Offseason 2021 - Trades, Free Agency, QB Carousel

Oat23 · 30-04-2021 12:53am

Is the bad man about to leave the North for real?

https://twitter.com/ZacStevensDNVR/status/1387914447860101120?s=19

Itssoeasy · 30-04-2021 12:53am

Foxtrol wrote: »

Rodgers to Broncos looking likely apparently.

If true, insanity that the Packers messed things up this bad

The broncos ? Jesus teddy Bridgewater gets no respect.

Foxtrol · 30-04-2021 12:56am

Oat23 wrote: »

Is the bad man about to leave the North for real?

https://twitter.com/ZacStevensDNVR/status/1387914447860101120?s=19

PFF guys are fully bought into it on their stream. Collinsworth has been losing his mind

Xavi6 · 30-04-2021 1:04am

Mahomes and Rodgers in the same division, oof.

Realt Dearg Sec · 30-04-2021 1:05am

Xavi6 wrote: »

TEBOW TIME!!!

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1387839572680265737

I'm pretty sure we saw this episode before.

Realt Dearg Sec · 30-04-2021 1:14am

I love the booing of goodell and then to get them to stop he introduces guys people actually like

MileHighGuy · 30-04-2021 10:01am

This year is the craziest I can remember for the QB carousel, so many have switched teams, or potential new starters that I'd forgotten about a couple, maybe not all will be opening day starters.

AFC East
Patriots: Mac Jones, not sure Patriots would throw Jones in at the deep end, but Newton didn't look like he had it last year.
Jets: Zach Wilson? Don't think there is anyone else on the roster.
Bills: Allen,
Dolphins: Tagovailoa, but he must be on a short leash. Outplayed by the man they sent to the Football Team.

AFC North - No carousel here....move along
Bengals: Burrow
Browns: Mayfield
Steelers: Roethlisberger
Ravens: Jackson

AFC South
Jaguars: Lawrence, from day one I would guess.
Colts: Wentz, I still can't believe Rivers retired after the year he had last year.
Texans: Tyrod Taylor maybe, Will Watson play another down for the team under this ownership? and suspension looking likely
Titans: Tannehill

AFC West
Broncos: Bridgewater, if it is an open competition in training camp, he has shown a lot more than Lock in his career so far.
Chargers: Herbert
Chiefs: Mahommes (probably!)
Raiders: Carr (Gruden not happy about it but.....)

NFC North
Bears: Justin Fields , or Andy Dalton, take your pick
Packers: Rodgers, obviously , but you never know, Love might get a look in.....I don't believe it however.
Vikings: Kirk Cousins
Lions: Jared Goff

NFC East
Cowboys: Prescott
Football Team: Heinike or Fitzpatrick, we all know this will come to pass.
Eagles: Hurts, can i put him in bold?....he feels like a new starter....for the sake of my shaky proclamation I am going to.
Giants: Daniel Jones.

NFC South:
Saints: Winston? ...would be my guess as the starter. Hill didn't look like he had it last year.
Buccs: Brady
Panthers: Darnold
Falcons: Ryan, not even sure who else is on the roster, so it has to be him.

NFC West
49ers: Trey Lance, it wouldn't surprise me if it is a different QB from day 1, but not likely to be Garoppolo.
Rams: Stafford...I really hope Stafford can pull off a Rivers-type end to his career.
Cardinals: Murray
Seahawks: Wilson.

so by my count that would be (maybe) 14 of 32 teams with potentially new starters for the upcoming season....is that a lot? it seems like a high turnover, and we might see a couple more moves before kickoff of course.

hots · 30-04-2021 12:28pm

The Jets have Morgan who was a 4th round pick at clipboard holding (last year he sat on the PS learning his clipboard technique). Wilson starts day one and we'll almost definitely add a vet backup.

Itssoeasy · 30-04-2021 10:30pm

The falcons have signed AJ McCarron to a one year deal to back up Matt Ryan.

Xavi6 · 01-05-2021 3:41am

Chiefs go from McCoy to Bell to…McKinnon

https://twitter.com/chiefs/status/1388240470296432644?s=21

10-05-2021 9:13pm

Why the hell is Tebow such news? Main item on NFL.com (our watered down UK version at least).

10-05-2021 9:14pm

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Why the hell is Tebow such news? Main item on NFL.com (our watered down UK version at least).

One of th great college QBs. Ever that went into media

eagle eye · 10-05-2021 9:41pm

ReginaldSmythV wrote:

Why the hell is Tebow such news? Main item on NFL.com (our watered down UK version at least).

