State of the Packers

[Ogsponge]

Belichick started coaching in this league in 19 freaking 75 and McCarthy wasn't even a teenager yet. You think he hasn't made some mistakes a long the way to get where he is today? McCarthy has been in the league since the early 90's. That's a couple decades worth of experience difference. I think MM is every bit as good of a coach as Belichick the only difference being Belichick has made most of his mistakes and has had 20 more years to learn from them. MM has made mistakes, his teams have made mistakes, but largely has shown the ability to grow from those experiences. I expect him to do the same going forward.

I don't disagree with what you are saying at all. That being said, the reason I am comparing him to Belichick is as mentioned, people on this board always want to act like the Packers are the greatest, but as of now, they really are not, so I compared them to the modern version of the greatest.

Also the he has been coaching longer than MM argument does not hold water when I say the coaches who have been coaching for a shorter period of time than MM and have equaled his success are:

Pete Carroll
Sean Payton
Mike Tomlin
John Harbaugh

It works both ways. Look, don't get me wrong, TT, MM and Aaron have accomplished truly tremendous things and I am grateful for that. But the bottom line is there is a difference between being a SB contender and Playoff contender and since those folks took over the reigns, only one year were they ever truly a SB contender and that year they got bounced out in their first game. I am sorry but this is a team that should at the very least have been in one more SB during this tenure.

That being said here is to hoping they get it figured out and maybe we can actually reach a couple more SB's in the next 5 years which is what a team with this much talent should do.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The reason people do that is because so many people want to hang their hat on one miraculous season where the stars aligned perfectly to win a Superbowl. I agree you don't ignore that but it is hard to argue that other than that year, their playoff record is horrendous.

McCarthy's Overall Playoff record 7-6
Belichick's Overall Playoff record 22-9
McCarthy's Playoff Record when not winning a SB 2-5
Belichick's Playoff Record when not winning a SB 8-7
McCarthy's SB Record 1-0
Belichick's SB Record 4-2

Do you see a pattern here? Again, I agree you don't ignore the SB season but the numbers speak for themselves.

After taking a look at those stats I have to admit that I really see a pattern there. McCarthy is a genius as it seems like he was able to win a Super Bowl while losing a playoff game.

 

[TJV]

Look, don't get me wrong, TT, MM and Aaron have accomplished truly tremendous things and I am grateful for that. But the bottom line is there is a difference between being a SB contender and Playoff contender and since those folks took over the reigns, only one year were they ever truly a SB contender and that year they got bounced out in their first game.

So the Packers weren't a “Super Bowl contender” in the year they won the Super Bowl? And if you believe that, the Giants weren’t the next year, either. How many teams which played in the Super Bowl do you consider not “truly” SB contenders?

Since appearing in, and winning the Super Bowl don’t qualify, could you define what you mean by “Super Bowl contenders”? Although as the recent examples of the 2010 Packers and the 2011 Giants show just making the playoffs could qualify, IMO any reasonable definition at the very least has to include appearing in the conference championship games.

In the nine years since Thompson and McCarthy have been together, the Packers have made the playoffs 7 times and appeared in the conference championship game 3 times. How can being one win away from being in the Super Bowl not qualify as “truly a SB contender”? IMO only in the mind of a spoiled Packers fan.

 

[Ogsponge]

So the Packers weren't a “Super Bowl contender” in the year they won the Super Bowl? And if you believe that, the Giants weren’t the next year, either. How many teams which played in the Super Bowl do you consider not “truly” SB contenders?

Since appearing in, and winning the Super Bowl don’t qualify, could you define what you mean by “Super Bowl contenders”? Although as the recent examples of the 2010 Packers and the 2011 Giants show just making the playoffs could qualify, IMO any reasonable definition at the very least has to include appearing in the conference championship games.

In the nine years since Thompson and McCarthy have been together, the Packers have made the playoffs 7 times and appeared in the conference championship game 3 times. How can being one win away from being in the Super Bowl not qualify as “truly a SB contender”? IMO only in the mind of a spoiled Packers fan.

