Yes, but with 1 and 2 record in the playoffs--the one win coming against a Vikings team without a QB. We have a long way to go to be a dominating team, it appears to me. And I'm not blaming Rogers, who I'd take over any other QB in the league.
Is this backed up by evidence or ignorance? I think that most people agree that Philbin was a big part of this team, but he wasn't cast aside by Green Bay and I've never read anything indicating that McCarthy believes that we are better without Philbin. Just as within the organization, the Packers organization encourages coaches and staff to grow and seek better job opportunities. It's happened a lot in the personnel department as has been discussed at length, but coaches leave too when things like head coaching jobs pop up.
The decline, in my opinion, is related to the obvious draft issues over the time frame. Some will say GB drafts lower on the board. Some will claim injuries have been the issue. Some will convey that it takes a few years for rookies to have an impact. I say gutterball to all the excuses.
Many complaining now that the issue is Rodgers which is unfortunate. This team just doesn't have the breadth of talent because the draft has been an issue and we make a limited play in FA with the exception of UFA's.
I stand by my comments. Weakness in the current roster is a function poor drafting and the thinking that draft and develop and UFA's is the foundation of a SB contending team.
What do you think the record would be if Rodgers played all 7 games that he missed? Or better yet, if never got hurt? To me, he is playing differently than pre-injury. Less likely to run and he seems to be just a tad off on his throws. To me, if he didn't get hurt, maybe this team has a 5 game swing and are 26-12-1. Thats a pretty good record in my book. Certainly good enough to be considered elite and a strong SB candidate.
What if Rodgers had not fallen in the draft and he wouldn't be on the GB roster? Really doesn't matter, does it?
Overall talent?
