From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
Thats why I am surprised my original comment on the matter was so controversial, I believe without Rodgers, accountability comes a lot quicker for the people responsible for letting the roster deteriorate like it did..Rodgers covered their sins.
It wasn't that controversial. It made perfect sense on its face but then I stopped to think about it, and questioned it.
I DO think that TT and MM stayed around too long. And I DO think that Rodgers carried a weak and declining team in 2016 much further than it otherwise would have gone. I just think that those guys were held accountable not long after that. It's tougher for a GM. We can point to 2015's draft and say "we should have gotten him out before then," but we didn't know how bad 2015's draft was until at least the end of 2016. But I don't think Rodgers helped Capers keep his job--that's MM's weird loyalty.
So yeah, Rodgers bought TT and MM an extra year, maybe, by playing out of his mind on a bad team in 2016--willing it further than we should have gone. But then Rodgers got hurt and played mediocre football in 2017 and played badly in 2018. I think Rodgers' injury in 2017 bought MM another year more than Rodgers' play did.
And I think TT was just given too much deference when it was known within the organization that his cognitive capacity was, indeed, diminishing (this was a constant rumor that I vehemently fought against because it felt like an unfair low blow until I found out from a real live high-quality insider that during the 2017 season scouts limited when and what they told TT because he would forget so much). That, to me, is unacceptable and has nothing to do with Rodgers. TT should have stepped down a year earlier, before the 2017 draft rather than before the 2018 draft. But I'm glad he stuck around to get us Kenny Clark (and even Martinez and Lowry) in 2016
ehhhh in the heat of Arguments I've been pretty tough on Ted, same with Gutknust ( hate his name it's so hard to spell), I've liked most of the decisions both have made though, my angst with Ted is using a 2nd on Adams, then nada for 4 more years, both Nelson and Cobb where in decline so another high pick receiver is what I wanted him to draft, ya got a HOF max that ability with better WR, instead so many picks went to defense, it forced Rodgers to carry the offense beyond his ability to do so against top shelf defenses we faced.
Rodgers back in 017 made media comments that the offense needed change, we needed to run more, and another hinting comment was when he talked about Brady and the schemes NE used, then 018 almost nothing changed, we still kept a poor run balance and iso vert pass routes that every DC in the league new how to defend, and Rodgers ended up blowing a gasket and basically forced the FO to take some action.
I like all these guys Murph, Ted and Mike for the first 10 years, but changes needed to happen well prior to when they diid.
I like all these guys Murph, Ted and Mike for the first 10 years, but changes needed to happen well prior to when they diid.
I agree with this; I think there's widespread agreement on this, also, which gets lost in our entrenched positions.
AT THE TIME, I was not here. It was really really difficult to see, for me, that a coach who brought his team to the NFCCG in 2007, 2010(SB), 2014, and 2016 should get fired after one losing season in which his QB got hurt. AT THE TIME, I thought MM was a wildly underrated head coach who's admittedly questionable gameday management and the benefit of having a HoF QB at the reigns had drowned out what an excellent leader, organizer, and administrator he was.
A lot of people think MM failed because he refused to modernize in a modernizing game. I think he failed because he modernized unsuccessfully. He DID try to change. He DID start looking into what the cutting edge was saying/doing, and he just misinterpreted it all. I started to really question him when he started talking publicly about analytics, not because I'm an anti-analytics guy; but in fact because I'm SO pro analytics that I felt comfortable with the topic enough to realize that everything he was saying about it was... incorrect. He over-did the aversion to the running game. He overdid the emphasis on big plays. It was like a smart offensive mind was suddenly pulling out the "Randy Ratio" and the results were... not good.
It is only in hindsight that I recognize that either I was wrong about MM's underrated sense of offensive football or that he had completely lost his way when presented with new information and worse wide receivers. Probably a mix of both. But while there were people calling for his ouster after 2017, it took me about half or 2/3 of the way through the 2018 season for me to get on board (and when I did get on board, Matt LaFluer was literally the first name I mentioned, so I'm proud of that). So while I think we now all agree that MM stayed on too long, looking at it in the moment, a year removed from his 4th NFCCG, one losing season with the likes of Senaca Wallace at QB half the year seemed forgivable.
I like all these guys Murph, Ted and Mike for the first 10 years, but changes needed to happen well prior to when they diid.
I agree with this; I think there's widespread agreement on this, also, which gets lost in our entrenched positions.
AT THE TIME, I was not here. It was really really difficult to see, for me, that a coach who brought his team to the NFCCG in 2007, 2010(SB), 2014, and 2016 should get fired after one losing season in which his QB got hurt. AT THE TIME, I thought MM was a wildly underrated head coach who's admittedly questionable gameday management and the benefit of having a HoF QB at the reigns had drowned out what an excellent leader, organizer, and administrator he was.
