Offseason 2021 - Trades, Free Agency, QB Carousel

ELM327

Blut2 wrote: »

The question was relating to the Packers long term stability strategic focus. Which has been a front office policy for decades, its not something new brought in in the last year by a fresh hire.

The results of that strategy for the Packers speak for themselves, they clearly haven't "ended up doing nothing for years on end".

But if you want some additional, more current, statistic the Packers are #2 ranked in wins in the last decade. And #2 in playoff appearances. Behind only the slightly unreal Belichick/Brady Patriots.

All that is irrelevent though, they have won only 1 recent SB.
Ask the colts about 14-2 seasons and being one and done in the playoffs under manning, how relevant the winningest records are!

Blut2

ELM327 wrote: »

All that is irrelevent though, they have won only 1 recent SB.
Ask the colts about 14-2 seasons and being one and done in the playoffs under manning, how relevant the winningest records are!

In the last 15 years the Patriots have been the only team to win more than 1 Superbowl. Does that mean every other team in the NFL is a failure? Thats a pretty useless metric.

ELM327

A failure? No.
But I wouldnt be pushing it as a measure of success. Winning one superbowl with AR's entire career, and only one with #4 too, is shocking.

cosatron

ELM327 wrote: »

A failure? No.
But I wouldnt be pushing it as a measure of success. Winning one superbowl with AR's entire career, and only one with #4 too, is shocking.

why is it so shocking, Marino and Jim Kelly never won one. Drew Brees has only won 1, Peyton Manning has only won one with the Colts but when it comes to the packers its a travesty that we only won 2 with AR and Favre under center but in that time we've have being to 9 nfc championships games and in some of those games we had some of the worst luck imaginable and bone headed plays, Favre pick against the giants in OT, Bostic fumble, 2 of the worst defensive performance, i've ever seen against the falcons and 49ers, Kevin king being left one and one with time expired

Christy42

Blut2 wrote: »

In the last 15 years the Patriots have been the only team to win more than 1 Superbowl. Does that mean every other team in the NFL is a failure? Thats a pretty useless metric.

I get the point but 15 years brings in 2 for the Giants as well.

cosatron wrote: »

why is it so shocking, Marino and Jim Kelly never won one. Drew Brees has only won 1, Peyton Manning has only won one with the Colts but when it comes to the packers its a travesty that we only won 2 with AR and Favre under center but in that time we've have being to 9 nfc championships games and in some of those games we had some of the worst luck imaginable and bone headed plays, Favre pick against the giants in OT, Bostic fumble, 2 of the worst defensive performance, i've ever seen against the falcons and 49ers, Kevin king being left one and one with time expired

2 of the worst defensive performances does seem to be a flaw with Green Bay were they don't help their QB talents, that does not help your point. Marino nearly has not winning one as his the first thing anyone thinks about him. Brees was definitely wasted and had their own play off issues.

Peyton over his career made as many Superbowls as Rodgers and Favre combined. If I was an Indy fan I would be wondering how the Broncos did as well with him in such a short space of time as Colts did for most of his career.

cosatron

Christy42 wrote: »

I get the point but 15 years brings in 2 for the Giants as well.



2 of the worst defensive performances does seem to be a flaw with Green Bay were they don't help their QB talents, that does not help your point. Marino nearly has not winning one as his the first thing anyone thinks about him. Brees was definitely wasted and had their own play off issues.

Peyton over his career made as many Superbowls as Rodgers and Favre combined. If I was an Indy fan I would be wondering how the Broncos did as well with him in such a short space of time as Colts did for most of his career.

oh i forgot to mention the John Elway helicopter superbowl was another clusterf**k

Blut2

Christy42 wrote: »

I get the point but 15 years brings in 2 for the Giants as well.

Oops - my bad. But that still doesn't really change my point. If only having won the Superbowl once is the mark of failure then only 2 of 32 NFL teams have done better in the last 15 years. And the 20 teams who've won 0, ie over half the league, have done worse...

To be clear I don't think the Packers have been perfect in recent years, or even that Rodgers only winning 1 Superbowl is good enough. His talents have definitely been wasted somewhat. But they haven't been wasted by the GB management pursuing their decades long long-term team building strategy. Which, statistically overall, has been incredibly successful.

