So Rodgers IS the Packers?

[Forget Favre]

If we don't get better or end up with a losing record etc, it will show just how much one man can make all the difference to a team and it will be proven false that there is no I in team.
To increase the chances or to put the odds on their side at getting to a Super Bowl, a football team should be a complete package with offense, defense and special teams.
Sadly for now, it looks one sided with the Pack on offense only and when Aaron, the leader and playmaker of that offense is gone, so is the season.
Or at least that is what it looks like to some right now.
How can this be?
How can they not be more prepared for this and a better team overall?
I just don't get it how this has come about.

 

[C-Lee]

Sad but true.

It doesn't have to be this way either.

 

[Kidd2k24]

I thought it's been obvious for a long time now that Rodgers is the team unfortunately the rest of the organisation has not seen it yet but they just might after this season it's gonna be hard to ignore

 

[Passepartout]

With Rodgers they are in the playoffs, without him they are doomed. Look at it that way.

 

[rmontro]

Seriously, if it's all about the quarterbacks, just change the NFL to one on one matchups. Let them compete in contests to display their accuracy, arm strength, speed, whatever. That way you don't have to worry about concussions.

Of course, other franchises have managed to built more complete teams that don't solely depend on one Hall of Fame quarterback. My expectation is that by year's end, the Packers will have molded themselves into a nearly average team. But by that time, it will likely be too little, too late to make the playoffs. At least we won't have to hear people say we should be satisfied because the team makes the playoffs every year.

 

[Forget Favre]

I thought it's been obvious for a long time now that Rodgers is the team unfortunately the rest of the organisation has not seen it yet but they just might after this season it's gonna be hard to ignore

Those who work in the organization have a different perspective than the fans do.
I dunno which one is right and correct.
What they are doing doesn't seem to be working and fans have suggestions (Fire Dom Capers!) and would those really work?
From the way they have been operating the last few years, I'll be really surprised if they make any noticeable changes to any personal.

 

[Forget Favre]

Seriously, if it's all about the quarterbacks, just change the NFL to one on one matchups. Let them compete in contests to display their accuracy, arm strength, speed, whatever. That way you don't have to worry about concussions.

Of course, other franchises have managed to built more complete teams that don't solely depend on one Hall of Fame quarterback. My expectation is that by year's end, the Packers will have molded themselves into a nearly average team. But by that time, it will likely be too little, too late to make the playoffs. At least we won't have to hear people say we should be satisfied because the team makes the playoffs every year.

Who knows what will happen but they really should have built the team around him.
Are they going to start doing that?
Will they learn their lesson this time?

I think it would be great if we make the playoffs.
Then it would show that it is not just all about Rodgers.
That would be nice.

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

It is all about the QBs. Teams without great QBs lose a lot, get early draft picks and build, if they have good management, the rest of the team and hope they luck into a great QB.

There are no completely balanced teams unless one of the perennial losers finally gets lucky and hits on a QB.

Philly is maybe the most balanced team and they hit the above lottery after being not good for a long time, Seattle built a really good team by losing a lot until they hit on Russell, the Rams built a really good defense by losing a lot until they drafted, finally, a QB and then getting a coach this year that knows offense and can gear up the game plan around the QB. The Vikes built their defense around bad to mediocre teams until Teddy got hurt, then traded 2 firsts for a qb that was a high draft pick by a perennial loser, yep, Rams. Denver, losers for a long time, built a great defense, but until they got Manning, didn’t do dodo. After Manning, still can’t do dodo. KC has had a great D built upon losing and getting high draft picks. Got Alex and now wins, until playoff time. Cincy sucked until Dalton, got a lot of good players, finally started to win, except in playoffs, because like KC, QB is not great. Dallas built a great line, good team by going 20 years without playoff wins, added Dak and then lost to us in playoffs. San Fran had long run of losing, built a great defense, O and D lines and run game, all high draft picks, but without a great QB, hasn’t won a SB and now is known as Owen, like 0 and 8. Ravens are an outlier, twice have stunk, built great defenses. Once great enough to win with Dilfer, then had Flacco have the post season of his life. Then reverted to the mean. Chargers have Rivers, drafted because, yes, they and the Giants lived through losing years and traded top 5 picks. San Diego built up a terrific team around Rivers, won 14 games and fired the coach. Not doing so well ever since. Raiders suffered a decade of losing but had a decade of top draft picks to build a team before drafting Carr. Looked great until he got hurt just before the playoffs. But now, they are a losing team again.

