Perspective, Concerns, our Line, & Choking

[RRyder]

Please show me proof of another team that dominates the entire NFC Championship game but gives up 20 points in the final 5 minutes of the game, including a 2 play 60+ yard drive to end overtime.

Please show me proof of another team, that COMBINED with the above, that loses a playoff game by giving up a 75 yard, horrible tackling play on the first play of overtime.

Please show me proof of another team, that COMBINED with the above, that loses, you know what? Nevermind. It is all rhetorical because you can't. Look, I love the Packers, I love the fact that they are always in the playoffs. But denying the fact that this team fails in utterly ridiculous fashion in the playoffs is simply living in denial.

It is not that the Packers lose in the playoffs, it is the fashion in which they do. The find ways to lose these games in a fashion that has never happened before or at the very least happens in the frequency in which the Chicago Cubs win the World Series.

They have not been prepared to play a full football game through to the end in the Playoffs in quite some time, and the results show.

Well right off the top of my head the Bengals come to mind. The Patriots have lost two SBs down the stretch, in spectacular fashion, in games they should've easily won. The Seahawks lost a SB in spectacular fashion. Minnesota lost on a chip shot FG against Seattle last year also.

Would you like more? I can look more in depth and this was like 3 seconds worth of thought. In any case pointing to two examples as proof of your point isn't exactly iron clad evidence that the Packers are king of the choke artists in the playoffs more than most other teams.

As much as you'd like it the Packers don't own a monopoly on losing in spectacular fashion in the POs.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You described the exact naivety about most fans that drives me insane....they have no appreciation for just how tough and difficult it is to accomplish the ultimate trophy in ANY of the major sports.

There´s no denying that it´s extremely tough to win the Super Bowl. That doesn´t change the fact that it would be disappointed if the Packers don´t win another Super Bowl while having Rodgers as the team´s quarterback

I absolutely love that we are in contention every year, but that is only going to last for so long. I don't expect Rodgers to play as long as Peyton or Brady. He has a bright potential future outside of playing QB, he wants to get into producing movies, and who knows what else. He won't push it, like Favre did, and I expect him to leave the game well before his skills diminish. So, the clock is ticking.

Rodgers has repeatedly mentioned that he wants to play another six to eight years.

 

[El Guapo]

...and let's not forget, who is to say that we won't find a fourth HOF quarterback to lead this team for the next 15 years? I'm not in favor of guaranteeing that we'll be bad because we adopt a "checkers or the wreckers" approach just because we think there is a QB deadline approaching. Rodgers could suffer a Theisman injury this year or play until he's 42. As a GM, you put your team in position to contend each season (which in my mind means the playoffs) and let the coaching staff work their magic from there while keeping the long view in perspective.

 

[tynimiller]

...and let's not forget, who is to say that we won't find a fourth HOF quarterback to lead this team for the next 15 years? I'm not in favor of guaranteeing that we'll be bad because we adopt a "checkers or the wreckers" approach just because we think there is a QB deadline approaching. Rodgers could suffer a Theisman injury this year or play until he's 42. As a GM, you put your team in position to contend each season (which in my mind means the playoffs) and let the coaching staff work their magic from there while keeping the long view in perspective.

Which is why I place more blame on players and coaches for us not having another SB in AR era than TT.

 

[El Guapo]

Agreed. I might get ticky tacky and cringe at the word "blame" but yes, there is equal responsibility in each organization to win it all. The GM must assemble a good enough roster, the coach needs to get more out of that roster than seems possible at the onset, and the players need to play their best. It's hard to win when all three of those don't converge in the same year. It's also why only one team wins it all. The rest are just that close but some element isn't as good as the SB champs. Nothing to be ashamed about, it's the beauty of sports.

 

[Half Empty]

Well right off the top of my head the Bengals come to mind. The Patriots have lost two SBs down the stretch, in spectacular fashion, in games they should've easily won. The Seahawks lost a SB in spectacular fashion. Minnesota lost on a chip shot FG against Seattle last year also.

Would you like more? I can look more in depth and this was like 3 seconds worth of thought. In any case pointing to two examples as proof of your point isn't exactly iron clad evidence that the Packers are king of the choke artists in the playoffs more than most other teams.

As much as you'd like it the Packers don't own a monopoly on losing in spectacular fashion in the POs.