*Yawn* Spoiled blah blah blah blah blah. The only argument of a blind Packer fan.

And of course as usual you all ignore that simple fact that other than the perfect storm year of an awesome SB win, the Packers are pathetic in the playoffs. Period, end of story. To say anything otherwise is blind homerism.

Stop fooling yourself into believing that fans who want and expect more are spoiled, it is a tired and pointless argument. If that is the way the coaches and players felt, the Packers would never win another SB ever again.

I love the Packers, I root for them with every fiber of my being, good or bad and like anything I feel that passionately about, there is going to be critique of the bad and there is plenty of bad to be had with the Packers.

And if you wondering what the bad is, it is after what 5 years now, they still have not fixed that pathetic, soft, sieve of a defense. Which is why they are generally pathetic come playoff time. They are built to win games, they are not built to win championships and will not until they fix that defense.

Luckily it looks like they are going to make a valiant effort to do so this year.

 

[Carl]

*Yawn* Spoiled blah blah blah blah blah. The only argument of a blind Packer fan.

And of course as usual you all ignore that simple fact that other than the perfect storm year of an awesome SB win, the Packers are pathetic in the playoffs. Period, end of story. To say anything otherwise is blind homerism.

Stop fooling yourself into believing that fans who want and expect more are spoiled, it is a tired and pointless argument. If that is the way the coaches and players felt, the Packers would never win another SB ever again.

I love the Packers, I root for them with every fiber of my being, good or bad and like anything I feel that passionately about, there is going to be critique of the bad and there is plenty of bad to be had with the Packers.

And if you wondering what the bad is, it is after what 5 years now, they still have not fixed that pathetic, soft, sieve of a defense. Which is why they are generally pathetic come playoff time. They are built to win games, they are not built to win championships and will not until they fix that defense.

Luckily it looks like they are going to make a valiant effort to do so this year.

Two years ago, they held the 49ers to 23 while being decimated by injuries. This season, they played a good game against Dallas and then were dominating for 57 minutes before the whole team started to suck, not just the defense.

If a different coordinator had come in and got the Packers defense to the middle of the league, he would have been praised.

They've also had plenty of offensive issues in playoffs loses in those years.

To solely blame the defense and to call it pathetic are not backed by any logical reasoning.

 

[Carl]

I don't disagree with what you are saying at all. That being said, the reason I am comparing him to Belichick is as mentioned, people on this board always want to act like the Packers are the greatest, but as of now, they really are not, so I compared them to the modern version of the greatest.

Also the he has been coaching longer than MM argument does not hold water when I say the coaches who have been coaching for a shorter period of time than MM and have equaled his success are:

Pete Carroll
Sean Payton
Mike Tomlin
John Harbaugh

It works both ways. Look, don't get me wrong, TT, MM and Aaron have accomplished truly tremendous things and I am grateful for that. But the bottom line is there is a difference between being a SB contender and Playoff contender and since those folks took over the reigns, only one year were they ever truly a SB contender and that year they got bounced out in their first game. I am sorry but this is a team that should at the very least have been in one more SB during this tenure.

That being said here is to hoping they get it figured out and maybe we can actually reach a couple more SB's in the next 5 years which is what a team with this much talent should do.

Any team that is leading late in an NFC championship game and beats the Super Bowl champion during the season is a Super Bowl contender.

 

[TJV]

vapid nonsense

What a surprise, not a single word supporting your ignorant statement, "...only one year were they ever truly a SB contender..."

Continuing to stand by the idea that a Super Bowl winning team wasn't "truly a Super Bowl contender" is about as idiotic as it gets.

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

I don't disagree with what you are saying at all. That being said, the reason I am comparing him to Belichick is as mentioned, people on this board always want to act like the Packers are the greatest, but as of now, they really are not, so I compared them to the modern version of the greatest.

Also the he has been coaching longer than MM argument does not hold water when I say the coaches who have been coaching for a shorter period of time than MM and have equaled his success are:

Pete Carroll

Carroll was the Jets HC in 1994, and the Patriots HC in 1997. How does that make him a coach of equal success with a shorter HC history than MM? Or am I missing something?

