http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2...mccarthy-era-despite-lack-of-blue-chip-talent I thought this was an interesting read and would spark some conversation. I'm not sure I agree with the premise of the article. On one hand, the writer states the opinion that the McCarthy and Rodgers led Packers have not had another great player to complement Rodgers, but despite this, they have been one of the most successful teams. The writer is defining 'great' as being the best at their position and uses Favre as having Reggie as an example. He then, however, goes on to list players that have been pro bowlers or very good which the AR led Packers have had several. I'm not disputing the success the Packers have had with MM or Rodgers. What has me thinking is the need for 'great' players. Is it really necessary to have 'great' players, according to the writer's definition, in order to win Super Bowls or be highly successful?