The Greatness of McCarthy and Rodgers

Budman

Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
Messages
1,431
Likes
356
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?
 
Last edited:

rpiotr01

Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
Messages
1,598
Likes
783
Is it really necessary to have 'great' players, according to the writer's definition, in order to win Super Bowls or be highly successful?
Well, correlation is not causation, but there is certainly correlation. Even in GB's last SB win, we had two DPOY candidates in Woodson and Clay and a multi-time all-pro S in Nick Collins.
 

Budman

Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
Messages
1,431
Likes
356
Well, correlation is not causation, but there is certainly correlation. Even in GB's last SB win, we had two DPOY candidates in Woodson and Clay and a multi-time all-pro S in Nick Collins.
So then the writer of the article basically take a a crap on his own premise that AR and MM have been able to do it without elite players.
 

rpiotr01

Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
Messages
1,598
Likes
783
So then the writer of the article basically take a a crap on his own premise that AR and MM have been able to do it without elite players.
No not necessarily. They've been a winning team since the last SB win, so that part of what the author is saying is true.

It's just that come playoff time you run into other teams that have blue chip players on the roster, and if you don't have your own blue chippers to defend against them or otherwise make plays on their own, you can't run that gauntlet no matter how out of his mind AR plays (and AR hasn't always played out of his mind in the playoffs, or even played well, which is a dirty little unspeakable secret on its own).
 

Budman

Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
Messages
1,431
Likes
356
No not necessarily. They've been a winning team since the last SB win, so that part of what the author is saying is true.

It's just that come playoff time you run into other teams that have blue chip players on the roster, and if you don't have your own blue chippers to defend against them or otherwise make plays on their own, you can't run that gauntlet no matter how out of his mind AR plays (and AR hasn't always played out of his mind in the playoffs, or even played well, which is a dirty little unspeakable secret on its own).
Good points. I just think it's hard to accumulate elite players across the board. You have to have talent, no doubt but having a bunch of elite players, imo, is asking a lot. Especially when they throw around the likes of a Reggie White.
 
Last edited:

rpiotr01

Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
Messages
1,598
Likes
783
Yeah, I mean Reggie is a generational player so he's not a good comparison in that way, but having more than one elite player IS a necessity for winning it all. It's asking a lot but that's the job of a GM and coach. By hook or by crook you have to find those guys and keep them around, or you're out the door.
 

Cheesedog

Moderator
Moderator
Messages
2,480
Likes
454
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?
The modern NFL is not about having a team of "great" players anymore. It's about having a team in which everyone knows their role and plays it well. And having a coach who can find those players he needs to create that team as a cohesive unit who plays better than the sum of its parts, and can scheme for them successfully.


The biggest issue with GB is that the DL and OL are still vitally important to the success of the team. And GB has been lacking in both for awhile. Sure they find guys good enough to get by. But that's different than finding DL/OL that set the stage for serious SB contention.

The other problem with "great" is that it's all subjective. Packers dominated an otherwise weak division for a long time. So the record gets inflated.
 

57packer

Draft Guru
2018 Draft Guru
Messages
1,387
Likes
538
Agree with CD above. Yes, you need a few playmakers but you don't necessarily need "great" players. Look at Philly and New England last year. Brady is "great" but NE didn't really have that many "great" players beyond that. Same with Philly. You need a QB who can drive the ball down field and a competent or better defense. Sound schemes on both sides of the ball and solid play in the trenches. Hopefully AR stays healthy for a few years, Pettine's scheme proves more solid, they get some better CB play, they get some pass rush and the OL holds up. Too many questions to probably make that run this year, but with one more good draft and a couple of solid FA's they can be in the hunt in 2019-20.
 
Top