Eli won 2 SBs with a great defense built on draft picks from losing. Now they are one of the worst teams in the NFC, with Eli. The Redskins sucked bad enough they were able to draft RGme and Cousins in the same draft. Still losers. Cards built a team by losing so long they got a great defense and a lot of offensive weapons, had to sign a free agent QB, still didn’t win anything, and now have no qb.

Falcons lost so much they built a great team, drafted Matt Ryan, lived with an above average QB until last year, and now he has reverted to the norm. They are not great.

Houston spent the last few years losing and drafting a great defense. Then drafted Watson. Looked good with a real QB. Then he got hurt. Even with Watson looking like the missing link, they went 3-4. With him being the AFC player of the month.

Buffalo, Jets, Miami, Tennessee,Jags, Detroit, Saints, Carolina... all teams that stunk for a long time, built up one side of the team but other than an odd year or two never were really relevant. And then there are the Bears and Browns. Stinkers forever it seems now. The only exception: the Pats. BB wins with whoever is QB. Brady, Cassell, no matter who, they win. They are the template. But us and the Steelers are the only other teams that seem to be perennial winners besides New England.

I know, I covered pretty much the whole league, but who are those “balanced teams” that have done anything over the timeframe NE, Pitt and us have for as long as we all have? Everyone else has endured long losing streaks to be able to build with high draft picks, has had moments of glory before falling back into mediocrity or has never won the SB.

There are no teams without weaknesses or depth issues. Or, as I believe, without coaching deficiencies. Except New England.

So who are these mythical "Balanced teams". There may be at the moment one or two, but there are no year over year balanced teams, NE excepted.

 

[Kidd2k24]

Ron wolf built a balanced team then Rodgers fell into the team's hands in the right time take Rodgers out of the equation and what has Ted Thompson built? I'm not saying I'm not greatful for our years of success but I'm just saying how much is it teddy and how much is it rodgers? I know Tedd Thompson drafted him but wasn't it a little luck him falling to us

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Ron wolf built a balanced team then Rodgers fell into the team's hands in the right time take Rodgers out of the equation and what has Ted Thompson built? I'm not saying I'm not greatful for our years of success but I'm just saying how much is it teddy and how much is it rodgers? I know Tedd Thompson drafted him but wasn't it a little luck him falling to us

My narrative has changed a bit, seeing how players like Hayward and Hyde have performed at such high levels since leaving. Had we retained them and played them to their strengths, we'd have one of the most complete rosters in the league right now. I'd like to see more activity in FA, but talent acquisition isn't the most glaring issue. Coaching is.

 

[swhitset]

It is all about the QBs. Teams without great QBs lose a lot, get early draft picks and build, if they have good management, the rest of the team and hope they luck into a great QB.

There are no completely balanced teams unless one of the perennial losers finally gets lucky and hits on a QB.

Philly is maybe the most balanced team and they hit the above lottery after being not good for a long time, Seattle built a really good team by losing a lot until they hit on Russell, the Rams built a really good defense by losing a lot until they drafted, finally, a QB and then getting a coach this year that knows offense and can gear up the game plan around the QB. The Vikes built their defense around bad to mediocre teams until Teddy got hurt, then traded 2 firsts for a qb that was a high draft pick by a perennial loser, yep, Rams. Denver, losers for a long time, built a great defense, but until they got Manning, didn’t do dodo. After Manning, still can’t do dodo. KC has had a great D built upon losing and getting high draft picks. Got Alex and now wins, until playoff time. Cincy sucked until Dalton, got a lot of good players, finally started to win, except in playoffs, because like KC, QB is not great. Dallas built a great line, good team by going 20 years without playoff wins, added Dak and then lost to us in playoffs. San Fran had long run of losing, built a great defense, O and D lines and run game, all high draft picks, but without a great QB, hasn’t won a SB and now is known as Owen, like 0 and 8. Ravens are an outlier, twice have stunk, built great defenses. Once great enough to win with Dilfer, then had Flacco have the post season of his life. Then reverted to the mean. Chargers have Rivers, drafted because, yes, they and the Giants lived through losing years and traded top 5 picks. San Diego built up a terrific team around Rivers, won 14 games and fired the coach. Not doing so well ever since. Raiders suffered a decade of losing but had a decade of top draft picks to build a team before drafting Carr. Looked great until he got hurt just before the playoffs. But now, they are a losing team again.