 

[PFanCan]

Even if the "State of the Packers" internally remained the same as last season, I think their state relative to, at least, the NFC North is improving.

Chicago has the Cutler problem and they just lost Marshall. They will quite likely be weaker next season.

Detroit seems to be on the cusp of losing Suh, a starting WR and other key starters. They will quite likely be weaker next season.

Minnesota has the Peterson situation to resolve. They may be weaker, or not. Either way, they are unlikely to close the gap with GB and easily could be drafting in the top 10 again next year.

Then, outside the division, the 49ers look to be regressing and may be in rebuild mode.

Dallas and Seattle both may lose key elements as may regress a bit (or, at least, not improve much).

Philly makes all kinds of noise in the off season, and some East coast pundits will predict them to win the SB (against the Jets) as they do every season, but it may not add up much. Dallas will still be favored to take their division.

The Packers get most of their crew back. Maybe we lose Cobb. If so, WR is a relatively easy position to fill, especially with this year's draft and the up-and-comers already on the team. Also, we may lose Bulaga. This is the person I most wish not to lose. But, if he goes-- hardly the end of the world. CB is also a question with Williams/House. Hopefully, we don't lose both. If not, I don't see a huge drop off.

The Packers have plenty of cash. Cash equates to opportunity to bring in a quality FA to either back-fill a spot opened up by an exiting FA or shore up the ILB or NT position.

So, IMHO, the Packers state is improving. It's all relative.

 

[Ogsponge]

What a surprise, not a single word supporting your ignorant statement, "...only one year were they ever truly a SB contender..."

Continuing to stand by the idea that a Super Bowl winning team wasn't "truly a Super Bowl contender" is about as idiotic as it gets.

Are you really that dense? Were the Packers a SuberBowl Favorite going into the season they one the Super Bowl? The answer is no, acting like they were is the ignorant statement. How much homerism does a guy have to be filled with to think they were a Super Bowl contender that year? How do you not understand that no one on the planet thought they were going to win the Super Bowl? How hard is it for you to understand that it basically was a miracle, dream season that led to that victory, which by the way, is why they have failed so spectacularly every year since.

As far as the rest of the years, have the Packers had a defense capable of winning the Super Bowl since they last won the Super Bowl? Unless you are truly blind to the this team's faults, the answer is no. And you simply do not win the Super Bowl without a good defense, period.

Do I need to spell it out anymore clearly? Until the Packers fix the sad state of affairs that is their defense, and until they fix their soft mentality, this team will do not thing but win games, make the playoffs, and find even more and improved embarrassing ways to fail in the playoffs. Period.

I respect your view but it seems to me you tend to lean towards unrealistic view of what this team is instead of realistic ones.

For the record, I agree with Carl in the above post, for the first time since we were one and done after a 15 win season, I actually believe the Packers are on the right track.

 

[adambr2]

Are you really that dense? Were the Packers a SuberBowl Favorite going into the season they one the Super Bowl? The answer is no, acting like they were is the ignorant statement. How much homerism does a guy have to be filled with to think they were a Super Bowl contender that year? How do you not understand that no one on the planet thought they were going to win the Super Bowl? How hard is it for you to understand that it basically was a miracle, dream season that led to that victory, which by the way, is why they have failed so spectacularly every year since.

As far as the rest of the years, have the Packers had a defense capable of winning the Super Bowl since they last won the Super Bowl? Unless you are truly blind to the this team's faults, the answer is no. And you simply do not win the Super Bowl without a good defense, period.

Do I need to spell it out anymore clearly? Until the Packers fix the sad state of affairs that is their defense, and until they fix their soft mentality, this team will do not thing but win games, make the playoffs, and find even more and improved embarrassing ways to fail in the playoffs. Period.

I respect your view but it seems to me you tend to lean towards unrealistic view of what this team is instead of realistic ones.

For the record, I agree with Carl in the above post, for the first time since we were one and done after a 15 win season, I actually believe the Packers are on the right track.

