Recent Head Coaching Changes Prove It's GB's Time to Move On

[Patriotplayer90]

It's a straw to act like anyone is happy that they haven't won another ring to this point. But there's a whole spectrum of possible opinions between "clean house" and "totally satisfied." To pretend like it's binary is just to distract from the real discussion.

Green Bay is capable of beating top dogs. They do it every year. They just need to string together enough of those wins in a row to get back in the big game. They knock on that door every year. For many of us, it seems utterly foolish to get rid of the guys who have gotten them to this point. It's completely false that winning like this is automatic with Rodgers. Certainly he's the biggest piece of the puzzle though.

Thompson's job is to build the best roster he can. Philosophically, he believes in doing that via the draft more than just about anyone. Many fans, myself included, feel that he has needed to use FA more as a supplement for the sake of depth or plugging the odd hole here or there. But it's not like that's his whole job... to sign free agents. In fact, the GM's who act like that's their primary responsibility are some of the worst in the league.

He has done his job... to the tune of the 2nd most wins in the league, a winning record in the playoffs, and a championship. That's not perfect success, and he can do better in ways, but if you can't see that as a GM doing his job then you might be past reasoning with.

I just don't see how you can say a team who has as many holes and as little depth as GB does has a GM who is doing a good job. It's his job to acquire those players. We have a couple of guys go down, and we look like a doormat.

If you are that impressed by our record over the last 10 years, look at the 10 before he arrived. GB has been the model for consistency for decades. I give him credit for keeping things going and not making them a complete mess, but it's not like he took over the Browns.

I prefer to look at recent history rather than ancient history (10 years ago) to judge a team. In recent years, we have looked slower, less deep, and unable to fill recurring holes in the roster.

It's crazy to suggest that we beat top dogs each year when Atlanta has 3 straight victories over us, including a couple of blowouts, Denver and Carolina beat the tar out of us in 2015, and we lose to the top teams in the playoff every year. The best teams aren't just a little better, they are a lot better.

 

[Dantés]

I just don't see how you can say a team who has as many holes and as little depth as GB does has a GM who is doing a good job. It's his job to acquire those players. We have a couple of guys go down, and we look like a doormat.

If you are that impressed by our record over the last 10 years, look at the 10 before he arrived. GB has been the model for consistency for decades. I give him credit for keeping things going and not making them a complete mess, but it's not like he took over the Browns.

I prefer to look at recent history rather than ancient history (10 years ago) to judge a team. In recent years, we have looked slower, less deep, and unable to fill recurring holes in the roster.

It's crazy to suggest that we beat top dogs each year when Atlanta has 3 straight victories over us, including a couple of blowouts, Denver and Carolina beat the tar out of us in 2015, and we lose to the top teams in the playoff every year. The best teams aren't just a little better, they are a lot better.

What holes? Corner, and...? You're ignoring success in favor of these vague criticisms.

I am impressed by the record under TT. Obviously. And the record under Wolf. Wolf did not get the team over the hump a second time, but he was still excellent on balance. So far, Thompson's legacy is virtually identical. And I don't know what it's supposed to mean that TT took over a team that had had success. By the time they won the super bowl in '10, there were like 4 guys on the roster from the Wolf era. In your mind, do his current rosters get some kind of magical boost because the team was also good 15 years ago?

It's only crazy to suggest that the Packers beat good teams if you ignore all the times that it happens. Like the Seattle game this year, or last year. Dallas in the playoffs.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

What holes? Corner, and...? You're ignoring success in favor of these vague criticisms.

I am impressed by the record under TT. Obviously. And the record under Wolf. Wolf did not get the team over the hump a second time, but he was still excellent on balance. So far, Thompson's legacy is virtually identical. And I don't know what it's supposed to mean that TT took over a team that had had success. By the time they won the super bowl in '10, there were like 4 guys on the roster from the Wolf era. In your mind, do his current rosters get some kind of magical boost because the team was also good 15 years ago?

It's only crazy to suggest that the Packers beat good teams if you ignore all the times that it happens. Like the Seattle game this year, or last year. Dallas in the playoffs.

Seattle isn't close to a SB team and haven't been for years. That's the worst offensive line I've ever seen wear NFL uniforms and we looked like the 85 Bears competing against them. And we lost to Dallas and then required game ending magic of Rodgers to pull the playoff victory off. Dallas was comparable to the 15-1 Packers, a one trick offensive pony without a good defense. I pointed out our recent matchups with actual SB teams and not playoff attendance trophy winners, and we have gotten the tar beaten out of us.