A lot of people think MM failed because he refused to modernize in a modernizing game. I think he failed because he modernized unsuccessfully. He DID try to change. He DID start looking into what the cutting edge was saying/doing, and he just misinterpreted it all. I started to really question him when he started talking publicly about analytics, not because I'm an anti-analytics guy; but in fact because I'm SO pro analytics that I felt comfortable with the topic enough to realize that everything he was saying about it was... incorrect. He over-did the aversion to the running game. He overdid the emphasis on big plays. It was like a smart offensive mind was suddenly pulling out the "Randy Ratio" and the results were... not good.
It is only in hindsight that I recognize that either I was wrong about MM's underrated sense of offensive football or that he had completely lost his way when presented with new information and worse wide receivers. Probably a mix of both. But while there were people calling for his ouster after 2017, it took me about half or 2/3 of the way through the 2018 season for me to get on board (and when I did get on board, Matt LaFluer was literally the first name I mentioned, so I'm proud of that). So while I think we now all agree that MM stayed on too long, looking at it in the moment, a year removed from his 4th NFCCG, one losing season with the likes of Senaca Wallace at QB half the year seemed forgivable.
Great post. I really, really hated what I saw in November 2016. It was a continued pattern of sh*t since the Denver 2015 game. Then the Table Run stretch happened and it gave me renewed hope that MM had it and the team could get re-energized again.
After 2017, I was under the hope that a solid draft class with picking in a good spot would get us that playmaker we needed but after the LA Rams game, I was done. I was at that game and there is absolutely no reason we should have lost that game. The Packers were clearly the better team and yet found so many ways to lose. It was at that moment I started actively rooting against GB. I wanted everything to burn.
I like all these guys Murph, Ted and Mike for the first 10 years, but changes needed to happen well prior to when they diid.
I agree with this; I think there's widespread agreement on this, also, which gets lost in our entrenched positions.
AT THE TIME, I was not here. It was really really difficult to see, for me, that a coach who brought his team to the NFCCG in 2007, 2010(SB), 2014, and 2016 should get fired after one losing season in which his QB got hurt. AT THE TIME, I thought MM was a wildly underrated head coach who's admittedly questionable gameday management and the benefit of having a HoF QB at the reigns had drowned out what an excellent leader, organizer, and administrator he was.
A lot of people think MM failed because he refused to modernize in a modernizing game. I think he failed because he modernized unsuccessfully. He DID try to change. He DID start looking into what the cutting edge was saying/doing, and he just misinterpreted it all. I started to really question him when he started talking publicly about analytics, not because I'm an anti-analytics guy; but in fact because I'm SO pro analytics that I felt comfortable with the topic enough to realize that everything he was saying about it was... incorrect. He over-did the aversion to the running game. He overdid the emphasis on big plays. It was like a smart offensive mind was suddenly pulling out the "Randy Ratio" and the results were... not good.
It is only in hindsight that I recognize that either I was wrong about MM's underrated sense of offensive football or that he had completely lost his way when presented with new information and worse wide receivers. Probably a mix of both. But while there were people calling for his ouster after 2017, it took me about half or 2/3 of the way through the 2018 season for me to get on board (and when I did get on board, Matt LaFluer was literally the first name I mentioned, so I'm proud of that). So while I think we now all agree that MM stayed on too long, looking at it in the moment, a year removed from his 4th NFCCG, one losing season with the likes of Senaca Wallace at QB half the year seemed forgivable.
well I'am not a analytics person per se, I just remember those comments from Rodgers and they corrolated to what I saw during games, McCarthy seemed so polarized on big chunk plays and actually adverse to running the ball, heck the run would be producing and he'd pack it in, people blamed Rodgers, when actually Rodger said we needed to run more.
but as you said Mike had been a great coach, hard to lose any respect for a coach that produced one of the best passing offenses in league history, but like everything is there comes a shelf life, in our case and in my opinion the receivers declined, Nelsons ACL left his second gear speed slower, so it became more difficult for him to be where he use to be on schedule forcing Rodgers to extend plays longer, which resulted in more sacks and his own injury, about the same for Cobb.
I agree I think most of us liked Ted and Mike till almost the end, and we really don't hold any fast grudges, I know I don't, but to often in these conversations we take one side or another, and thats not accurate to how we really feel, I know I'am guilty.
I think it's fitting MM won his Super Bowl right before the new CBA in 2011 that changed so many things. I think the system, itself, starting working against what made MM unique and effective. I think draft and develop was great when you could train those young kids all offseason and push them to get better. Ted and MM were a perfect marriage prior to 2011. I think [mention]YoHoChecko[/mention] is right, MM did try to change. It didn't work out well. Not only that, but I do think Ted refused to evolve... or just didn't know how to and underestimated how the changes impacted young players. No wonder those two were reportedly not on the same page towards the end. Looking back through a wider lens, it really is quite impressive we kept winning and winning through those years.