The big problems/wastes in Rodgers career were in late-season playoff games in the mid 2010s. The combination of management team building strategy, Rodgers' talent, and McCarthy's mediocre coaching were good enough to get the team to that point regularly. But once there Mike McCarthy just got completely outcoached all too frequently. If he'd been gone by 2014 Rodgers would probably have another Superbowl or two to his name.

Shedite27

cosatron wrote: »

why is it so shocking, Marino and Jim Kelly never won one. Drew Brees has only won 1, Peyton Manning has only won one with the Colts but when it comes to the packers its a travesty that we only won 2 with AR and Favre under center but in that time we've have being to 9 nfc championships games and in some of those games we had some of the worst luck imaginable and bone headed plays, Favre pick against the giants in OT, Bostic fumble, 2 of the worst defensive performance, i've ever seen against the falcons and 49ers, Kevin king being left one and one with time expired

Think there's a lot of QB's that should have won more. Unlucky to be all in this golden era of QB's and also in the TB12 era. Foles, Flacco and Eli probably the only non-Elite QB's that got over the line. Brees, Rodgers, Peyton, Wilson, Roethlisberger were really up against it to win multiple SB's given what hey were up against.

Foxtrol

Blut2 wrote: »

The Packers have the best win/loss rate of any team in the NFL. They're ranked #1 for amount of playoff game appearances. They're tied #3 for most consecutive years making the playoffs.

All of that is great but they don't give out rings for them.

They're #5 for number of Superbowl wins.

We're talking about modern day here, clinging to two of the wins that were when football was in its infancy in the '60s is a serious stretch.

By any metric they're one of the most consistently successful teams in the NFL. Which means the front office must be doing something right.

Being consistently ok to above average isn't success by my measure.

Blut2 wrote: »

In the last 15 years the Patriots have been the only team to win more than 1 Superbowl. Does that mean every other team in the NFL is a failure? Thats a pretty useless metric.

Why did you pick 15 years? How about picking the last 50 years and how GB have only made 3 Super Bowl appearances in that period?

A fair recent window is looking at them during the Favre and Rodgers eras, when GB had top tier QB play. I always said that Super Bowl wins aren't the be all, due to how difficult they are to win, but when you have those two QBs of that quality back to back you have to at least make it to the Super Bowl more often than they did. With that tier of QB the playoffs are the minimum a team should expect - celebrating that is like celebrating not failing a test even though you barely passed.

Blut2

Foxtrol wrote: »

We're talking about modern day here, clinging to two of the wins that were when football was in its infancy in the '60s is a serious stretch.

Being consistently ok to above average isn't success by my measure.

Why did you pick 15 years? How about picking the last 50 years and how GB have only made 3 Super Bowl appearances in that period?

A fair recent window is looking at them during the Favre and Rodgers eras, when GB had top tier QB play. I always said that Super Bowl wins aren't the be all, due to how difficult they are to win, but when you have those two QBs of that quality back to back you have to at least make it to the Super Bowl more often than they did. With that tier of QB the playoffs are the minimum a team should expect - celebrating that is like celebrating not failing a test even though you barely passed.

I picked 15 years because the post I was replying to said "recently", so I picked roughly a normal QB's career length. You can make that 10 or 20 years and the point stands though. Having the #2 win rate, and #2 most playoff games played, of 32 teams in the last decade is an odd definition of "consistently ok to above average" but ok.

If you think the Green Bay management's current long term strategy is so awful, and you don't want to talk about "when football was in its infancy", can you point to many teams other than the Patriots who've been more consistently successful than the Packers this century? Thats the real question. If the Packers have been "consistently OK to above average" then surely it must be 10-15 teams?

nerd69

How are wind not relevant there is a massive amount of luck involved bin winning a sb wins is a better stat for Showing consistent success

I could be reading it wrong as not fully sure who supports who...but is it mostly Packers fans here saying they're upset by Rodgers behaviour, and mostly non Packers fans insisting Packers fans should be upset by Gutekunst and Murphy?

