Current vs Future - Does MM & TT have the right idea?

[Half Empty]

If we're going to generate a poll, I understood XPack the first time.

 

[sschind]

blind support? I dont see that. But the negative posters level of anaysis needs to be a little deeper than, "Did we win the Superbowl? No?, Then TT is doing it wrong."



Besides, I am pretty sure TT didnt do this. This feels more like an Elliott Wolf move.

Careful with that Elliot Wolf talk there Amish. You're dissin' the Golden Child now.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While at times I buy into the notion that "a team with 2 HOF QB's "should" be winning more Super Bowls", I would rather replace the word "should" with the words "have a good opportunity to". A QB is 1 of 22 starters and 1 of 53 players on a team. Then you toss in coaches, GM's and the rest of the support staff. So as much as I or anyone might want to say that TT, MM and the Packers should be winning more SB's while they have a HOF QB playing, it is over simplifying what it takes to actually win a Super Bowl. It takes a team, a few breaks and more then just one player. There is also the notion that a team and coaches can make a player even better. I think we saw what AR was reduced to at times last year, when the players around him weren't playing so well. Would AR have been a FHOF QB had he ended up in Cleveland? Finally, I can't remember the last time starting the season that the Packers weren't favored to win their division as well as in the conversation of competing for the SB, how many other NFL teams have that going for them? So no matter how many times I might question MM or TT for something they did or didn't do, I am still pretty damned pleased with what I have seen the Packer organization do for quite some time.

 

[PikeBadger]

Another thing to consider is, there is no shortage of QB's in the NFL HoF. There are probably 5-6 playing right now that will also be going in one day.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Another thing to consider is, there is no shortage of QB's in the NFL HoF. There are probably 5-6 playing right now that will also be going in one day.

and many have and will go in without a ring (Marino, Kelly, Moon, Tarkenton, Tittle, Fouts, Jurgensen....)

 

[XPack]

and many have and will go in without a ring (Marino, Kelly, Moon, Tarkenton, Tittle, Fouts, Jurgensen....)

Favre is a all time Top 15 QB and so is Rodgers. He'd rank a bit higher than Brady if only he's won more. Passer rating, completion, interception, fumbles.... Rodgers ranks higher in all key stats. I'd hesitate to lump him even with others in exalted HoF class.

 

[XPack]

Oh jeez, I'm drunk!

 

[PikeBadger]

Favre is a all time Top 15 QB and so is Rodgers. He'd rank a bit higher than Brady if only he's won more. Passer rating, completion, interception, fumbles.... Rodgers ranks higher in all key stats. I'd hesitate to lump him even with others in exalted HoF class.

Brady's numbers and rings are plenty enough to be considered as a top 3 all-time QB, imo.

 

[XPack]

Brady's numbers and rings are plenty enough to be considered as a top 3 all-time QB, imo.

Agree with that!

 

[RRyder]

Favre is a all time Top 15 QB and so is Rodgers. He'd rank a bit higher than Brady if only he's won more. Passer rating, completion, interception, fumbles.... Rodgers ranks higher in all key stats. I'd hesitate to lump him even with others in exalted HoF class.

I don't know. Marino was pretty freaking good

 

[Croak]

I don't know. Marino was pretty freaking good

Marino was awesome. He just got stuck with teams that couldn't quite get it all done.

 

[XPack]

I don't know. Marino was pretty freaking good

He is awesome. I think AR is in the same class of QBs.

 

[Packer Brother]

Pending the Packers don't see a SB appearance at the minimum, l wonder about MM's future. On one hand, it would be six straight seasons with no SB appearance. On the other, who is better and could elevate this team? Possibly Marty Schottenheimer, Lovie Smith, maybe Josh McDaniels? Not sure what they'd do.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

While at times I buy into the notion that "a team with 2 HOF QB's "should" be winning more Super Bowls", I would rather replace the word "should" with the words "have a good opportunity to". A QB is 1 of 22 starters and 1 of 53 players on a team. Then you toss in coaches, GM's and the rest of the support staff. So as much as I or anyone might want to say that TT, MM and the Packers should be winning more SB's while they have a HOF QB playing, it is over simplifying what it takes to actually win a Super Bowl. It takes a team, a few breaks and more then just one player. There is also the notion that a team and coaches can make a player even better. I think we saw what AR was reduced to at times last year, when the players around him weren't playing so well. Would AR have been a FHOF QB had he ended up in Cleveland? Finally, I can't remember the last time starting the season that the Packers weren't favored to win their division as well as in the conversation of competing for the SB, how many other NFL teams have that going for them? So no matter how many times I might question MM or TT for something they did or didn't do, I am still pretty damned pleased with what I have seen the Packer organization do for quite some time.