Tebow is an icon in the US. Ffs we even had Tebowing as a thing worldwide.

BonnieSituation · 10-05-2021 9:44pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Tebow is an icon in the US. Ffs we even had Tebowing as a thing worldwide.

It never went away. I crack it out the odd time when I go vuvuzelaing!

Itssoeasy · 12-05-2021 10:41pm

The packers will be signing QB Blake Bortles to one year deal. I don’t think you can read anything into this other than the packers making a similar move to the Texans did.

cosatron · 13-05-2021 5:59am

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The packers will be signing QB Blake Bortles to one year deal. I don’t think you can read anything into this other than the packers making a similar move to the Texans did.

Camp arm. We always have 3 qbs for training camp. Apparently a significant contract offer has being made to Rodgers so fingers crossed.

el Fenomeno · 24-05-2021 5:11pm

I'm not sure Julio knew he was on live television...

Either that, or this was planned by him to force a trade through.

https://twitter.com/MySportsUpdate/status/1396854042882609159?s=19

Itssoeasy · 24-05-2021 5:17pm

Well isn’t the position that the Atlanta falcons don’t want to get rid of Julio Jones, it’s that they have to because they are in cap hell ? Is it that they can’t sign their draft class due to the cap. Interesting that he doesn’t want to go to the cowboys but he was pictured wearing a cowboys jumper, which unless he likes the colour of blue they wear, is a bit strange.

Blut2 · 24-05-2021 5:20pm

Really sleazy of the host to not begin that conversation with "we're live on air by the way Julio and you're on speakerphone".

Interesting news that aside though. Not many teams who'd give him the option of winning will be able to pay him. He might have to choose between money and winning.

Itssoeasy · 24-05-2021 5:23pm

Blut2 wrote: »

Really sleazy of the host to not begin that conversation with "we're live on air by the way Julio and you're on speakerphone".

Interesting news that aside though. Not many teams who'd give him the option of winning will be able to pay him. He might have to choose between money and winning.

Yeah I’d prefer for Shannon sharpe to give him a heads up but I’m sure Julio knows that Shannon sharpe is on air at that time.

24-05-2021 11:28pm

Julio to green bay as part of a bid to keep Rodgers makes to much sense imo

The_Honeybadger · 25-05-2021 12:09am

Ivy Better Rumba wrote: »

Julio to green bay as part of a bid to keep Rodgers makes to much sense imo

I don’t think there is any way they can make the numbers work in Green Bay

Julio saying he wants to win, can’t see any of the contenders trading for that contract at his age. He might find the market for his services rather soft and end up staying where he is. Maybe I’m wrong

Blut2 · 25-05-2021 11:52am

The Packers already have a very workable WR room. If they were able to spend $10mn+ a year on a new contract (they're not), and thats assuming Julio took a massive pay cut to win now, it wouldn't be going on a WR. It'd be going on an ILB and/or D-lineman.

ELM327 · 25-05-2021 12:20pm

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

I don’t think there is any way they can make the numbers work in Green Bay

Julio saying he wants to win, can’t see any of the contenders trading for that contract at his age. He might find the market for his services rather soft and end up staying where he is. Maybe I’m wrong

Patriots?

25-05-2021 1:59pm

Blut2 wrote: »

The Packers already have a very workable WR room. If they were able to spend $10mn+ a year on a new contract (they're not), and thats assuming Julio took a massive pay cut to win now, it wouldn't be going on a WR. It'd be going on an ILB and/or D-lineman.

The counter argument would be if.it doesn't cost to much and keeps Rodgers happy it could make perfect sense.

Foxtrol · 25-05-2021 2:14pm

Ivy Better Rumba wrote: »

The counter argument would be if.it doesn't cost to much and keeps Rodgers happy it could make perfect sense.

This point is key. GB might have a workable WR room with Rodgers but without him the team isn't in the conversation to be a contender and unlikely to even make the play-offs. At this point they are keeping Rodgers or bust this season and if Jones is how they can do it then they should do everything they can to make it happen

Blut2 · 25-05-2021 2:41pm

The reason Rodgers wants to leave isn't his WR room. Its his relationship with Gutekunst.

"If it doesn't cost too much" is also the key issue. Julio's contract is $20mn a year. The Packers currently have $70k of cap space. ie...none.