Foxtrol

nerd69 wrote: »

How are wind not relevant there is a massive amount of luck involved bin winning a sb wins is a better stat for Showing consistent success

Fully accept Super Bowl wins as not being a great measure, I have been pretty consistent about that in the past when it comes to ranking QBs or judging coaches (recent Tomlin discussion). However, I think it raises issues regarding the approach of the front office when you have QBs of the talent of Favre and Rodgers and have minimal even appearances in the Super Bowl.

Realt Dearg Sec

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I could be reading it wrong as not fully sure who supports who...but is it mostly Packers fans here saying they're upset by Rodgers behaviour, and mostly non Packers fans insisting Packers fans should be upset by Gutekunst and Murphy?

Not sure whether the pattern you're discerning holds true, but here's an article from an extremely biased source placing the blame squarely on Rodgers.

Just to note, I'm not taking a stance on the merits of Sunderbruchs argument here, just noting he writes for a website where the first comment on virtually every thread, regardless of the topic, is "f*ck the pack".

https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2021/5/25/22453044/nfl-green-bay-packers-aaron-rodgers-is-not-about-people-ryan-braun-donald-driver-mccarthy-gutekunst

Foxtrol

Blut2 wrote: »

I picked 15 years because the post I was replying to said "recently", so I picked roughly a normal QB's career length.

It wasn't because saying 16 years would mean two teams would have won more than one title and diluted your point?

You can make that 10 or 20 years and the point stands though. Having the #2 win rate, and #2 most playoff games played, of 32 teams in the last decade is an odd definition of "consistently ok to above average" but ok.

But the point is to win Super Bowl's and GB aren't even making the game. It is like fans of a team banging on about how many wins their team has had in the group phase of the Champions League when they only made the final once this century, when many other teams have made it as many or more times.

If you think the Green Bay management's current long term strategy is so awful, and you don't want to talk about "when football was in its infancy", can you point to many teams other than the Patriots who've been more consistently successful than the Packers this century? Thats the real question. If the Packers have been "consistently OK to above average" then surely it must be 10-15 teams?

Can you point me to even a team this century that has had better back to back QBs than the Packers? Having back to back GOAT conversation QBs and winning regular season games or making playoff runs that fail to even make it to Super Bowls isn't success to me. GB have had a competitive advantage over nearly every team they play each season and have little to show for it other than stats.

We're going around in circles on this. I fully understand your perspective of what you deem as consistent success, however for me when they have such an advantage over nearly every other team they face they have only achieved the bare minimum, it is not success. Praising doing the minimum and the team refusing to move off this approach is not wise and lines up to be a disaster if the next QB isn't again in the GOAT conversation. Having a super star QB hides a lot of issues.

Blut2

Right, but again - when you make claims that the Packers results have been merely "consistently ok to above average"...but then don't name a single team as an example thats done better, you can see why thats not a hugely compelling argument? To claim their performance has been around average would suggest 10+ teams in the league having done better. Which... I'm not even sure how you could argue for that, based on any statistic.

Brady, and his recent multiple Superbowl wins, is very much an outlier. Most of the top QBs who've played in the same time window as him haven't been regular Superbowl winners. Drew Brees and Russell Wilson - both QBs at or close to Rodgers or Favre's level - both only have one Superbowl wins for example.

Its easy to say "the Packers management strategy is terrible", but given there don't seem to be any teams doing much better than them that - in games won, playoff appearances, or even your metric of Superbowl wins - it just doesn't seem to be an evidence based claim. With a different head coach Rodgers probably would have gotten 2 more Superbowls in the mid 2010s. Consistently losing those rare, late season, play-off games has statistically been the biggest waste of his career - not the management team refusing to go "win now".

Foxtrol

Blut2 wrote: »

Right, but again - when you make claims that the Packers results have been merely "consistently ok to above average"...but then don't name a single team as an example thats done better, you can see why thats not a hugely compelling argument? To claim their performance has been around average would suggest 10+ teams in the league having done better. Which... I'm not even sure how you could argue for that, based on any statistic.

They have been to 1 Super Bowl this century, there have been about around 20 that have been to as many or more. If 20 teams isn't a compelling argument I don't know what is, especially when few of those teams had the competitive advantage of GOAT conversation QBs like the Packers.

