not even close. The Colts/Packers comparison is completely legit. Both teams were close to identical to the team they had the previous year minus a Hall of Fame QB.
We could circle back to defense point with the same, old argument... No Rodgers means less offense which means more defense which means more points by the other team. Imagine the number of points given up by the Packers with Rodgers out all year.
Put a healthy Hayward, Shields, CM3, Perry, Worthy, etc. and I think most would agree that the defense would be much better.
Even if we were healthy i think the defense would struggle. Rodgers and the offense carried the defense and i don't know if it's just the scheme and play calling by Capers but even when we had all those guy's healthy the defense still looked bad at times. We had a really really good group of guy's when we gave up all those points and yards against Kurt Warner in 09 but Rodgers and the offense kept it close or else we woulda got blown out. When he offense struggled last year we lost games because the defense was garabge..in fact that has been the case the last couple playoff loses smh.
That's why I made the "you're wrong" statement. You can't just trade Rodgers' injury for the rest of the injured players on the team. It's not like Rodgers being injured affected injuries to Hayward and Worthy (injured before the season even started), Perry (injured for two straights seasons) and CM3 (freak broken finger).
You're wrong because we're seeing what the Packers are without Rodgers. Without Rodgers and THE CURRENT ROSTER, the Packers are 0-2 against sub-.500 teams (at the time GB played them) and 0-1 against a division rival. Just like the Colts w/o Peyton Manning, the team isn't the same without their star.
Take Wilson, Harvin, any two of Seattle's terrible oline, Sherman, Earl Thomas, Bruce Irvin and Walter Thurmond off the Seattle roster and they will also struggle to five wins.