You're right. People giving Brady or any other QB 100% credit for SB wins need to get real. 21 other starters, not including special teams, which can make a huge impact. And the coaches are arguably more influential than any other sport.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While at times I buy into the notion that "a team with 2 HOF QB's "should" be winning more Super Bowls", I would rather replace the word "should" with the words "have a good opportunity to". A QB is 1 of 22 starters and 1 of 53 players on a team. Then you toss in coaches, GM's and the rest of the support staff. So as much as I or anyone might want to say that TT, MM and the Packers should be winning more SB's while they have a HOF QB playing, it is over simplifying what it takes to actually win a Super Bowl. It takes a team, a few breaks and more then just one player. There is also the notion that a team and coaches can make a player even better. I think we saw what AR was reduced to at times last year, when the players around him weren't playing so well. Would AR have been a FHOF QB had he ended up in Cleveland? Finally, I can't remember the last time starting the season that the Packers weren't favored to win their division as well as in the conversation of competing for the SB, how many other NFL teams have that going for them? So no matter how many times I might question MM or TT for something they did or didn't do, I am still pretty damned pleased with what I have seen the Packer organization do for quite some time.

There's absolutely no doubt that the quarterback is the most important player in the game of football though. While a team needs a lot of talent at other positions to win the Super Bowl it's fair to be a little disappointed about having won "only" two Super Bowls in 24 years while starting two Hall of Fame QBs.

Another thing to consider is, there is no shortage of QB's in the NFL HoF. There are probably 5-6 playing right now that will also be going in one day.

Currently there are only two quarterbacks playing in the league guaranteed to make it to Canton in Brady and Rodgers. One of them has won four Super Bowls and lost another two on freak plays.

Pending the Packers don't see a SB appearance at the minimum, l wonder about MM's future. On one hand, it would be six straight seasons with no SB appearance. On the other, who is better and could elevate this team? Possibly Marty Schottenheimer, Lovie Smith, maybe Josh McDaniels? Not sure what they'd do.

None of the coaches you mentioned are even close to being an upgrade over McCarthy.

 

[Mondio]

I'm disappointed in only 2 as well, but it's not as if we didn't have our chances. Holmgren should have won another one, but the defense couldn't stop Davis. It can be argued that Sherman should have won one, but then Favre got careless with the ball, even though we had an almost 2000 yard RB that year. We had a great team with Favre and MM again, but again, it ended giving the ball back to the Giants. We won 1, we went 15-1 and got bumped early. We didn't have a complete team and the breaks worked against us. 2 years ago, we were in a position again, and they choked. I feel as good going into this year as ever, but as always, we'll see what happens. 2 wins is disappointing, but we had at least 3-4 other legitimate chances to win 1.

 

[Half Empty]

I'm disappointed in only 2 as well, but it's not as if we didn't have our chances. Holmgren should have won another one, but the defense couldn't stop Davis. It can be argued that Sherman should have won one, but then Favre got careless with the ball, even though we had an almost 2000 yard RB that year. We had a great team with Favre and MM again, but again, it ended giving the ball back to the Giants. We won 1, we went 15-1 and got bumped early. We didn't have a complete team and the breaks worked against us. 2 years ago, we were in a position again, and they choked. I feel as good going into this year as ever, but as always, we'll see what happens. 2 wins is disappointing, but we had at least 3-4 other legitimate chances to win 1.

That's what many of us hang our hats on. Don't remember all the teams Marino played on, but I wonder how many of those non-SB years were a real disappointment. The only thing I'd change with the last part of the post is to increase the number of legit chances blown.

 

[sschind]

That's what many of us hang our hats on. Don't remember all the teams Marino played on, but I wonder how many of those non-SB years were a real disappointment. The only thing I'd change with the last part of the post is to increase the number of legit chances blown.

According to many fans any year that is a non SB year is a real disappointment. That's their prerogative but I'm just glad I can get some satisfaction and enjoyment out of a season even when we don't win it all. Otherwise I probably wouldn't bother watching. The problem is that some fans equate being happy with a very good season despite not winning it all as being satisfied and its not the same thing. You can be disappointed your team didn't win it all and still be happy with the performance along the way. The two are not mutually exclusive.


