Will the Packers win another Super Bowl with MM and Rodgers?

[red4tribe]

In the midst of the 2010 season, I started a thread in which I asked whether or not anyone thought the Packers would win a Super Bowl under McCarthy and Rodgers. Obviously, we did.

https://www.packerforum.com/threads...under-rodgers-and-mccarthy.24370/#post-323718

Four seasons later, I now ask, do you think we will win another in the Rodgers-MM era? I don't want to overreact to one game, but given the trashing we received at the hands of the Seahawks, combined with our inability to beat the 49ers(Is it four losses in a row? or five?), makes me think it'll be really difficult to even win the NFC. This isn't to say I think it's hopeless, or that it won't happen, it just seems to be an enormous obstacle. The recent great quarterbacks have all gone on to be elite into at least their late 30's(earl 40's in Favre's case), so there is plenty of time with Rodgers still.

What do you think?

 

[MackemPacker]

If you look back over the last 5/6 years, the teams winning the super bowl have always had good defensive performances in the playoffs. Either in terms of yards or turnovers. Since 2010 we've not really had that, and until we do, I don't think it matters how good the offense is (2011 for example).

I fully expect the Packers to go at least 10-6 in the regular season every year with a healthy Rodgers, but I admit, I'm worried that the team isn't built for January.

 

[red4tribe]

If you look back over the last 5/6 years, the teams winning the super bowl have always had good defensive performances in the playoffs. Either in terms of yards or turnovers. Since 2010 we've not really had that, and until we do, I don't think it matters how good the offense is (2011 for example).

I fully expect the Packers to go at least 10-6 in the regular season every year with a healthy Rodgers, but I admit, I'm worried that the team isn't built for January.

I completely agree. As much praise that gets throw onto Rodgers and offense for the 2010 Super Bowl Win(and deservingly so) I will always believe that the defense was the key to winning the Super Bowl that year. We shut out the Jets, held our opponents to 7 or less points six times in the regular season. That's really good. Never let a game get away from us, no matter how many close games we blew. That defense was awesome

Even look at the playoffs. With the exception of the Falcons game, all three other wins were really because of the defense. Picked off Vick at the end of the game against the Eagles when they were going for the game winning drive, picked off Hanie when the Bears were going for the game tying drive, and stopped the Steelers on 4th down to win the Super Bowl. The offense failed to close out the game each of those three times, but the defense picked up the slack. That hasn't happened since.

 

[Raptorman]

A good indicator in the ability of a team to move on and win the Super Bowl is the points difference between points scored and points allowed. Most SB winners have outscored their opponents by at least 7 ppg during the regular season. Now, this is not a hard and fast thing. There have been some exceptions. the 2011 Giants are the only team to ever win the SB with a negative Point differential during the regular season. Of the 48 winners, 35 outscored their regular season opponents by 7ppg or more. Only 5 won by scoring less than 6ppg more, and then you have the Giants with the only negative figure. Like I said, not a hard and fast rule, but if your team is not outscoring their opponents by 7 points or more it does not bode well to win the SB. The average of the SB winners over 48 years is 8.9 ppg better during the regular season. And interestingly the average for he SB losers, is 8.7 ppg during the regular season.

So a great offense is not required as long as you have really good defense.

 

[Carl]

I think they will.

Both the Seahawks and 49ers were two teams that found lots of studs in the draft quickly. That combined with small QB contracts allowed them to bring in other key pieces as free agents.

The 49ers already paid Kaepernick and the Seahawks have to pay Wilson soon. That means they will be losing other pieces. Unless they keep drafting so well, which is unlikely, they'll come back down and we'll compete with them.

We aren't even that far from the Niners based on the playoffs last year.

Also, Rodgers will get them to the playoffs every year. They could get hot at the right time just like 2010. The Giants did it twice. They haven't even been that good expect for those 8 games. Last year's team right before Rodgers went down was a team that looked very good and was a team I think could have beat anyone.

