I am so pissed off at Ted Thompson...

[brandon2348]

The new plan is to turn back the clock to 2011 and put an offense out there that can just outscore everyone.

That's all great but you might get into a playoff game where Rodgers is off a tad and Game Over.

 

[PackerDNA]

In fairness, sometimes what you need at the time isn't available.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

In fairness, sometimes what you need at the time isn't available.

Well, there were some #1 cornerbacks available this offseason. Yet Thompson decided it was smart to stand pat once again.

 

[brandon2348]

Even after the real good ones were gone there were still the likes of Mo Claiborne available who signed for a 1 years 5 mill.

I'm not gonna sit here and hype Claiborne up like he is some pro bowl corner but he does have some good cover skills. Better then anyone on our roster. He could of added some stability.

Barwin would of been a nice 1 year rental on a Super Bowl run. Kind of like Belichick did with Long last season.

Thompson completely ignored the defense and dropped the ball.

 

[PikeBadger]

Phew, that would be a whole 'nother thread. Don't forget 4th and 26.

That's my most haunted Packers memory too. That game wrecked me more than Seattle.

 

[brandon2348]

The way we're set up now we're gonna have a bunch of rookies and undrafted free agents playing by the time playoffs come.

Not good and more heartbreak.

 

[JK64]

The offense will be better but the defense will be worse if that's possible.

Your leaving out that TT failed to "re-load" this defense thus far. He could of let Matthew's go and re-stocked the shelves on defense. The players were there and not all of them would of broke the bank.

Your right. It will trend downward this year but it didnt have too and that's TT's fault.

We need another play maker on D, like Woodson etc.

 

[sschind]

At some point maybe we'll accept that every team deals with injuries to some degree and we're not just hopelessly snakebitten, and that maybe if we have sufficient quality depth and talent on the roster maybe we will be in a little better position to ride out the tough times.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed we were the only team with injuries. The Bears were killed by injuries this past season as well, especially on defense as I am sure were many other teams. Whether you like it or not injuries are a legitimate excuse for substandard play. And a rash of injuries can be severely detrimental to a teams performance. How can they not be. The only way the wouldn't be is if every player at every position was the same talent as every one else. Taking the Packers specifics out of it for a moment when your #1 guy at any position goes down and everyone moves up the depth chart the new #1 doesn't suddenly become more talented and if that #1 guy is a superstar and the rest the roster isn't it's not unrealistic to see a drop off in play.

It's certainly not an excuse we like to hear or even use because it sounds like...well it sounds like an excuse but it is an excuse and it is a legitimate one.

 

[Mavster]

Who were we missing in the NFCCG?

 

[sschind]

Well, I surrender. The Packers defense solely struggled because of an unsurmountable number of injuries while all other teams were completely healthy during the playoffs.

In my opinion using injuries aside of at quarterback as one of the main reasons for coming up short is a lame excuse.

The Packers struggled because the players they had to replace the injured players were not able to get the job done. I guess that means the main reason they struggled was due to lack of talent. On the other hand that lack of talent was pushed to the forefront due to injuries to players ahead of them. Its also quite possible that injuries played a role in those players not having the ability to play to their fullest potential.

Would you expect a running back with a busted leg to perform the same as if he were not injured. You must because you said injuries are not an excuse. OK, you said main excuse but there are those who say injuries are not an excuse. I'm sorry but injuries are an excuse. Just not the excuse we like to hear.

 

[brandon2348]

The Packers struggled because the players they had to replace the injured players were not able to get the job done. I guess that means the main reason they struggled was due to lack of talent. On the other hand that lack of talent was pushed to the forefront due to injuries to players ahead of them. Its also quite possible that injuries played a role in those players not having the ability to play to their fullest potential.

Would you expect a running back with a busted leg to perform the same as if he were not injured. You must because you said injuries are not an excuse. OK, you said main excuse but there are those who say injuries are not an excuse. I'm sorry but injuries are an excuse. Just not the excuse we like to hear.

When the backups are rookies or UDFA's consistently then that's a problem. You gotta build a 53 man roster in today's NFL. A solid 22 won't get it done.

So tired of everyone blaming injuries and my money says it will happen again this year most likely.

You need to be effective in free agency to accomplish having a really good 53 man roster. Expecting rookies and UDFA's to bring home the gold come playoff time is a recipe for disaster.