These are the teams with $10mn+ in cap space. And thats assuming getting him for $10mn ish a year - which will require some contract gymnastics. The Patriots, 49ers, Colts or Browns are far more likely destinations for him than the Packers.

25-05-2021 2:52pm

Rodgers just sounded like a spoilt child from the quotes yesterday.

Foxtrol · 25-05-2021 3:07pm

Blut2 wrote: »

The reason Rodgers wants to leave isn't his WR room. Its his relationship with Gutekunst.

"If it doesn't cost too much" is also the key issue. Julio's contract is $20mn a year. The Packers currently have $70k of cap space. ie...none.

These are the teams with $10mn+ in cap space. And thats assuming getting him for $10mn ish a year - which will require some contract gymnastics. The Patriots, 49ers, Colts or Browns are far more likely destinations for him than the Packers.

Jones' cap hit post trade in 2021 is around $15m and then about $11m the next 2 years - which is a steal.

Packers can free up far more than that through restructuring Rodgers and giving Adams a new deal with a lower cap hit in 2021. That is even before restructuring Jones' contract on trade.

I agree though that other destinations are far more likely, which is more about the GB leadership and approach than what the right move is.

el Fenomeno · 25-05-2021 3:30pm

Jones' cap hit is $15.3m this year, but given its all fully guaranteed, @PatsCap on twitter (who has a fantastic understanding of how the cap works btw) reckons the easiest thing to do is to convert all of it bar the minimum to a signing bonus. His cap hit after that would be just shy of $6m (well, 6.85m technically but you'd be saving the 0.85m from whichever "on the bubble" player you'd be releasing to make room for him).

Plenty of teams can afford him once you take into account a few restructures of their existing players.

Blut2 · 25-05-2021 4:37pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

Jones' cap hit post trade in 2021 is around $15m and then about $11m the next 2 years - which is a steal.

Packers can free up far more than that through restructuring Rodgers and giving Adams a new deal with a lower cap hit in 2021. That is even before restructuring Jones' contract on trade.

I agree though that other destinations are far more likely, which is more about the GB leadership and approach than what the right move is.

The problem with the Packers cap is its not just this year. They're already in cap hell next year as things stand, with about $30mn of cuts to be made. And they need to re-sign Adams and every other WR currently on the team to new, more expensive contracts on top. And half the secondary.

And they've also never been a team to go all-in on "win now" at the cost of future years - as drafting Love or even Rodgers himself showed. So they're just not signing a player with Julio's wage requirements, even if somehow with absolutely massive cap gymnastics they just about squeezed him in this year. Its not just in keeping with the long term planning strategy of the team at all.

The_Honeybadger · 25-05-2021 7:55pm

Blut2 wrote: »

The problem with the Packers cap is its not just this year. They're already in cap hell next year as things stand, with about $30mn of cuts to be made. And they need to re-sign Adams and every other WR currently on the team to new, more expensive contracts on top. And half the secondary.

And they've also never been a team to go all-in on "win now" at the cost of future years - as drafting Love or even Rodgers himself showed. So they're just not signing a player with Julio's wage requirements, even if somehow with absolutely massive cap gymnastics they just about squeezed him in this year. Its not just in keeping with the long term planning strategy of the team at all.

That’s what I meant last night when I said they can’t make the numbers work. They have the biggest cap overshoot going in to 2022 with lots of guys to re-sign, without digging in to the individual contracts I don’t see how you add somebody like Jones to that.

Pats, Chargers, Colts or Browns would be my guess as well but these things often spring a surprise. I honestly don’t think it’ll be an easy trade to make however. Falcons will likely overvalue him and quite honestly I’d be wary of trading for a 32 year old that will probably want a new contract on arrival. As awesome as he is I wouldn’t want my team giving up a bunch of picks for him.

el Fenomeno · 25-05-2021 8:39pm

Id take him for a 2nd round pick.

My only concern is the Falcons know we were happy to give them a second round pick for the reanimated corpse of Mohamed Sanu - so God knows what they'll want from us for Julio.

StringerBell · 25-05-2021 10:24pm

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Rodgers just sounded like a spoilt child from the quotes yesterday.

Didn't see quotes yesterday but I'm been banging that drum a long time at this stage so I'd well believe it.

Foxtrol · 25-05-2021 10:46pm

Blut2 wrote: »

The problem with the Packers cap is its not just this year. They're already in cap hell next year as things stand, with about $30mn of cuts to be made. And they need to re-sign Adams and every other WR currently on the team to new, more expensive contracts on top. And half the secondary.