 

[Ogsponge]

So a great offense is not required as long as you have really good defense.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, you could not be more wrong. This is the biggest myth in professional sports which I completely debunked in a previous thread. Nothing could be further from the truth. It takes both a great offense and defense for the most part to get it done. A great defense is no more important to winning a Super Bowl than a great offense is. It does not matter how great a defense is if the offense can't score any points. It does not matter how great an offense is if the defense can't stop anyone (Packers 2011).

Here is some numbers from the other thread. Just for the record when talking about great and bad below. Greats means ranked in the top 10, bad makes ranked 21st or below.

Number of times a bad offense has won the Super bowl - 0/44
Number of times a bad defense has won the Super bowl - 2/4
Number of times a great offense has won the SB - 37/44
Number of times a great defense has won the SB - 37/44
Number of times a great offense AND defense has won the SB - 31/44
Number of times a great offense has won a SB without a great defense 4/44
Number of times a great defense has won a SB without a great offense 6/44
Number of times the number 1 offense and defense has won the SB - only twice, the 96 Packers and 72 Dolphins.
Number of times that a team's offense was better than their defense and won the SB - 21/44
Number of times that team's defense was better than their offense and won the SB - 18/44

Please stop perpetuating this ridiculous and completely wrong myth...

PS. I don't know why I get so irritated by this myth but I do, I guess it is because it is just flat out wrong...

 

[Packerlifer]

Excellent quarterback, good offense, very good defense, difference making special teams. I think those are the basics. It also helps to have favorable competition in the playoffs. You've got to admit that Philly, Atlanta and Da Bears and even Pittsburgh in 2010 were not as strong as the playoff fields the past couple of years or of many before.

 

[wist43]

With a legitimate franchise QB?? Yes, we always have a chance... we have a chance this year, even though there are at least 2 teams that have proven themselves better multiple times in the recent past.

That said, our defense is just woeful. The perpetual youth movement really hurts us, but there can be no excuse for the disaster that is Dom Capers. He should have been fired a couple of years ago, but TT and MM remaining loyal to Capers is going to cost us at least 1 more year, i.e. another year of Rodgers career gone...

You can't win championships with a defense like that. We have another 15 games to try and fix the mess - but the defense is such a big mess, that I doubt there is anything that can be done as long as Dom Capers is our DC.

 

[mradtke66]

They have a chance, but having a good quarterback hurts you. But not in the common way.

It doesn't necessarily kill you in cap cost, but if you have a good quarterback, you're winning games. If you're winning games, it gets harder to get replacement players. You draft later, you're lower in the waver order, and finally, you have less cap space for FAs.

Seattle's reign will be limited not by expensive players, but as those players age, their replacements won't be up to the task.

 

[red4tribe]

Here is an example of how great the 2010 defense was(relatively speaking).

As stated earlier, the 2010 defense held the opposing team to 7 points or less 6 different times. In the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and thus far in 2014 combined, that has happened only 3 times.

The defense in 2010 gave up more than 30 points just one time. The past three defenses have given that much up a grand total of 14 times, which averages out to 4-5 games a year.

 

[Packerlifer]

Here is an example of how great the 2010 defense was(relatively speaking).

As stated earlier, the 2010 defense held the opposing team to 7 points or less 6 different times. In the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and thus far in 2014 combined, that has happened only 3 times.

The defense in 2010 gave up more than 30 points just one time. The past three defenses have given that much up a grand total of 14 times, which averages out to 4-5 games a year.

And it's been pointed out often before that after that Super Bowl the Green Bay defense quickly lost Cullen Jenkins, Desmond Bishop and Nick Collins and saw the aging of Charles Woodson and Ryan Pickett. And just where is the weakest area of the current D? On the line, at inside linebacker and safety and with no proven veteran leader(s) anywhere on the unit. Injuries and time aren't the fault of the GM, HC or DC but obviously they haven't been able to find or figure out the replacements or the way to compensate for such losses.

 

[Raptorman]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, you could not be more wrong. This is the biggest myth in professional sports which I completely debunked in a previous thread. Nothing could be further from the truth. It takes both a great offense and defense for the most part to get it done. A great defense is no more important to winning a Super Bowl than a great offense is. It does not matter how great a defense is if the offense can't score any points. It does not matter how great an offense is if the defense can't stop anyone (Packers 2011).