 

[Dantés]

Seattle isn't close to a SB team and haven't been for years. That's the worst offensive line I've ever seen wear NFL uniforms and we looked like the 85 Bears competing against them. And we lost to Dallas and then required game ending magic of Rodgers to pull the playoff victory off. Dallas was comparable to the 15-1 Packers, a one trick offensive pony without a good defense. I pointed out our recent matchups with actual SB teams and not playoff attendance trophy winners, and we have gotten the tar beaten out of us.

So if the Packers lose, it's because they're bad and if they win, it's because the opponent is bad. That's quite a little system you've got there. It's amazing how if you distort all the evidence any way you please, you can make it meet your foregone conclusion.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

So if the Packers lose, it's because they're bad and if they win, it's because the opponent is bad. That's quite a little system you've got there. It's amazing how if you distort all the evidence any way you please, you can make it meet your foregone conclusion.

A team with no running game and a bad defense doesn't exactly sound good.

 

[Dantés]

A team with no running game and a bad defense doesn't exactly sound good.

We just gonna change the subject every time you dead end?

 

[Patriotplayer90]

We just gonna change the subject every time you dead end?

I said we are average outside of Rodgers. Hence why we beat up on lesser competition and can beat teams of similar quality. And why we lose to SB teams.

 

[Dantés]

I said we are average outside of Rodgers. Hence why we beat up on lesser competition and can beat teams of similar quality. And why we lose to SB teams.

OL, WR, TE, Daniels, Perry, HHCD... all NFL average?

 

[Patriotplayer90]

OL, WR, TE, Daniels, Perry, HHCD... all NFL average?

I didn't say we were average at every position. But as a unit, the defense and running game were below average last year.

 

[OldSchool101]

Aren't we special!

I'm not sure why SNL Church Chat with Dana Carvey rang out in that but...

 

[weeds]

I've been reading the Packers are average for ... oh... the last 25 years or so.... hey, funny thing... Holmgren left and we got a heapin' helpin' of Ray Rhodes and Mike Sherman (who wasn't a bad coach). So who do we replace MM with again?

 

[Dantés]

I've been reading the Packers are average for ... oh... the last 25 years or so.... hey, funny thing... Holmgren left and we got a heapin' helpin' of Ray Rhodes and Mike Sherman (who wasn't a bad coach). So who do we replace MM with again?

Clearly whoever they hire will instantly be better because... uhhh... of the Rams... or something...

 

[Mavster]

McCarthy is fine as a head coach. It's whoever is in control of the defensive acquisitions that needs the boot.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Clearly whoever they hire will instantly be better because... uhhh... of the Rams... or something...

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have that much trouble finding someone who can't coach defense or run the ball.

 

[Dantés]

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have that much trouble finding someone who can't coach defense or run the ball.

Going back to that well again?

 

[Passepartout]

Yeah as really he has led the team to the playoffs each and every single year. No need to worry.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Yeah as really he has led the team to the playoffs each and every single year. No need to worry.

So the year we won like 2 games in the half season that Rodgers was out, did he look like a perennial playoff coach?

 

[Ogsponge]

So the year we won like 2 games in the half season that Rodgers was out, did he look like a perennial playoff coach?

You are wasting your time, you knew there would be people that are satisfied with the make the playoffs, lose in historical and embarrassing fashion status quo.

I get both sides of the argument, I think they are both valid but no one on either side is going to change their mind

 

[Patriotplayer90]

You are wasting your time, you knew there would be people that are satisfied with the make the playoffs, lose in historical and embarrassing fashion status quo.

I get both sides of the argument, I think they are both valid but no one on either side is going to change their mind

Yeah, but that's the point of forums. You present your opinion and someone argues with it. I've learned something new, in that we have the 2nd most wins in this time frame, and it's difficult to justify moving on from a regime after a conference championship appearance. All I have to go on is hope. They have a much stronger argument.

If the regime was doing everything they could to put together a championship team, I could forgive the shortcomings. I'd have to imagine anyone taking over a team with Rodgers would do just that. But our actions seem to fit the definition of insanity. Every year we don't at least make it to the SB with Rodgers is a wasted opportunity, and I just don't get any sense of urgency or desire to get over the hump from TT and crew.

 

[BrokenArrow]

A guy who inherited a losing team just a few years ago has beaten us 3 times in a row. But I guess that's all because of grass, right?