 

[rmontro]

why do people bring the words of blowhards to our site? every day I have no idea what these jokers are talking about is a win in my book and you had to go and ruin it briefly.

Yeesh. I thought some might like to hear what people in the media are saying about our team. But the main reason I quoted him was because it was hard to refute what he was saying. IMO, of course.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Who were we missing in the NFCCG?

The Packers missed a total of two week 1 starters entering the NFCCG in Shields and Lacy. Absolutely impossible to overcome.

The Packers struggled because the players they had to replace the injured players were not able to get the job done. I guess that means the main reason they struggled was due to lack of talent.

That's the point I'm trying to make. It's true a drop off in performance is to be expected with backups playing significant roles but a lack of talent was the main reason it was as steep at cornerback last season. That's solely on Thompson.

 

[Ogsponge]

212 posts of arguing and bickering because I made a Jay Cutler and the Chicago Bears suck joke.

I am thinking about going pro, my agent tells me that I could go in the top 5. The Cleveland Trollmasters are interested in a franchise Quartertroll to build their team around. I know, I know, it is Cleveland but the the prospect of bringing this team back to the glory days of Jim Browntroll is very intriguing.

The crazy part is that I wasn't even trying to get into this business it happened purely by accident.

 

[PikeBadger]

212 posts of arguing and bickering because I made a Jay Cutler and the Chicago Bears suck joke.

I am thinking about going pro, my agent tells me that I could go in the top 5. The Cleveland Trollmasters are interested in a franchise Quartertroll to build their team around. I know, I know, it is Cleveland but the the prospect of bringing this team back to the glory days of Jim Browntroll is very intriguing.

The crazy part is that I wasn't even trying to get into this business it happened purely by accident.

Lol, you sure picked the right thread subject!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

212 posts of arguing and bickering because I made a Jay Cutler and the Chicago Bears suck joke.

Can you imagine what will happen when TT signs Jay Cutler!

 

[fistfullofbeer]

The Packers struggled because the players they had to replace the injured players were not able to get the job done. I guess that means the main reason they struggled was due to lack of talent. On the other hand that lack of talent was pushed to the forefront due to injuries to players ahead of them. Its also quite possible that injuries played a role in those players not having the ability to play to their fullest potential.

Would you expect a running back with a busted leg to perform the same as if he were not injured. You must because you said injuries are not an excuse. OK, you said main excuse but there are those who say injuries are not an excuse. I'm sorry but injuries are an excuse. Just not the excuse we like to hear.

Ofcourse injuries play a role. But we also have to be real about the fact that the reason we lost this year was not because of injuries. Our secondary was terrible all year. I mean sure, we were missing Shields but do you think him being healthy would have made us a real SB contender? I don't think it would have. Atlanta (or NE) would still have ripped our D to shreds.

Lacy, or lack there of, was also not the reason we lost in the playoffs. Rodgers more than carried the offense despite the loss of Lacy.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Ofcourse injuries play a role. But we also have to be real about the fact that the reason we lost this year was not because of injuries. Our secondary was terrible all year. I mean sure, we were missing Shields but do you think him being healthy would have made us a real SB contender? I don't think it would have. Atlanta (or NE) would still have ripped our D to shreds.

Lacy, or lack there of, was also not the reason we lost in the playoffs. Rodgers more than carried the offense despite the loss of Lacy.

The Packers didn't win the Super Bowl last season because the team lacked talent and depth at cornerback. While losing Shields for the entire season as well as Randall and Rollins missing several games made it tough for the unit to perform at a decent level Thompson didn't provide any upgrades once it became abundantly clear that team was in need of improvement.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Injuries are a fact but shouldn't be an excuse. Injuries are part of the game, and no team is immune to them. The team that prepares and adjusts for them the best with quality depth on their 53 man roster or by obtaining a replacement elsewhere, is the team who will not have to use injuries as an excuse for losing. If the Packers lost AR for the year, some would use that as an excuse for losing, while it might be a reason, the Packers in my mind would have no excuse, for not having a backup plan for using the other 52 players (or outside options) to find a way to win.