Here is some numbers from the other thread. Just for the record when talking about great and bad below. Greats means ranked in the top 10, bad makes ranked 21st or below.

Number of times a bad offense has won the Super bowl - 0/44
Number of times a bad defense has won the Super bowl - 2/4
Number of times a great offense has won the SB - 37/44
Number of times a great defense has won the SB - 37/44
Number of times a great offense AND defense has won the SB - 31/44
Number of times a great offense has won a SB without a great defense 4/44
Number of times a great defense has won a SB without a great offense 6/44
Number of times the number 1 offense and defense has won the SB - only twice, the 96 Packers and 72 Dolphins.
Number of times that a team's offense was better than their defense and won the SB - 21/44
Number of times that team's defense was better than their offense and won the SB - 18/44

Please stop perpetuating this ridiculous and completely wrong myth...

PS. I don't know why I get so irritated by this myth but I do, I guess it is because it is just flat out wrong...

I did not say that a great defense would win by itself. Read my post again. I specifically stated that a great offense is not needed if you have a really good defense. And I will stand by that. You do need good offense. So what is a really good defense? A defense that holds teams to under 20 points a game. What's a great defense? One that hold a team to under 15 points per game. What is a great offense? One that scores more than 26 ppgs. Fact of the matter is only six teams that have allowed more than 20 ppg have ever won the Super Bowl. And of those 6 only one had and offense that scored more that 7 ppg more then what the defense allowed..

I assume when you are talking about ranking you are talking about yards, not points. I am talking strictly points. Because yards don't count towards winning games. For example the 2001 Patriots they were not in the top ten in yards, (19th) but they were (6th) in points scored. How do you rank them? Great or not? Now their defense was ranked 6th in points and 24th in yards that year. If your offense is not scoring an average of 8 ppg more than you what you defense is giving up, it is going to be tough to win the Super Bowl. Very few teams have done it. Both sides of the game are important. You do not need a great offense, you need a good enough offense that scores more than 8ppg more then what your defense gives up. It's a balance if you will. If your defense gives up 25 ppg you offense needs to be fantastic, not just great. Unless of course you are the Giants who are the only team to win the Super Bowl with negative point differential during the regular season. Of course there are always exceptions, and it's not guarantee that you will make it to the Super Bowl, I said it was an good indicator. If your team is only winning by 3 ppg during the year, it's not a good sign.

 

[ls1bob]

I think at least one more Super Bowl can be won with that combo,especially if the D gets better which is still a work in progress. Capers is finally changing his philosophy and finding roles on the D that are better suited for the players(new alignments they are using) instead of putting them in unfamiliar positions(square peg round hole). That should make the players better and once they figure out how it all works out and which combo works the best we should be primed for a Super Bowl run and Dom can retire with another ring. Other than ILB(which we haven't seen enough of the young guns) we have some pretty good talent that just need to be put in the right position to succeed

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I for sure hope we´ll win another Super Bowl with Rodgers as I have placed a high stakes bet with a Bears fan about it. And no, I´m not talking about changing my signature again if I lose this one.

 

[JBlood]

Yes, we will win another; maybe more than 1 while Rogers is QB. Good teams score more points, which forms the basis for large point differentials, which has been pointed out to be the primary indicator of winning. Scoring 30 pts/game and giving up 10 obviously leads to a greater point differential than scoring 13/game and giving up 10. The Patriots over the last 15 years are the prime example: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...sion-point-differentials-for-past-decade-plus

 

[Raptorman]

Yes, we will win another; maybe more than 1 while Rogers is QB. Good teams score more points, which forms the basis for large point differentials, which has been pointed out to be the primary indicator of winning. Scoring 30 pts/game and giving up 10 obviously leads to a greater point differential than scoring 13/game and giving up 10. The Patriots over the last 15 years are the prime example: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...sion-point-differentials-for-past-decade-plus

The Pats are great example of having a good offense and good defense. Everyone thinks of them as having just a great offense. But over the past 13 years, as a team, the offense has scored 9 ppg more than the defense has given up. The result is 4 trips to the Super Bowl, and 11 playoff appearances in that time. The only year they did not have double digit wins, the point differential was 2.2 ppg.