Brady, and his recent multiple Superbowl wins, is very much an outlier. Most of the top QBs who've played in the same time window as him haven't been regular Superbowl winners. Drew Brees and Russell Wilson - both QBs at or close to Rodgers or Favre's level - both only have one Superbowl wins for example.

I fully accept Brady as an outlier, I generally laugh when people compare other players to him.

I'd put Rodgers at least a tier above Brees and Wilson in how I'd rate QBs but would still say both of their teams have also underperformed (despite Wilson having more Super Bowl appearances than the Packers since his debut in 2012 than the Packers have since 2000). Saints have only matched the level of the Packers but at least they can say they tried all they could.

Its easy to say "the Packers management strategy is terrible", but given there don't seem to be any teams doing much better than them that - in games won, playoff appearances, or even your metric of Superbowl wins - it just doesn't seem to be an evidence based claim. With a different head coach Rodgers probably would have gotten 2 more Superbowls in the mid 2010s.

I didn't say what you quoted in bold, I said it is a terrible return to make a single Super Bowl this century when you have 2 GOAT conversation level QBs.

I have repeatedly stated that I am not basing it on Super Bowl wins but calling winning your conference once in your 21 year window is simply not a success to me.

Consistently losing those rare, late season, play-off games has statistically been the biggest waste of his career - not the management team refusing to go "win now".

I do not understand how you cannot see there is a connection between repeated narrow play-off losses and the refusal to put more emphasis on 'winning now' when they have those opportunities.

Due to the way the league is set up teams need to do whatever they can to get an edge and if you're refusing to be aggressive to 'win now' you're tying one hand behind your back when compared to your opposition. It is hard to beat team after team in the playoffs in that situation and to me that it is what has happened with the Packers.

cosatron

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I could be reading it wrong as not fully sure who supports who...but is it mostly Packers fans here saying they're upset by Rodgers behaviour, and mostly non Packers fans insisting Packers fans should be upset by Gutekunst and Murphy?

Foxtrol is particularly upset. Drafting alex smith over Rodgers has left a deep scar

eagle eye

ELM327 wrote:

A failure? No. But I wouldnt be pushing it as a measure of success. Winning one superbowl with AR's entire career, and only one with #4 too, is shocking.

A winning season is a successful one. A good playoff run is a great season.
Winning a Superbowl is an awesome season.

cosatron

eagle eye wrote: »

A winning season is a successful one. A good playoff run is a great season.
Winning a Superbowl is an awesome season.

That's the thing eagle eye. We've had some great seasons with favre and Rodgers and some unbelievable moments.

el Fenomeno

eagle eye wrote: »

A winning season is a successful one. A good playoff run is a great season.
Winning a Superbowl is an awesome season.

It's hardly that simple, and depends fully on the team and expectations.

I don't think Tampa Bay or Kansas City will be considering 9-8 records next season as successful.

Foxtrol

cosatron wrote: »

Foxtrol is particularly upset. Drafting alex smith over Rodgers has left a deep scar

Why would I be upset? My front office hasn't destroyed their relationship with the current league MVP, while last year's 1st round pick that kicked off the issue didn't even suit up during the year.

I was very happy to stop as this discussion as it is clearly going around in circles. Some Packers fans just can't seem to accept that I don't agree that their moral victory stats is 'success' when the stats haven't even translated into conference titles.

On the Smith/Rodgers thing, obviously knowing the player Rodgers has become means the decision was clearly wrong. I am however far from sure Rodgers would have ever have became the player he has if was thrown into that disastrous 49ers situation. Not sure what that has to do with GB or any implied animosity, it wasn't as if they jumped us and picked him.

Foxtrol

el Fenomeno wrote: »

It's hardly that simple, and depends fully on the team and expectations.

I don't think Tampa Bay or Kansas City will be considering 9-8 records next season as successful.

Yeah, I highly doubt that poster would have called 9-7 seasons and missing out on the playoffs during the peak Brady/Bill years as being a 'successful' season.

cosatron

Foxtrol wrote: »

Why would I be upset? My front office hasn't destroyed their relationship with the current league MVP, while last year's 1st round pick that kicked off the issue didn't even suit up during the year.