If winning it all is the only thing that matters you might as well just be a fan of the US men's Olympic basketball team.

 

[PikeBadger]

There's absolutely no doubt that the quarterback is the most important player in the game of football though. While a team needs a lot of talent at other positions to win the Super Bowl it's fair to be a little disappointed about having won "only" two Super Bowls in 24 years while starting two Hall of Fame QBs.



Currently there are only two quarterbacks playing in the league guaranteed to make it to Canton in Brady and Rodgers. One of them has won four Super Bowls and lost another two on freak plays.



None of the coaches you mentioned are even close to being an upgrade over McCarthy.

Guaranteed right now yes. But you know as well as I do that Wilson, Luck, Rothlisberger, Rivers, E. Manning and possibly others could enter HoF one day.

 

[Half Empty]

Understand what you say and wish I could feel that way. During the Gory years between Starr and Favre, I did. There was no real expectation of a championship going in, so what could be enjoyed was virtually any victory, with special relish for those where we could hurt another team's playoff chances. Now, and for quite a while, each year begins with a reasonable expectation of the brass ring, so it is a definite disappointment not to get there - particularly when it's oh-so-close so many times.

According to many fans any year that is a non SB year is a real disappointment. That's their prerogative but I'm just glad I can get some satisfaction and enjoyment out of a season even when we don't win it all. Otherwise I probably wouldn't bother watching. The problem is that some fans equate being happy with a very good season despite not winning it all as being satisfied and its not the same thing. You can be disappointed your team didn't win it all and still be happy with the performance along the way. The two are not mutually exclusive.


If winning it all is the only thing that matters you might as well just be a fan of the US men's Olympic basketball team.

Understand what you say and wish I could feel that way. During the Gory years between Starr and Favre, I did. There was no real expectation of a championship going in, so what could be enjoyed was virtually any victory, with special relish for those where we could hurt another team's playoff chances. Now, and for quite a while, each year begins with a reasonable expectation of the brass ring, so it is a definite disappointment not to get there - particularly when it's oh-so-close so many times.

Actually, the Olympic team might be a really good example. The only emotion they provide is a sigh of relief at the end when they accomplish what they're supposed to. Anything less is unacceptable.

 

[PikeBadger]

According to many fans any year that is a non SB year is a real disappointment. That's their prerogative but I'm just glad I can get some satisfaction and enjoyment out of a season even when we don't win it all. Otherwise I probably wouldn't bother watching. The problem is that some fans equate being happy with a very good season despite not winning it all as being satisfied and its not the same thing. You can be disappointed your team didn't win it all and still be happy with the performance along the way. The two are not mutually exclusive.


If winning it all is the only thing that matters you might as well just be a fan of the US men's Olympic basketball team.

Very well stated. Some of us old timers remember those long streaks of seasons where we fluctuated between 5-11 and 9-7 type years. This 25 year run we are currently on has been an awful lot of fun for me.

 

[Half Empty]

According to many fans any year that is a non SB year is a real disappointment. That's their prerogative but I'm just glad I can get some satisfaction and enjoyment out of a season even when we don't win it all. Otherwise I probably wouldn't bother watching. The problem is that some fans equate being happy with a very good season despite not winning it all as being satisfied and its not the same thing. You can be disappointed your team didn't win it all and still be happy with the performance along the way. The two are not mutually exclusive.


If winning it all is the only thing that matters you might as well just be a fan of the US men's Olympic basketball team.

Read this a couple of times, and maybe our disconnect is more timing than semantics. My knee-jerk reaction was "of course they're mutually exclusive". Then I re-read it, and I with you on the 'happy along the way'. However, those incremental periods disappear for me when they get eliminated, and the disappointment that they didn't win it all lingers on. Again, wish I could look back at the '97 season and be happy they went to the SB, not just disappointed that they lost to an underdog. It'd be great to think back to '02 and revel in being division champs and having HFA, not remembering that it was the first time the Pack lost a home playoff game. Shouldn't be a need to recap, but '07, '09, and '11-'15 I remember the lingering disappointment much more than the happiness of getting there. More power to you.

 

[JBlood]

2 wins is disappointing, but we had at least 3-4 other legitimate chances to win 1.