I think it's fitting MM won his Super Bowl right before the new CBA in 2011 that changed so many things. I think the system, itself, starting working against what made MM unique and effective. I think draft and develop was great when you could train those young kids all offseason and push them to get better. Ted and MM were a perfect marriage prior to 2011. I think @YoHoChecko is right, MM did try to change. It didn't work out well. Not only that, but I do think Ted refused to evolve... or just didn't know how to and underestimated how the changes impacted young players. No wonder those two were reportedly not on the same page towards the end. Looking back through a wider lens, it really is quite impressive we kept winning and winning through those years.
This is such a good point that I felt really strongly about at the time and had since forgotten about. Draft and Develop really benefitted from the heavy offseason and especially the QB school stuff MM did. I wonder if the bigger PS and roster call ups will help offset some of those negative changes. I do think next time around, they need to have some sort of alternative offseason programs for players in, say, their first three years, where more can be required of those players during their exclusive rights period, while veterans get more time to rest and recover.
So does anybody think 12 shows up on Tuesday? I vote no, but that doesnt mean something won’t change before late July training camp.
I have thought a lot about reasons for yes and reasons for no. I think tomorrow is the best chance we have of seeing him for a very long time. If he shows up tomorrow is able to kind of rub the whole thing off as overblown, acknowledge disagreements, but save face with the fans, media, etc. If he doesn't show up tomorrow, to me, it lends a lot more credence to the "dug in" comments and then I kind of think it's pretty even odds he shows up for the start of training camp, shows up for Week 1, or we never see him again.
So does anybody think 12 shows up on Tuesday? I vote no, but that doesnt mean something won’t change before late July training camp.
I have thought a lot about reasons for yes and reasons for no. I think tomorrow is the best chance we have of seeing him for a very long time. If he shows up tomorrow is able to kind of rub the whole thing off as overblown, acknowledge disagreements, but save face with the fans, media, etc. If he doesn't show up tomorrow, to me, it lends a lot more credence to the "dug in" comments and then I kind of think it's pretty even odds he shows up for the start of training camp, shows up for Week 1, or we never see him again.
Yep. Tomorrow is a very significant day. Doesn't mean that things still can't be worked out, but it will be an indication of how great or &%$@ things are about to get.
If Rodgers was smart and still had a beef, he would show up and not practice. It would be the best of both worlds for him.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
Essentially the idea is to do a gentlemen's agreement: Rodgers would agree to play for GB 2021, and after the season he'd get to provide a list of 4 (AFC) teams and GB would promise to trade him to one of them after the season.
The main problem with this proposal is the injury risk AR would have to accept. If he were to blow out his knee late in the season, preferably after securing a GB SB win, that deal would become impossible. Secondly, there's no guarantee there are 4 teams AR may wanna go to. For GB to get max value in a trade, there has to be a bidding war. Third, people could view this as the Packers getting what they wanted (regardless of whether true or not), since they could get good value for trading AR and Love would have sat the appropriate amount of time.
Essentially the idea is to do a gentlemen's agreement: Rodgers would agree to play for GB 2021, and after the season he'd get to provide a list of 4 (AFC) teams and GB would promise to trade him to one of them after the season.
The main problem with this proposal is the injury risk AR would have to accept. If he were to blow out his knee late in the season, preferably after securing a GB SB win, that deal would become impossible. Secondly, there's no guarantee there are 4 teams AR may wanna go to. Third, people could view this as the Packers getting what they wanted (regardless of whether true or not), since they could get good value for trading AR and Love would have sat the appropriate amount of time.
Haha, right. I'm not really sure that's a compromise. That's the actual plan Rodgers was trying to prevent, right? haha
since Rodgers seems convinced that if he did come back it would only be for this season and we'll trade him then he'd be smart to sit the season out, protect himself, keep a high profile of showing he's working out, staying in shape and wait for us to trade him next off season, sure he'll lose 40 mil. but he'll get that back and more with his new team, if he comes back, gets hurt, or even worse a career ender, then he gets zipe.
if he comes back, gets hurt, or even worse a career ender, then he gets zipe.
1.) There is always a risk of injury with every player
2.) If he wanted more protection from said risk, he should have not signed his extension in 2018
I do think you might be right, though. Losing $40M this year, he might make that back pretty easily on a brand new contract from a new team.
if he comes back, gets hurt, or even worse a career ender, then he gets zipe.
1.) There is always a risk of injury with every player
2.) If he wanted more protection from said risk, he should have not signed his extension in 2018
I do think you might be right, though. Losing $40M this year, he might make that back pretty easily on a brand new contract from a new team.
Agreed. I've always thought sitting out or retiring was a possibility here. It hurts him now, but he can get that back. It DOES take a year of his football life away--maybe the year off extends his useful football age a little, but probably not enough to fully make up for missing out on a year of football. But financially, he could take short-term pain for long-term gain.
It just still makes more sense for the Packers to hold him this offseason because if he sits out or retires, the team gets massive financial/cap benefits, and still can trade his rights next year when he reinstates.
The only outcome in which the Packers lose out on fair compensation for Rodgers is if he genuinely never plays football again, which feels decidedly not on the table. I suppose a late-season injury would diminish the returns, but that's a two-way risk, not a one-way risk.