I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. Yes, we were Super Bowl contenders going into 2010. We were on the rise, in the second season of the 3-4, with an elite offense and some ascending defensive playmakers with Matthews, Raji, Collins, etc. We were coming off the heels of scoring 45 in a playoff loss, the Vikings had peaked in 2009, and many expected that we were ready to contend.

Things started looking pretty grim as the injuries piled up mid-season, but they got healthier in January, got hot, and won it all because they were really good, not because of some "miracle".

I googled "2010 NFL season predictions" and this was the very first prediction I saw. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/444863-2010-nfl-season-predictions/page/8

I'm puzzled as to what your definition of "contender" is. We have been in the playoffs and set ourselves up for a possible deep run every year. If you adjust the word "contender" every year to fit your definition, I guess it's possible to say we were never a contender.

 

[Ogsponge]

I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. Yes, we were Super Bowl contenders going into 2010. We were on the rise, in the second season of the 3-4, with an elite offense and some ascending defensive playmakers with Matthews, Raji, Collins, etc. We were coming off the heels of scoring 45 in a playoff loss, the Vikings had peaked in 2009, and many expected that we were ready to contend.

Things started looking pretty grim as the injuries piled up mid-season, but they got healthier in January, got hot, and won it all because they were really good, not because of some "miracle".

I googled "2010 NFL season predictions" and this was the very first prediction I saw. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/444863-2010-nfl-season-predictions/page/8

I'm puzzled as to what your definition of "contender" is. We have been in the playoffs and set ourselves up for a possible deep run every year. If you adjust the word "contender" every year to fit your definition, I guess it's possible to say we were never a contender.

Well it looks like I have to eat some crow, I also see a fox article from Adam Schein where he predicted the Packers would win the Super Bowl so there you go. I really don't understand how anyone thought we were a Super Bowl Contender that year. Here is why:

Arizona 51 Green Bay 45. I see after more research everyone thought we were legitimate largely in part because the offense was coming together and put up 45 points in that game. Which is understandable. But what I see is a defensive team that is so god awful that they could not win a game when our offense put up 45 points. How freaking insane is that? You don't win squat with a defense that bad which was proven by the unbeaten Patriots and the 15-1 Packers both of whom had absolutely horrible defenses.

Anyway, my apologies to everyone I was railing against, it seems the continued years of bitter playoff defeat since 2010 has left me be entirely to pessimistic about everything, which I honestly never used to be. It is just really hard for me to be optimistic about this team's playoff chances as the past 5 years have basically taught me that I should not be.

I am always optimistic about making the playoffs, just never about accomplishing anything in the playoffs. However as I have mentioned in this thread a few times, I am once again starting to become optimistic because it seems like they organization (meaning TT and MM) are starting to realize changes need to be made. Which is proven by MM changing his coaching role and TT finally getting rid of the dead weight at ILB.

Anyway my apologies to TJV in particular but stop calling me spoiled, it has nothing to do with it.

 

[adambr2]

The Arizona playoff game was a horrible, horrible defensive debacle, but we were actually a good defensive team in 2009, that game was just an exception. Crazy as it may seem we had the 2nd ranked defense in 2009, 1st against the run and 2nd against the pass.

Granted it doesn't matter what you did during the regular season if you lay that big of an egg in the playoffs, but defensive performances in the playoffs a year ago against San Francisco, and most of the game against Seattle in January, seem to show that we are at least trending in the right direction after bottoming out against the 49ers in 2012-13.

 

[Ogsponge]

The Arizona playoff game was a horrible, horrible defensive debacle, but we were actually a good defensive team in 2009, that game was just an exception. Crazy as it may seem we had the 2nd ranked defense in 2009, 1st against the run and 2nd against the pass.

Granted it doesn't matter what you did during the regular season if you lay that big of an egg in the playoffs, but defensive performances in the playoffs a year ago against San Francisco, and most of the game against Seattle in January, seem to show that we are at least trending in the right direction after bottoming out against the 49ers in 2012-13.