Eli won 2 SBs with a great defense built on draft picks from losing. Now they are one of the worst teams in the NFC, with Eli. The Redskins sucked bad enough they were able to draft RGme and Cousins in the same draft. Still losers. Cards built a team by losing so long they got a great defense and a lot of offensive weapons, had to sign a free agent QB, still didn’t win anything, and now have no qb.

Falcons lost so much they built a great team, drafted Matt Ryan, lived with an above average QB until last year, and now he has reverted to the norm. They are not great.

Houston spent the last few years losing and drafting a great defense. Then drafted Watson. Looked good with a real QB. Then he got hurt. Even with Watson looking like the missing link, they went 3-4. With him being the AFC player of the month.

Buffalo, Jets, Miami, Tennessee,Jags, Detroit, Saints, Carolina... all teams that stunk for a long time, built up one side of the team but other than an odd year or two never were really relevant. And then there are the Bears and Browns. Stinkers forever it seems now. The only exception: the Pats. BB wins with whoever is QB. Brady, Cassell, no matter who, they win. They are the template. But us and the Steelers are the only other teams that seem to be perennial winners besides New England.

I know, I covered pretty much the whole league, but who are those “balanced teams” that have done anything over the timeframe NE, Pitt and us have for as long as we all have? Everyone else has endured long losing streaks to be able to build with high draft picks, has had moments of glory before falling back into mediocrity or has never won the SB.

There are no teams without weaknesses or depth issues. Or, as I believe, without coaching deficiencies. Except New England.

So who are these mythical "Balanced teams". There may be at the moment one or two, but there are no year over year balanced teams, NE excepted.

This makes too much sense. Stop throwing reality at all the whiners.

 

[swhitset]

My narrative has changed a bit, seeing how players like Hayward and Hyde have performed at such high levels since leaving. Had we retained them and played them to their strengths, we'd have one of the most complete rosters in the league right now. I'd like to see more activity in FA, but talent acquisition isn't the most glaring issue. Coaching is.

Defensively.... I agree with this. It is time to see what a different defensive scheme could do with these players.

 

[gbgary]

$>W's

 

[Forget Favre]

$>W's

No matter how badly a team does, it's the owners who are the winners.

 

[Forget Favre]

It is all about the QBs. Teams without great QBs lose a lot, get early draft picks and build, if they have good management, the rest of the team and hope they luck into a great QB.

There are no completely balanced teams unless one of the perennial losers finally gets lucky and hits on a QB.

Philly is maybe the most balanced team and they hit the above lottery after being not good for a long time, Seattle built a really good team by losing a lot until they hit on Russell, the Rams built a really good defense by losing a lot until they drafted, finally, a QB and then getting a coach this year that knows offense and can gear up the game plan around the QB. The Vikes built their defense around bad to mediocre teams until Teddy got hurt, then traded 2 firsts for a qb that was a high draft pick by a perennial loser, yep, Rams. Denver, losers for a long time, built a great defense, but until they got Manning, didn’t do dodo. After Manning, still can’t do dodo. KC has had a great D built upon losing and getting high draft picks. Got Alex and now wins, until playoff time. Cincy sucked until Dalton, got a lot of good players, finally started to win, except in playoffs, because like KC, QB is not great. Dallas built a great line, good team by going 20 years without playoff wins, added Dak and then lost to us in playoffs. San Fran had long run of losing, built a great defense, O and D lines and run game, all high draft picks, but without a great QB, hasn’t won a SB and now is known as Owen, like 0 and 8. Ravens are an outlier, twice have stunk, built great defenses. Once great enough to win with Dilfer, then had Flacco have the post season of his life. Then reverted to the mean. Chargers have Rivers, drafted because, yes, they and the Giants lived through losing years and traded top 5 picks. San Diego built up a terrific team around Rivers, won 14 games and fired the coach. Not doing so well ever since. Raiders suffered a decade of losing but had a decade of top draft picks to build a team before drafting Carr. Looked great until he got hurt just before the playoffs. But now, they are a losing team again.