And they've also never been a team to go all-in on "win now" at the cost of future years - as drafting Love or even Rodgers himself showed. So they're just not signing a player with Julio's wage requirements, even if somehow with absolutely massive cap gymnastics they just about squeezed him in this year. Its not just in keeping with the long term planning strategy of the team at all.

Fair and I agree with a lot of the above.

'We don't do win now' stinks of real arrogance from the front office though, a similar kind to the arrogance that led them to not communicate the potential QB pick last year to their HC and QB.

I don't think it is surprising that a front office that never goes 'all-in' has struggled to even make it to Super Bowls in the last 30 years despite having two QBs in the wider GOAT discussion (not saying either are #1 before anyone drags this off topic, just that they would be on many top 5 or 10 lists). That is a terrible return and should cause a team to reevaluate their approach.

Blut2 · 26-05-2021 10:58am

Foxtrol wrote: »

Fair and I agree with a lot of the above.

'We don't do win now' stinks of real arrogance from the front office though, a similar kind to the arrogance that led them to not communicate the potential QB pick last year to their HC and QB.

I don't think it is surprising that a front office that never goes 'all-in' has struggled to even make it to Super Bowls in the last 30 years despite having two QBs in the wider GOAT discussion (not saying either are #1 before anyone drags this off topic, just that they would be on many top 5 or 10 lists). That is a terrible return and should cause a team to reevaluate their approach.

I'd disagree. Its not arrogance to prioritize long term stability over short term potential (with no guarantee of it actually working) success. Look at how many teams have mortgaged their future for all-in win now seasons, only to get nothing for it and spend years afterwards in the wilderness.

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. They're #5 for number of Superbowl wins. 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.

Christy42 · 26-05-2021 11:14am

Blut2 wrote: »

I'd disagree. Its not arrogance to prioritize long term stability over short term potential (with no guarantee of it actually working) success. Look at how many teams have mortgaged their future for all-in win now seasons, only to get nothing for it and spend years afterwards in the wilderness.

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. They're #5 for number of Superbowl wins. 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.

How many of that front office were there for those Superbowl wins? Or should we say Cam is doing something right since NE is so successful? I am willing to bet there are not too many left from their first superbowl win so not sure why they get the credit for that!

Lots of teams also prioritise long term stability and end up doing nothing for years on end.

Prefab Sprouter · 26-05-2021 11:26am

Christy42 wrote: »

How many of that front office were there for those Superbowl wins? Or should we say Cam is doing something right since NE is so successful? I am willing to bet there are not too many left from their first superbowl win so not sure why they get the credit for that!

Lots of teams also prioritise long term stability and end up doing nothing for years on end.

No other team personifies this strategy more than my team, the Raiders. They gave Gruden a 10 year deal in the hope that giving Gruden time would enable a stable progressive team to be built. Annnnd...........................we're still waiting!!!!

cosatron · 26-05-2021 11:35am

Blut2 wrote: »

I'd disagree. Its not arrogance to prioritize long term stability over short term potential (with no guarantee of it actually working) success. Look at how many teams have mortgaged their future for all-in win now seasons, only to get nothing for it and spend years afterwards in the wilderness.

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. They're #5 for number of Superbowl wins. 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.

i think gutekunst is allot more aggressive than TT and is in win now mode with all the contract restructuring that went on this off season, like in 2022 is going to be hell with the cap considering our top 8 players are something like 160m against the cap with Alexander and Adams free agents. The real kicker about this whole rodgers saga is that i feel we have a better team than last year with Fuchess back and the draft filled allot of needs.

Blut2 · 26-05-2021 12:23pm

Christy42 wrote: »

How many of that front office were there for those Superbowl wins? Or should we say Cam is doing something right since NE is so successful? I am willing to bet there are not too many left from their first superbowl win so not sure why they get the credit for that!

Lots of teams also prioritise long term stability and end up doing nothing for years on end.

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.

ELM327 · 26-05-2021 12:35pm

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 · 26-05-2021 1:05pm

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 · 26-05-2021 1:11pm

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 · 26-05-2021 2:17pm

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 · 26-05-2021 2:38pm

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 · 26-05-2021 3:13pm

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 · 26-05-2021 4:30pm

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 · 26-05-2021 4:51pm

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 · 26-05-2021 5:21pm

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 · 26-05-2021 5:50pm

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?

Offseason 2021 - Trades, Free Agency, QB Carousel

Comments