I was very happy to stop as this discussion as it is clearly going around in circles. Some Packers fans just can't seem to accept that I don't agree that their moral victory stats is 'success' when the stats haven't even translated into conference titles.

On the Smith/Rodgers thing, obviously knowing the player Rodgers has become means the decision was clearly wrong. I am however far from sure Rodgers would have ever have became the player he has if was thrown into that disastrous 49ers situation. Not sure what that has to do with GB or any implied animosity, it wasn't as if they jumped us and picked him.

I was only joking foxtrol. I couldnt give a fiddler about the 49ers

eagle eye

el Fenomeno wrote:

It's hardly that simple, and depends fully on the team and expectations.
I don't think Tampa Bay or Kansas City will be considering 9-8 records next season as successful.

Well I've been a Patriots fan for 37 years and I'd be a little disappointed not to make the playoffs but still satisfied with a winning season.
Now there's many Patriots fans who only started following them since 2001 who wouldn't be happy with that but most of them will probably be gone if we have a second losing season in a row.
I think the real fans appreciate how tough the game is and how good a team has to play just to have a winning season.
Making the playoffs is great because you have hope that you can win it all, it's the cream on top.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

My front office hasn't destroyed their relationship with the current league MVP, while last year's 1st round pick that kicked off the issue didn't even suit up during the year...

I think the only bit I'd agree with there is the "current league mvp"!

One could point out that Rodgers has destroyed a few relationships over the years, family, former WRs, had issues with front office long before Love, mocked McCarthy etc. The first round pick may have been a response to Rodgers and in anticipation of the next bout of petulance, rather than the cause of it. Rodgers himself said it was never about the draft pick.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the only bit I'd agree with there is the "current league mvp"!

One could point out that Rodgers has destroyed a few relationships over the years, family, former WRs, had issues with front office long before Love, mocked McCarthy etc. The first round pick may have been a response to Rodgers and in anticipation of the next bout of petulance, rather than the cause of it. Rodgers himself said it was never about the draft pick.

You do know you're only adding to the reasons why the Packers front office were so stupid/arrogant in the way they treated him - given the fact that they all know his history.

No where has Rodgers said that the issue isn't everything connected to the pick and the lack of respect they showed him there it. I haven't heard one person who isn't out of the stone age of people management say their approach was right, that approach wouldn't even an acceptable approach in most businesses.

Jofspring

Not sure if it was Mark Murphy or Guntekunst but didn't one of them ring Rodgers and tell him to "not to be the problem" when LaFleur got the job. Talk about handling it the worst way possible. There have been a lot of decisions recently by the packers front office that have had a feeling of "we'll show him who's boss". That's fair enough if you want to go down that route but then you can't be surprised when he wants to leave.

Only way to resolve it is to beg and apologise and offer him decent guaranteed contact extension or offer a decent contract and show some intent by bringing in Julio. Can't see the second one happening.

el Fenomeno

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I've been a Patriots fan for 37 years and I'd be a little disappointed not to make the playoffs but still satisfied with a winning season.
Now there's many Patriots fans who only started following them since 2001 who wouldn't be happy with that but most of them will probably be gone if we have a second losing season in a row.
I think the real fans appreciate how tough the game is and how good a team has to play just to have a winning season.
Making the playoffs is great because you have hope that you can win it all, it's the cream on top.

So then, if Tampa Bay finish 9-8 next year and fail to make the playoffs, would you say that's a successful season?

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

No where has Rodgers said that the issue isn't everything connected to the pick and the lack of respect they showed him there it. I haven't heard one person who isn't out of the stone age of people management say their approach was right, that approach wouldn't even an acceptable approach in most businesses.

Isn't that exactly what he said 2 days ago, that it was not about the Love pick, it was about character and culture? Which I thought was fairly insulting, implying he is a better character than others. And that is an age old flaw with him, making it clear he thinks he is not just an excellent quarterback, but a better person than others, always smarter, the eye rolls about McCarthy and the insults like "I desperately want to be coached" etc. Respect may well be an issue, but it's arguable that he's the person who has shown a lack of it, and for a lot longer, than was shown to him. And the aging employee disrespecting the business that pays him a lot of money can't be surprised to find that business lining up his successor.