Eli won 2 SBs with a great defense built on draft picks from losing. Now they are one of the worst teams in the NFC, with Eli. The Redskins sucked bad enough they were able to draft RGme and Cousins in the same draft. Still losers. Cards built a team by losing so long they got a great defense and a lot of offensive weapons, had to sign a free agent QB, still didn’t win anything, and now have no qb.

Falcons lost so much they built a great team, drafted Matt Ryan, lived with an above average QB until last year, and now he has reverted to the norm. They are not great.

Houston spent the last few years losing and drafting a great defense. Then drafted Watson. Looked good with a real QB. Then he got hurt. Even with Watson looking like the missing link, they went 3-4. With him being the AFC player of the month.

Buffalo, Jets, Miami, Tennessee,Jags, Detroit, Saints, Carolina... all teams that stunk for a long time, built up one side of the team but other than an odd year or two never were really relevant. And then there are the Bears and Browns. Stinkers forever it seems now. The only exception: the Pats. BB wins with whoever is QB. Brady, Cassell, no matter who, they win. They are the template. But us and the Steelers are the only other teams that seem to be perennial winners besides New England.

I know, I covered pretty much the whole league, but who are those “balanced teams” that have done anything over the timeframe NE, Pitt and us have for as long as we all have? Everyone else has endured long losing streaks to be able to build with high draft picks, has had moments of glory before falling back into mediocrity or has never won the SB.

There are no teams without weaknesses or depth issues. Or, as I believe, without coaching deficiencies. Except New England.

So who are these mythical "Balanced teams". There may be at the moment one or two, but there are no year over year balanced teams, NE excepted.

If I could, I would rank this post as "Confused."

I'm not sure what your point is and how it addresses my questions of why or how did the Pack get to this point?

 

[Guacamole]

it's been like this ever since Rodgers went down in 2013. If Rodgers was to ever go down again the Packers are doomed. Well guess what, it happened again and what has Thompson done since?...........

 

[PackerDNA]

Until I see otherwise, yeah, he pretty much is.

 

[Raptorman]

The Packers aren't built to play with Rodgers out. Their defense sucks and has for the last 5 years. The Defense has averaged giving up 22.8 points per game since 2012. That in itself is why the Packers continue to do somewhat well but fail come playoff time. While the offense has scored 26.4 points per game during the same time span. To put that defensive scoring into perspective, the Vikings have averaged 21.8 point per game on defense during the same time span. The Patriots have averaged 19.6 ppg on defense and 29.4 on offense. And people wonder why they keep winning. So far this year the Packers defense is giving up 23 points per game. That works out to an 8-8 record without Rodgers.

 

[Carl 2]

Needed another thread to complain about the same things again?

 

[Carl 2]

Worth noting that both loses were to good teams. Easily could have lost either with Rodgers.

I don't expect that to be taken into account with many posters though.

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

If I could, I would rank this post as "Confused."

I'm not sure what your point is and how it addresses my questions of why or how did the Pack get to this point?

I should have quoted post #5 talking about if it is all about the qb’s, not your post. My mistake in confusing you.

 

[XPack]

NFL is a QB focused sport. Nobody else matters as much as a QB and the % of QBs who win MVP as opposed to rest of positions combined attests to that.

We are a AR12 team and I'm glad of it.

 

[Forget Favre]

Worth noting that both loses were to good teams. Easily could have lost either with Rodgers.

I don't expect that to be taken into account with many posters though.

We mostly beat teams that are just avg. to losing records.
A healthy Rodgers with the lousy defense the way it is gives us a better chance.
No way to tell if we are going to beat the Clowns.
With Rodgers, no doubt.
Without, I expect a close game either way.

 

[Forget Favre]

NFL is a QB focused sport. Nobody else matters as much as a QB and the % of QBs who win MVP as opposed to rest of positions combined attests to that.

We are a AR12 team and I'm glad of it.

Wouldn't you rather have a team that is not focused on the QB so much to give us a better chance at beating better teams in their house as well as better playoff chances?

 

[XPack]

Wouldn't you rather have a team that is not focused on the QB so much to give us a better chance at beating better teams in their house as well as better playoff chances?

No. AR has proved how a great QB can elevate a moderate team. And there are other teams who despite being good in other positions can't succeed without a great QB.

Pats are the only exception to having gotten both right. And their record shows.

You are underestimating the power of QB in today's game.