. I'd say we are arguing some pretty weak points. My original argument is simple Ted is not a bad GM. Is he the best ever ? No. Are the Packers talentless beyond Rodgers... No. Does the Packers 18 game record with a bunch of scrub backup QB s prove anything? .. no.
Eliot Wolf name mentioned to Browns
- Thread starter XPack
- Start date
- Status
PackAttack12
R-E-L-A-X
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2016
- Messages
- 6,500
- Reaction score
- 2,157
Who's responsible for the incompetence of our backup QBs??? How are they getting roster spots???
In the 6 games you're alluding to, the defense still gave up an average of over 34 points per game. Where was the defense? The ultra talented defense of the Green Bay Packers?
But you still failed to mention two other games that Matt Flynn played in for most of the game when the starter got hurt and lost. But I'm sure that doesn't fit into your agenda.
My whole premise has been it's either coaching or talent, but that TT plays a role in it. That's all I'm really trying to get at. So if you're saying TT is partially to blame for that, why is it out of bounds for me to claim that the talent on this team could/should be better? Especially when other teams have shown that it is doable even with a high dollar QB.
The Green Bay Packers are clearly the only team in NFL history that's had to deal with injuries.
Take that year out of the equation then. Is it ignorant to suggest that we have a talent deficiency on this current team when in one game this season without Rodgers we failed to force a single punt, and in another game failed to score a single point? We're talking about both sides of the ball, here.
I'm so sick of hearing about injuries as an excuse. Like every other team in the NFL doesn't deal with injuries.
PackAttack12
R-E-L-A-X
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2016
- Messages
- 6,500
- Reaction score
- 2,157
So after I refute every point you make, you claim we're arguing weak points and side step it. I don't think Ted is a bad GM. However I do think that we have a lot of holes and weaknesses on this team that he's neglected to take care of. The Packers aren't totally talentless, but they shouldn't go from perennial super bowl contenders to bottom dwellers by losing one player (as evidenced by what other teams are able to do without their HOF QB), and yes, the Packers record without Rodgers absolutely means something, whether it's due to the overall talent on the team, or whether its simply bad QB play.
Who's the common denominator with all of the "bad QB play"? Who's acquired these players? And is it totally out of bounds to look to the other side of the ball and mention that the defense has been bad as well while Rodgers has been out during his career? Is that due to bad quarterback play as well?
My last statement made my position clear... no need to say anything else... If you think this is debate class whatever... I'm not going to dissect every argument that was made when all of my points have been summed up in the post above. Frankly it doesn't appear that we disagree greatly anyway but you want to continue to argue. I have already stated that Thompson is not perfect and that it may actually be time for him to retire... I probably could say more .. but frankly have become fatigued with this whole thread lol.
gbgary
Cheesehead
lol. it's not the drafting so much as not being proactive in free agency. for him it seems it's not about the best team possible as much as it is the cheapest team possible.retire? He just drafted King, Jones, Martinez and Clark. He's just getting the hang of this defensive draft thingwhy have him retire now LOL
Carl 2
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2017
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 33
What in the world does Bill Belichick's record prior to joining the Patriots have to do with our conversation? You just threw that in there, for what reason I'm not sure. But the thing that I do know for sure is that you didn't address a single one of my points in this post.
I brought up what two teams were able to do in place of their hall of fame quarterback while they were out for injury, and you bring me Bill Belichick's record as a head coach 20+ years ago.
But hey. Since you couldn't address/refute the point I was making, I'll play along and switch the conversation around. You want to tell me the last time the Cleveland Browns won 11 or more games? Also, would you like to tell me the last time that the Cleveland Browns won a playoff game? That would happen to be when Bill Belichick was their head coach twenty three years ago. How often in the history of the Cleveland Browns have they been relevant? They are the most poorly run NFL franchise now and historically that I can think of.
But you want to try to diminish his coaching ability. The man has won at the highest level as a head coach AND a coordinator. Got the sorry Browns to the playoffs and actually WON a playoff game. And he's 14-6 without Tom Brady since he's been the head coach of the New England Patriots. Give me a break.
What about the Steelers? Are we just going to dismiss what they have been able to do without Big Ben?
Sorry. Figured you were bringing up BB without Brady, not just the Patriots.
BB isnt 14-6 without Brady in NE. He was 6-10 his first year there and then 0-2 before Brady replaced Bledsoe.
PackAttack12
R-E-L-A-X
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2016
- Messages
- 6,500
- Reaction score
- 2,157
Again, and my apologies if I didn't make myself clear. I'm referring specifically to when the quarterback goes down sometime during the season. The popular opinion for many on this forum is that when the quarterback goes down and they are elite, any team would fall off the rails. I referred to two specific examples of teams that have been successful with a backup in place of their hall of fame quarterback, citing winning records in both scenarios. 9-6 without Big Ben, 14-6 without Brady since he became a starting QB.
Why is it so out of the realm of possibility to expect the Packers to be even halfway decent without Rodgers???
It's not out of the realm of possibility.... and that's why I have conceded that Thompson does have some responsibility insofar as the fact that he has not had any decent backup QBs on the roster. However I would say the sample size is pretty small here in order to draw such grand conclusions.... You have provided a couple of examples namely the Patriots and the Steelers that support your point. Perhaps it is my responsibility to come up with a bunch of examples that refute it...but frankly I'm too lazy to do it right now.
PackAttack12
R-E-L-A-X
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2016
- Messages
- 6,500
- Reaction score
- 2,157
The premise I'm being fed is that when a hall of fame quarterback goes down, teams fall off the rails. There are only how many hall of fame quarterbacks in the NFL the past several seasons? Difficult to come up with a whole bunch of examples.
I'm saying why can't we be more like the Patriots and Steelers. Those teams are much more equip to deal with an injury to their quarterback because of all the complimentary talent up and down the roster that the Packers don't have.
No need for the QB to be a future HOF... the real point is that any team that relies on its offense more heavily than its defense will need an adequate backup QB . the Packers have not had one.. the Pats have. The better the starter is... the more drastic the drop in performance is likely to be. I will say that it is interesting that the Pats seem to keep having pretty well prepared backups on their roster... I don't know if they do more to develop them... or perhaps more importance is placed on the position on draft day... but I will agree that the Packers need to put more of an effort in in that area. I still do not believe that the Packers overall roster is terrible.. or that Thompson is a bad GM, but would like to see more emphasis placed on the backup QB position.
Browns have a GM and it ain't Wolf. Time to close this hijack.
- Status
Similar threads