OK, it's slow, so might as well keep this going. Don't pay attention to the Bengals, and I don't remember them being favorites often enough to choke, but if you get a chance, please elaborate. The Pats two losses are those I refer to when citing how great a team they've been - my description is losing on two once-in-a-lifetime catches that nobody could have prevented, not choking. That Seahawks INT at the goal-line certainly qualifies, but that's one. Didn't remember the Vikings repeating the FG debacle, but I've already mentioned them as possible contenders.

Didn't get a chance to post this, and now that I'm back, I think the point (my point) has little to do with the apples-and-oranges comparisons. It's more simply a matter of the Packers being my team, wanting them to win, especially when they're expected to, and being highly disappointed when they don't. Their one SB loss continues to hurt as much as the two post-Lombardi wins help - losing while a big favorite, and particularly what that loss did to the overall SB total win and percentage win rankings. The Lambeau Mystique was a real thing, and now getting home field advantage is as effective as a coin flip. I just really don't like losing when the opportunity is there, no matter that it's hard - there will be plenty of time later when even the opportunity is gone, and I want something to remember with pleasure.

 

[RRyder]

OK, it's slow, so might as well keep this going. Don't pay attention to the Bengals, and I don't remember them being favorites often enough to choke, but if you get a chance, please elaborate. The Pats two losses are those I refer to when citing how great a team they've been - my description is losing on two once-in-a-lifetime catches that nobody could have prevented, not choking. That Seahawks INT at the goal-line certainly qualifies, but that's one. Didn't remember the Vikings repeating the FG debacle, but I've already mentioned them as possible contenders.

Didn't get a chance to post this, and now that I'm back, I think the point (my point) has little to do with the apples-and-oranges comparisons. It's more simply a matter of the Packers being my team, wanting them to win, especially when they're expected to, and being highly disappointed when they don't. Their one SB loss continues to hurt as much as the two post-Lombardi wins help - losing while a big favorite, and particularly what that loss did to the overall SB total win and percentage win rankings. The Lambeau Mystique was a real thing, and now getting home field advantage is as effective as a coin flip. I just really don't like losing when the opportunity is there, no matter that it's hard - there will be plenty of time later when even the opportunity is gone, and I want something to remember with pleasure.

My post wasn't directed at you and simply a response to the belief the Packers choke more than any other team.

As a side note the "favorite going in" shouldn't matter when it comes to my points as otherwise the Seahawks game shouldn't be cited. Hense why I reference the Bengals. Also I could make the case that it's hard to call the Arizona a choke job when 20 seconds before the last play it was a choke job for the Cardinals and as such should be chalked up to them simply making one more play.

Still my point remains that it's not like the Packers own a monopoly on losing in the playoffs in spectacular fashion as others would have you believe

Edit: Lee Evans dropping an easy TD followed by a missed short FG for Baltimore against NE just popped in my head as another example and they even let another game go against NE in the playoffs two years later. They did have a SB in between but simply citing examples

 

[Deleted member 6794]

...and let's not forget, who is to say that we won't find a fourth HOF quarterback to lead this team for the next 15 years?

While it´s possible the Packers end up drafting another future Hall of Fame quarterback to replace Rodgers it´s highly unlikely. Especially with the team mostly selecting at the end of the first round.

 

[PikeBadger]

While it´s possible the Packers end up drafting another future Hall of Fame quarterback to replace Rodgers it´s highly unlikely. Especially with the team mostly selecting at the end of the first round.

I tend to agree with your post Capt but I don't think it's necessarily correct to assume that either Favre or Rodgers were automatic HOF quarterbacks playing in any NFL city. A good part of their success was due to coaching and the entire architecture of the organization imo. They both could have had average careers under different circumstances.

 

[Mondio]

Without some great coaching Favre could have been benched for Mark Brunell. It came close to happening the way it was.

 

[Half Empty]

Don't think we have Favre's coaches around any more.

 

[OldSchool101]

We were exploited at OT last year after an injury or two. I think the draft this year showed some prioritizing the O line and I think we will see a continuation of that theme next year through the draft

 

[armand34]

We were exploited at OT last year after an injury or two. I think the draft this year showed some prioritizing the O line and I think we will see a continuation of that theme next year through the draft

speaking of the Draft, this past Draft appears to be very exciting. If we actually hit on 4 of these picks, that's kind of amazing. Everyone seems to be very high on the our first 4 picks plus the speedster. If that works out as pundits are describing, this could be TT's best draft (as a whole) in his career. Time will tell.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We were exploited at OT last year after an injury or two. I think the draft this year showed some prioritizing the O line and I think we will see a continuation of that theme next year through the draft

True, especially with four offensive linemen set to become free agents after next season.

speaking of the Draft, this past Draft appears to be very exciting. If we actually hit on 4 of these picks, that's kind of amazing. Everyone seems to be very high on the our first 4 picks plus the speedster. If that works out as pundits are describing, this could be TT's best draft (as a whole) in his career. Time will tell.