Agreed, it just seem that this team is having an awful lot of debacles come playoff time which is basically the direct cause of my pessimism. I always try to recognize an outlier performance for what it is but it just feels like we are having them year after year.

Anyway, they fixed the safety nightmare, so here is to hoping the ILB is next. I do truly believe if they can get that fixed and move Clay back to the outside where he belongs AND learn to have some fire and killer instinct, another Super Bowl is truly within reach.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You don't win squat with a defense that bad which was proven by the unbeaten Patriots and the 15-1 Packers both of whom had absolutely horrible defenses.

The 2007 Patriots defense ranked 4th in the league in points allowed with an average of 17.1 points per game. The reason they lost the Super Bowl was because their offense was only able to score 14 points and a helmet caught a pass.

There have been three Super Bowl champions within the last ten years to win a Super Bowl with a defense ranked outside the top 20 in points allowed (2011 Giants, 2009 Saints, 2006 Colts).

Actually teams need to show dominance on one side of the ball to be a Super Bowl contender. As long as Rodgers is the Packers QB I expect the offense to be prolific, my claim being supported by the Packers being ranked 3rd in total scoring since 2008.

An average defense is good enough for the Packers to win another Lombardi trophy.

 

[Ogsponge]

The 2007 Patriots defense ranked 4th in the league in points allowed with an average of 17.1 points per game. The reason they lost the Super Bowl was because their offense was only able to score 14 points and a helmet caught a pass.

There have been three Super Bowl champions within the last ten years to win a Super Bowl with a defense ranked outside the top 20 in points allowed (2011 Giants, 2009 Saints, 2006 Colts).

Actually teams need to show dominance on one side of the ball to be a Super Bowl contender. As long as Rodgers is the Packers QB I expect the offense to be prolific, my claim being supported by the Packers being ranked 3rd in total scoring since 2008.

An average defense is good enough for the Packers to win another Lombardi trophy.

I completely debunked this myth you're talking about in a post about a year ago. You simply do not have much of a chance to win Super Bowls with a bad defense and you very rarely win with an average defense. and most teams that do win the Superbowl it's because they were very good on both our offense and defense I don't feel like looking up the post again but saying anything otherwise is just not true. yes they can win with an average defense but chances are much slimmer and they haven't been an average for quite a while and they have been down right pathetic for quite a while. Particularly in gut check time.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I completely debunked this myth you're talking about in a post about a year ago. You simply do not have much of a chance to win Super Bowls with a bad defense and you very rarely win with an average defense. and most teams that do win the Superbowl it's because they were very good on both our offense and defense I don't feel like looking up the post again but saying anything otherwise is just not true. yes they can win with an average defense but chances are much slimmer and they haven't been an average for quite a while and they have been down right pathetic for quite a while. Particularly in gut check time.

That's true for the most part in NFL history but over the last nine seasons five teams have won the Super Bowl with defenses outside of the top 10 in points allowed with three of them ranked 20th or worse.

Since winning the Super Bowl the Packers defense has ranked 19th, 11th, 25th and 14th in points allowed, pretty much what I would call average.

With improvements to NT and ILB this defense should be good enough to win a title.

 

[Sky King]

A trip down memory lane (as one old enough to vividly remember the 70's and 80's) makes me grateful for what we now have. From no chance to having a legitimate chance every year. What's not to like?

 

[Half Empty]

Not cashing in on the legitimate chances? I actually wasn't all that upset with the Gory Years. Didn't expect much and got it. Now, the '60s, where they had a legit chance every year with Vince and completed the journey regularly...

 

[Sky King]

Not cashing in on the legitimate chances? I actually wasn't all that upset with the Gory Years. Didn't expect much and got it. Now, the '60s, where they had a legit chance every year with Vince and completed the journey regularly...

Gory was right. Low, low expectations in those days and they were met completely. Yes, I was as disappointed as could be with the NFCCG pratfalls. But there was a period in time that they would have been eliminated from contention by mid-season. If they learned anything I hope it's to play to the final whistle. I can't afford that much alcohol.