This last game was closer than the score indicated. The ******** OPI calls were a huge swing on the scoreboard. If we had been able to play 4 quarters with our tackles, our NT and our top WR, I dare say we would have won. Bottom line they were healthy and we weren't. If you took away Atlanta's best defender, their two best offensive linemen and Jones, they wouldn't have beaten us either. Everything within the scope of context. If we are healthy as they were, they are absolutely no better than us.

 

[Poppa San]

This last game was closer than the score indicated. The ******** OPI calls were a huge swing on the scoreboard. If we had been able to play 4 quarters with our tackles, our NT and our top WR, I dare say we would have won. Bottom line they were healthy and we weren't. If you took away Atlanta's best defender, their two best offensive linemen and Jones, they wouldn't have beaten us either. Everything within the scope of context. If we are healthy as they were, they are absolutely no better than us.

You haven't been paying attention. Injuries are no excuse. TT is supposed to have veteran probowlers all the way to the bottom of the roster.

 

[Packer Brother]

What holes? Corner, and...? You're ignoring success in favor of these vague criticisms.

I am impressed by the record under TT. Obviously. And the record under Wolf. Wolf did not get the team over the hump a second time, but he was still excellent on balance. So far, Thompson's legacy is virtually identical. And I don't know what it's supposed to mean that TT took over a team that had had success. By the time they won the super bowl in '10, there were like 4 guys on the roster from the Wolf era. In your mind, do his current rosters get some kind of magical boost because the team was also good 15 years ago?

It's only crazy to suggest that the Packers beat good teams if you ignore all the times that it happens. Like the Seattle game this year, or last year. Dallas in the playoffs.

Ted Thompson paying you enough

This last game was closer than the score indicated. The ******** OPI calls were a huge swing on the scoreboard. If we had been able to play 4 quarters with our tackles, our NT and our top WR, I dare say we would have won. Bottom line they were healthy and we weren't. If you took away Atlanta's best defender, their two best offensive linemen and Jones, they wouldn't have beaten us either. Everything within the scope of context. If we are healthy as they were, they are absolutely no better than us.

Wolf got his team to another SB at least. Furthermore, he's in the HOF.

Atlanta is absolutely a better team than the Packrrs. There's no debate.

 

[Dantés]

Ted Thompson paying you enough

Great point! Totally addresses everything I said.

 

[AmishMafia]

Clearly whoever they hire will instantly be better because... uhhh... of the Rams... or something...

what we need to do is cut Rodgers and go with Hundley. The Rams wentt with a young QB and now they are 2-1 . . .

Yeah, but that's the point of forums. You present your opinion and someone argues with it. I've learned something new, in that we have the 2nd most wins in this time frame, and it's difficult to justify moving on from a regime after a conference championship appearance. All I have to go on is hope. They have a much stronger argument.

If the regime was doing everything they could to put together a championship team, I could forgive the shortcomings. I'd have to imagine anyone taking over a team with Rodgers would do just that. But our actions seem to fit the definition of insanity. Every year we don't at least make it to the SB with Rodgers is a wasted opportunity, and I just don't get any sense of urgency or desire to get over the hump from TT and crew.

Nobody is content with anything short of a SB. You just have to gain some perspective. Packers are one of the most talented teams in the NFL over the last 5 or 6 years and have a decent shot at a SB. No it hasn't worked out 5 of those 6. There are 5 or 6 other teams that are also very talented. But every team has holes and almost all the teams have more or bigger issues than the Packers. You rip on Seattle for sucking yet they were exactly like Atlanta 3-5 years ago. Packers smacked em silly for 55 mins in a NFCCG before a 7 play hiccup. We could have competed well against ATL as well if not for missing our top 3 linemen. And yet TT has kept the Packers competitive through both these regimes and beyond. That is very difficult to do, especially drafting at the end of every round.

If TT was fired at noon today you would have fans of 30 teams demanding he be hired and he would probably get a dozen name your price offers by 1pm or whenever the other owner stopped laughing at the stupidity of the Packers firing TT.

Enjoy the success of TT. And if you want to understand how good he is, follow the bears, Cleveland, etc to see what most rosters and GMs look like.

 

[Dantés]

what we need to do is cut Rodgers and go with Huntley. The Rams wentt with a young QB and now they are 2-1 . . .

Hmmm. You're right. However, the Rams also hired a super young guy at head coach. Maybe that's the key. GB needs to can MM, hire the first 30 year old they can find, and boom... Super Bowl.