On a side note. Everyone thinks of the Pats as this team with a great winning tradition. From 2001-2013 their winning percentage is .760. Prior to 2001(from the merger in 71), their winning percentage is .469. What a difference a coach can make. Belichick was hired in 2000.

 

[red4tribe]

The Pats are great example of having a good offense and good defense. Everyone thinks of them as having just a great offense. But over the past 13 years, as a team, the offense has scored 9 ppg more than the defense has given up. The result is 4 trips to the Super Bowl, and 11 playoff appearances in that time. The only year they did not have double digit wins, the point differential was 2.2 ppg.

On a side note. Everyone thinks of the Pats as this team with a great winning tradition. From 2001-2013 their winning percentage is .760. Prior to 2001(from the merger in 71), their winning percentage is .469. What a difference a coach can make. Belichick was hired in 2000.

I live in New York and all the Jets fans I know here absolutely hate the Patriots. But I really can't help but admire them. They've really had a nearly unprecedented run of success. What other franchise in the free agency era(or any era really) can say they've won their division 10 times in 11 years? Or 11 times in 13 years? I can't think of another franchise being that incredibly dominant in their division for so long. Maybe the 49ers but even then I think they had more years where they missed the playoffs.

 

[Carl]

The Pats are great example of having a good offense and good defense. Everyone thinks of them as having just a great offense. But over the past 13 years, as a team, the offense has scored 9 ppg more than the defense has given up. The result is 4 trips to the Super Bowl, and 11 playoff appearances in that time. The only year they did not have double digit wins, the point differential was 2.2 ppg.

On a side note. Everyone thinks of the Pats as this team with a great winning tradition. From 2001-2013 their winning percentage is .760. Prior to 2001(from the merger in 71), their winning percentage is .469. What a difference a coach can make. Belichick was hired in 2000.

I'd change it to what a difference a coach and a great QB can make.

 

[Raptorman]

I'd change it to what a difference a coach and a great QB can make.

From 1971-1993 Patriots win percentage is .451
From 1994-1999 Patriots win percentage is .563 Kraft bought the team in 1994.
From 2000-2013 Patriots win percentage is .760 Kraft hired Belichick in 2000.

Great QB. Maybe. But even with Cassel filling in, they still had a double digit win season. How many teams can put in their back up QB for the year and do that?

 

[ExpatPacker]

The potential for the Packers to win another SB is there, but it won't come without a better defense, as Raptorman said. The Packer defense has been sub-par for more than 3 years. They've lost Raji and Jolly, gained Peppers and Clinton-Dix. The ILB is a mess, the CB situation is very good. Perry is looking more and more the disappointment. Neal may be a player after all.

I just don't see the Packers as being there yet. They are missing 2 solid starters at ILB at the very least.

 

[Ogsponge]

I did not say that a great defense would win by itself. Read my post again. I specifically stated that a great offense is not needed if you have a really good defense. And I will stand by that. You do need good offense. So what is a really good defense? A defense that holds teams to under 20 points a game. What's a great defense? One that hold a team to under 15 points per game. What is a great offense? One that scores more than 26 ppgs. Fact of the matter is only six teams that have allowed more than 20 ppg have ever won the Super Bowl. And of those 6 only one had and offense that scored more that 7 ppg more then what the defense allowed..

I assume when you are talking about ranking you are talking about yards, not points. I am talking strictly points. Because yards don't count towards winning games. For example the 2001 Patriots they were not in the top ten in yards, (19th) but they were (6th) in points scored. How do you rank them? Great or not? Now their defense was ranked 6th in points and 24th in yards that year. If your offense is not scoring an average of 8 ppg more than you what you defense is giving up, it is going to be tough to win the Super Bowl. Very few teams have done it. Both sides of the game are important. You do not need a great offense, you need a good enough offense that scores more than 8ppg more then what your defense gives up. It's a balance if you will. If your defense gives up 25 ppg you offense needs to be fantastic, not just great. Unless of course you are the Giants who are the only team to win the Super Bowl with negative point differential during the regular season. Of course there are always exceptions, and it's not guarantee that you will make it to the Super Bowl, I said it was an good indicator. If your team is only winning by 3 ppg during the year, it's not a good sign.

