Super Bowl or Bust?

[oakleaf]

I know, I'm opening up an old argument. Sorry But since not much to talk about this preseason here goes...

Just finished this article: The Aaron Rodgers dynasty: the NFL era that never came to pass

Great quote: "The Broncos proved last year it’s possible to win a Super Bowl without a quarterback. The Packers seem intent on proving you can win one with little else."

Okay, I admit to liking the article because I agree with the reason - a substandard defense and defensive coordinator that cannot seem to come through in critical situations. Which makes me wonder - assuming the offense stays healthy and returns to form and there's no reason not to believe that - have the Packers made enough changes/improvements to the defense to finally hold at those critical game-time situations? You know, like OT's and playoff situations when you need to stand firm to prevent a score or hold a lead...

The only changes are the draft of Clark to replace Raji, and one FA McCray who may be "slightly above average" at best. That means the Packers are counting on defensive experience as the reason of improvement. Hope it's enough because it's sickening watching them fail to hold an offense when the importance is greatest.

 

[GBP4EVER]

I have said for past couple years it's time to get over this consertive BS of being happy to make the playoffs and nothing more. Rodgers only has a few years left in his prime. IMO it's time for TT to get over his stubborn ways of only using the draft which he is only average IMO anyways as the lack of blue chippers from the draft in the last few years. Start using FA take gambles sign guys who might cost you down the line but take the risk of trying to win another 1-2 SB in the next 3-4 years. If then you need to blow up the team and rebuild so be it as many of the key guys on the team now will be at their end or should be looked at to move on from anyways. That's what Ron Wolf admitted to with Favre that he thinks he could have done better by giving him more later on. Right now TT seems the say way a HOF QB in his prime but won't give him the best he can get because he does not believe in FA.

 

[FlaPack]

The problem with free agency in green Bay is not as simple

#1. We have limited cap flexibility. Big money to Rodgers, Shields, Matthews, Nelson and Cobb. Peppers also the past 2 years.

#2. Very few if any impact players hit the open market. And then of the ones who are available you have to consider risk/reward.

#3. It's still Green Bay. Since Wolf/Holmgren it's improved but it still not the destination of choice for many players.

 

[Mark87]

Interesting quote from Andrew Brandt a couple days ago talking about if GB had a owner set up that both MM and TT would have already been fired for not getting another SB. Basically no single owner would put up with close but no cigar this long was his point.

On topic do we have "enough" to get the job done? Impossible to say because injuries and such play in. As of today it's a new season where everyone has a shot. But to win the prize you need luck and to get hot at the right time down the stretch... no real way of predicting that.

 

[oakleaf]

Agreed Packinatl, the problem is not Free Agency, rather our DC, DC. It's been proven more and more, defense wins championships. I'm mostly alone in this opinion, but the Packers need to figure out why there's a trend of not making stops at crucial game time situations. Some blame MM for getting too conservative too early. True, but MM should be able to get conservative at some point. With this D he can only be comfortable with a three score lead in the fourth so can't get conservative until then.

 

[FlaPack]

Agreed Packinatl, the problem is not Free Agency, rather our DC, DC. It's been proven more and more, defense wins championships. I'm mostly alone in this opinion, but the Packers need to figure out why there's a trend of not making stops at crucial game time situations. Some blame MM for getting too conservative too early. True, but MM should be able to get conservative at some point. With this D he can only be comfortable with a three score lead in the fourth so can't get conservative until then.

I get your point but you win with play makers and other than Matthews this defense lacks play makers. Look at the SB team. Woodson, Collins, Matthews, Williams, Raji. Are there scheme issues yes but top to bottom there is a talent void

 

[oakleaf]

Not a big proponent of getting hot. Agree with luck as it relates to injuries. Talent is also important, which the Packers have, mostly. But I believe a good strategy (long term), tactics (coaching, practice, game planning, game management and play-calling), and proper execution is most important. The GM sets the strategy. We know TT's strategy is a competitive team every year through draft and develop. I like that, some don't. I believe the weakness is in game management, specifically late in the game with the play calling. For example: Maybe normally towards the end with a two score lead (the opponent needs two scores to take the lead) it makes sense to go conservative. But you have to look at other factors. Does the defense have the talent? Is the defense fresh? How do they perform in this situation? Can the offense score? Etc. And the DC has to consider the same, e.g., has the prevent D been effective, etc. Game management is the number one issue to address.

 

[GBP4EVER]

Not a big proponent of getting hot. Agree with luck as it relates to injuries. Talent is also important, which the Packers have, mostly. But I believe a good strategy (long term), tactics (coaching, practice, game planning, game management and play-calling), and proper execution is most important. The GM sets the strategy. We know TT's strategy is a competitive team every year through draft and develop. I like that, some don't. I believe the weakness is in game management, specifically late in the game with the play calling. For example: Maybe normally towards the end with a two score lead (the opponent needs two scores to take the lead) it makes sense to go conservative. But you have to look at other factors. Is the Defense fresh? How do they perform in this situation? Can the offense score? Etc. Game management is the number one issue to address.

But look at the quality of players Ted drafts. I think he has got average to above average in the last several drafts. Does not seem to see many blue chippers on this team. You replace Rodgers with a average to above average QB this is a 7-9 to 10-6 team year in and year out.

 

[oakleaf]

But look at the quality of players Ted drafts. I think he has got average to above average in the last several drafts. Does not seem to see many blue chippers on this team. You replace Rodgers with a average to above average QB this is a 7-9 to 10-6 team year in and year out.

I don't buy that argument. You replace most any team's #1 QB and their record takes a hit. Why haven't we developed blue chippers? Because of poor drafts, poor coaching, combination of these two, combination of this and a bunch of other things? I can fault TT's drafting success very little. The performance trend I see that's hard to dispute and argue is clutch defense. It's not been there. Why? Let's address that. The cause seems more game management to me than talent. If it's game management, let's fix it.

 

[FlaPack]

But look at the quality of players Ted drafts. I think he has got average to above average in the last several drafts. Does not seem to see many blue chippers on this team. You replace Rodgers with a average to above average QB this is a 7-9 to 10-6 team year in and year out.

But when you are drafting 20 or below every year you don't get a shot at Blue chip players. I think Thompson has drafted well on offense. Nelson Cobb Lacy but he has really missed on defense for the most part