Wins which, of course, would describe great teams instead of what we are since the 60s. Good is forgettable compared to great. We're supposed to be Titletown.

 

[sschind]

Read this a couple of times, and maybe our disconnect is more timing than semantics. My knee-jerk reaction was "of course they're mutually exclusive". Then I re-read it, and I with you on the 'happy along the way'. However, those incremental periods disappear for me when they get eliminated, and the disappointment that they didn't win it all lingers on. Again, wish I could look back at the '97 season and be happy they went to the SB, not just disappointed that they lost to an underdog. It'd be great to think back to '02 and revel in being division champs and having HFA, not remembering that it was the first time the Pack lost a home playoff game. Shouldn't be a need to recap, but '07, '09, and '11-'15 I remember the lingering disappointment much more than the happiness of getting there. More power to you.

No worries. It took me a while to write that because I wanted to try to make it as clear as I could but I'm still not sure I did. Some of the terminology is so similar (Satisfied, happy, enjoyment, even disappointed if you look at the opposite) that was worried I might contradict myself. I don't think I did but I can't be sure how others will interpret it.

I agree with you that the last loss is typically the biggest (especially since its been in the playoffs) and therefore the most memorable so it is understandable that those losses might overshadow the rest of an otherwise good season. I wasn't always like this. It used to bother me a whole lot more when they lost but things in my personal life changed and I realized what was really more important to me. All I can say is I am enjoying Packer football a whole lot more than I used to (not back to when we never won but even going back 10 years or so) I still enjoy the hell out of the wins but the losses don't bother me as much and that brings my overall enjoyment level up. I understand completely what you feel when they lose. Its a huge let down and it is not easy to get over.

I'm sure I don't follow the team with the passion that many of you here have. I figure Barfan must be independently wealthy or has a job that allows him A LOT of time to look at individual game film and to break down plays to the second as he does. Wimm must have have access to more Stat and information sites than anyone I know because we can always count on him to give us the facts (even though he does confuse them with opinions on occasion but hey, we all do that ) Others like you (HalfEmpty) Poker, Mondio, Poppa, longtime, Ryder, just to name a few that pop into my head could probably talk circles around me when it comes to the Packers and I'm fine with that. I saw maybe 5 plays in the preseason. Beside Sitton and Barrington and maybe 3 or 4 others I really had no idea who any of those players who got cut were. (I've never even seen a picture of Geronimo Allison much less seen him in any sort of action) I'll probably miss the first half of tomorrows game (my nephew plays at 10:30 and its an away game so we have to travel about an hour) I won't be able to listen to it on the radio because I'll be travelling with Bears fans so I know which station the radio will be set at. I could have never done this 10 years ago but I am much happier now. I don't want to sound like I have had huge breakthrough and everyone should strive to see things the way I see them. Its not for everyone and its not the "right" way, its just my way. I do understand your way though.

One thing I do know for certain though is that we are all Packer fans here (well except for Raptor but I figure he hangs around so much that he just might be a fan but for some reason he doesn't want his wife to know) and we all want one thing. We all want the Packers to win. We don't all agree on how to best accomplish this but it is the underlying basis of all of our posts and that is the most important thing to remember when we read someones post that we just don't agree with. Its not that they don't get it, its just that they don't see it that way. I'll end now and if anyone is still with me GO PACKERS.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm disappointed in only 2 as well, but it's not as if we didn't have our chances. Holmgren should have won another one, but the defense couldn't stop Davis. It can be argued that Sherman should have won one, but then Favre got careless with the ball, even though we had an almost 2000 yard RB that year. We had a great team with Favre and MM again, but again, it ended giving the ball back to the Giants. We won 1, we went 15-1 and got bumped early. We didn't have a complete team and the breaks worked against us. 2 years ago, we were in a position again, and they choked. I feel as good going into this year as ever, but as always, we'll see what happens. 2 wins is disappointing, but we had at least 3-4 other legitimate chances to win 1.

Absolutely true that the Packers have had several teams good enough to win another Lombardi Trophy but for various reasons didn't accomplish the uktimate goal.

Guaranteed right now yes. But you know as well as I do that Wilson, Luck, Rothlisberger, Rivers, E. Manning and possibly others could enter HoF one day.

Out of the veterans you mentioned Roethlisberger is the only one I consider having a chance to make it to Canton.