It's way too early to even think about the 2016 draft class being Thompson's best one ever. None of the draftees has even played a single down yet.

 

[armand34]

True, especially with four offensive linemen set to become free agents after next season.



It's way too early to even think about the 2016 draft class being Thompson's best one ever. None of the draftees has even played a single down yet.

speaking of the Draft, this past Draft appears to be very exciting. If we actually hit on 4 of these picks, that's kind of amazing. Everyone seems to be very high on the our first 4 picks plus the speedster. If that works out as pundits are describing, this could be TT's best draft (as a whole) in his career. Time will tell.

I did say Time will tell

 

[PikeBadger]

Don't think we have Favre's coaches around any more.

Thank you for confirming my point about organizational architecture.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I did say Time will tell

Well, that's true for every draft class though.

 

[PikeBadger]

There´s no denying that it´s extremely tough to win the Super Bowl. That doesn´t change the fact that it would be disappointed if the Packers don´t win another Super Bowl while having Rodgers as the team´s quarterback



Rodgers has repeatedly mentioned that he wants to play another six to eight years.

I understand this sentiment but if we win it this year and Rodgers plays another 6 years, there would still be several here moaning in 2019 and 2020 that we only won 2 super bowls. Especially if we are still in the playoffs every year which is of course, our birthright.

 

[Half Empty]

Thank you for confirming my point about organizational architecture.

Don't recall exactly what it was, but I really don't think most folks would argue with the concept that, at certain times, there are certain coaches who can bring out the best in certain players.

 

[PikeBadger]

Don't recall exactly what it was, but I really don't think most folks would argue with the concept that, at certain times, there are certain coaches who can bring out the best in certain players.

I agree. We had Holmgren to work with Favre and McCarthy to mentor Rodgers. I do not think the end results would have been the same had Rhodes or Sherman been their coach at that critical juncture in their career. We've been very fortunate to have had very good management at the top.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I understand this sentiment but if we win it this year and Rodgers plays another 6 years, there would still be several here moaning in 2019 and 2020 that we only won 2 super bowls. Especially if we are still in the playoffs every year which is of course, our birthright.

I understand Packers fans being disappointed with the team winning "only" two Super Bowls since 1996. Green Bay is the only team that has had two Hall of Fame quarterbacks starting over the last 25 years yet there are three franchises having won more Lombardi Trophies as well as another three that have the same amount of titles.

I agree that it's tough to win a Super Bowl but the Packers have had the most important piece in place for 25 years running yet only two titles to show for.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Born May 31, 1985

...in Manhattan, Kansas.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Well right off the top of my head the Bengals come to mind. The Patriots have lost two SBs down the stretch, in spectacular fashion, in games they should've easily won. The Seahawks lost a SB in spectacular fashion. Minnesota lost on a chip shot FG against Seattle last year also.

Would you like more? I can look more in depth and this was like 3 seconds worth of thought. In any case pointing to two examples as proof of your point isn't exactly iron clad evidence that the Packers are king of the choke artists in the playoffs more than most other teams.

As much as you'd like it the Packers don't own a monopoly on losing in spectacular fashion in the POs.

How about just getting to the Super Bowl?

 

[HardRightEdge]

While it´s possible the Packers end up drafting another future Hall of Fame quarterback to replace Rodgers it´s highly unlikely. Especially with the team mostly selecting at the end of the first round.

When Rodgers hits the end of road some 7 or 8 years down the line (that's his projection from the Hawk podcast), the best bet would be to crash and burn in a year where there's a top drawer QB prospect (which don't come along every year). Wentz, for example, struggles to throw a tight spiral for gosh sakes. Then wait and see.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

When Rodgers hits the end of road some 7 or 8 years down the line (that's his projection from the Hawk podcast), the best bet would be to crash and burn in a year where there's a top drawer QB prospect (which don't come along every year). Wentz, for example, struggles to throw a tight spiral for gosh sakes. Then wait and see.

Maybe it's a better option to use a first round draft pick in four or five years on Rodgers successor and let him develop on the bench for several years.