 

[fistfullofbeer]

The Packers didn't win the Super Bowl last season because the team lacked talent and depth at cornerback. While losing Shields for the entire season as well as Randall and Rollins missing several games made it tough for the unit to perform at a decent level Thompson didn't provide any upgrades once it became abundantly clear that team was in need of an upgrade.

Bingo. Injuries are part of football. It is a GM's job to get depth to counter such situations. If (and big if) TT thinks that Shields being injured was the big issue with the secondary, one would think that replacing him would be the top priority this season. I know its March and we have a few months before the season starts, but if the secondary needs are not addressed by adding a good CB (Shields level or better) and adding additional depth at that position then we are in for another season where Rodgers wastes another of his prime years.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I know its March and we have a few months before the season starts, but if the secondary needs are not addressed by adding a good CB (Shields level or better) and adding additional depth at that position then we are in for another season where Rodgers wastes another of his prime years.

I think that ship may have already sailed and we have to come to the conclusion that TT and the Packers think that their current group + House and a rookie or two will improve the situation.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Injuries are a fact but shouldn't be an excuse. Injuries are part of the game, and no team is immune to them. The team that prepares for them the best with quality depth on their 53 man roster is the team who will not have to use injuries as an excuse for losing. If the Packers lost AR for the year, some would use that as an excuse for losing, while it might be a reason, the Packers in my mind would have no excuse, for not having a backup plan for using the other 52 players to find a way to win.

In my opinion the Packers losing Rodgers for an extended period of time would justify using it as an excuse for the team coming up short. He's the only player I feel about that way though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In my opinion the Packers losing Rodgers for an extended period of time would justify using it as an excuse for the team coming up short. He's the only player I feel about that way though.

I agree that it is an extreme example and that is why I made it. The Patriots did just fine without Brady for 4 games, I don't think the Packers would fare as well. Again, losing Rodgers and using that as an "excuse" would make me ask, "Why weren't the Packers prepared for something that was totally feasible to happen?" This isn't expecting his replacement to come in and equal his numbers, but it is expecting a team to be able to still find ways to win after the loss of 1 player, even Aaron Rodgers.

Losing Rodgers and the rest of the team not being able to win without him, might be a reason for losing, but not a valid excuse for losing IMO. There is a difference between a reason (loss of AR) and an excuse (not being prepared).

But you are right in the sense that the Packers have pretty much pinned their success on one guy, Aaron Rodgers.

No excuse for that.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree that it is an extreme example and it is why I made it. The Patriots did just fine without Brady for 4 games, I don't think the Packers would fare as well. Again, losing Rodgers and using that as an "excuse" would make me ask, "Why weren't the Packers prepared for something that was totally feasible to happen?" This isn't expecting his replacement to come in and equal his numbers, but it is expecting a team to be able to still find ways to win after the loss of 1 player, even Aaron Rodgers.

Losing Rodgers and the rest of the team not being able to win without him, might be a reason for losing, but not a valid excuse for losing IMO. There is a difference between a reason (loss of AR) and an excuse (not being prepared).

But you are right in the sense that the Packers have pretty much pinned their success on one guy, Aaron Rodgers.

No excuse for that.

While the Patriots went 3-1 to start the 2016 season I'm convinced they wouldn't have had a chance to win the Super Bowl without Brady. I agree there's no way the Packers win three out of four games with Hundley or Callahan starting though.

 

[PackerDNA]

While the Patriots went 3-1 to start the 2016 season I'm convinced they wouldn't have had a chance to win the Super Bowl without Brady. I agree there's no way the Packers win three out of four games with Hundley or Callahan starting though.

I'd still give them a punchers chance. If Brady's suspension had been an injury causing him to miss the whole season, Bellichik and co. would have made adjustments to keep them going.
While it's generally true that you need very good to elite QB play to win SB's in today's NFL, like most things, it's not an absolute. The Ravens with Dilfer and Flacco, the Bucs with Brad Johnson. The Broncos with Manning as a shadow of himself and Osweiler filling in for him.
The Patriots also went 11-5 in '08 after losing Brady in week 1, and the Broncos still won 9 games and just missed the playoffs while for all intents and purposes playing without a QB last season.
I agree 100% with posters who have pointed out this team goes nowhere without Rodgers- I'd say they wouldn't win more than 4 games if that- and that no team depends on it's QB/one guy more than Green Bay does Rodgers.