Actually my rankings were based strictly on points scored and points allowed and for my test I considered in the top 10 as "great" for that particular year. A bad defense (21 or below) has won the Super Bowl twice while a bad offense has never won the Super Bowl.

So, while agree with you that you need a good defense to win the Super Bowl, having a good offense is equally as important and perhaps more important (albeit very slightly) as referenced by the fact that a bad defense has won the Super Bowl twice yet a bad offense has never won the Super Bowl. You can't have a bad offense and win the Super Bowl, you can certainly have a mediocre one but not a bad one.

Care to take a guess at which two bad defensive teams won the Super Bowl?

 

[red4tribe]

Actually my rankings were based strictly on points scored and points allowed and for my test I considered in the top 10 as "great" for that particular year. A bad defense (21 or below) has won the Super Bowl twice while a bad offense has never won the Super Bowl.

So, while agree with you that you need a good defense to win the Super Bowl, having a good offense is equally as important and perhaps more important (albeit very slightly) as referenced by the fact that a bad defense has won the Super Bowl twice yet a bad offense has never won the Super Bowl. You can't have a bad offense and win the Super Bowl, you can certainly have a mediocre one but not a bad one.

Care to take a guess at which two bad defensive teams won the Super Bowl?

The 2007 and 2011 Giants?

 

[Raptorman]

Actually my rankings were based strictly on points scored and points allowed and for my test I considered in the top 10 as "great" for that particular year. A bad defense (21 or below) has won the Super Bowl twice while a bad offense has never won the Super Bowl.

So, while agree with you that you need a good defense to win the Super Bowl, having a good offense is equally as important and perhaps more important (albeit very slightly) as referenced by the fact that a bad defense has won the Super Bowl twice yet a bad offense has never won the Super Bowl. You can't have a bad offense and win the Super Bowl, you can certainly have a mediocre one but not a bad one.

Care to take a guess at which two bad defensive teams won the Super Bowl?

Well several teams whose defense gave up more that 21 ppg during the season have won the Super Bowl

1983 Raiders gave up 21.1 ppg during the season
2006 Colts. gave up 22.5 ppg during the season
2007 Giants gave up 21.9 ppg during the season
2009 Saints gave up 21.3 ppg during the season
2011 Giants gave up 25 ppg during the season
2012 Ravens gave up 21.5 ppg during the season.

Which two were you talking about?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well several teams whose defense gave up more that 21 ppg during the season have won the Super Bowl

1983 Raiders gave up 21.1 ppg during the season
2006 Colts. gave up 22.5 ppg during the season
2007 Giants gave up 21.9 ppg during the season
2009 Saints gave up 21.3 ppg during the season
2011 Giants gave up 25 ppg during the season
2012 Ravens gave up 21.5 ppg during the season.

Which two were you talking about?

He was talking about defenses being ranked 21st or below in points allowed.

 

[Raptorman]

He was talking about defenses being ranked 21st or below in points allowed.

Ah, my mistake, I thought he was talking about points not ranking of were they were. That's easy. 2006 Colts and 2011 Giants.

My point is, it does not matter were you rank compared to other teams. As long as the point differential is around 8 per game you have a better chance of making it to the Super Bowl. The year the Saints won their defense was ranked 20th in points scored yet their offense was ranked 1. They averaged 10.6 ppg more on offense then what the defense gave up. The Vikings that year scored 9.9 ppg more than the defense gave up. They were ranked 10th compared to the Saints 20. The difference, the Saint D allow 341 points during the season and the Vikings 312 points during the season a difference of 1.8 ppg over the season. That 1.8 separates the D of the two teams by 10 places in the rankings.