Yoop wrote: ↑08 Jul 2021 10:50
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑08 Jul 2021 10:31
If Rodgers matters more to winning than every other player on the roster, how have we had Rodgers for 16 years and you blame every other player on the roster for the lack of Super Bowls?
You can't have it both ways. Either Rodgers needs an ideal supporting cast to win, or he is so good that he should win without one.
When it comes down to the cap, we are paying high-value players high-value, fair-market contracts in order to give Rodgers the best chance to win. If the cap forces us to pick between Rodgers and several other high-value contracts, then Rodgers better be able to win with the replacements, also. Since he has not shown the ability to do that, I would imagine we might try sticking with the high-value roster and the cheaper QB.
I didn't say Rodgers can win it all minus a quality supporting cast, whats obvious though is with a decent squad Rodgers gets us farther then any lesser talented QB, this is a very talented team this year, or at least it seems to be, minus Rodgers is it talented enough to win a SB?
I hope I don't have to find out because I think I already know the answer, also what QB's have won it all with a average team?
30 years, 2 HOF QB's, 2 SB trophy's to me that sounds like a lot of management complacency.
My point is that when you blame "management complacency," you are overlooking two things: tradeoffs and luck.
The biggest point I was making is that in the name of "doing everything they can to keep Rodgers," the team could, say, let Tonyan and Adams walk. If that happened, you would complain that management gutted the team around Rodgers and how is he supposed to succeed like that?
But if Rodgers leaves, and the team uses the excess money to extend their core players and maybe even nets a high-quality WR in the trade for Rodgers, the line would be that the team is giving Rodgers' replacement the sort of weapons they've denied Rodgers for years.
It is a tradeoff. In another thread, there is a graph of QB spending and non-QB spending. The Packers are 3rd in QB spending and look to be 8th in non-QB spending. That is unsustainable. Something has to give. In that same chart, the next 5-highest paid QB teams are also paying below-median for non-QBs. The Bucs, fresh off a Super Bowl win, have the HIGHEST non-QB spending in the league on that chart. This is possible because their QB spending is closer to 10th or 11th in the league, rather than top 3, like ours. But it is ALSO unsustainable. They, too, will need tradeoffs.
And that leads us to my next point, which is luck. The Packers are, by and large, doing things right. They have an elite QB, they have spent to ensure that he has a competent defense (we WERE top 10, btw), a very good OLIne, an innovative coach, and a high-functioning offense based on a strong running game, play action, and good WR schemes--not to mention a top 3 WR in the league. In the past, aside from a few down years, they have ALSO done a lot right. Not perfect, but right. The team is successful because we have strong QB play AND a sustained high-quality roster.
But in a 1-and-done system, a lot comes down to luck. The Giants haven't been the NFL's best team in my lifetime, but they've won two Super Bowls. The Patriots were EXTREMELY average the first year they won with Brady, and were again on a couple other occasions. Sometimes the plays come through, and sometimes they don't. Two Super Bowls in 30 years with great QB doesn't mean SOMEONE is to blame. It, in fact, seems perfectly reasonable, considering all the great QBs who have ever played the game that never won more than one ring. I believe only 12 have won more than one, and two of those guys are Eli Manning and Terry Bradshaw, who are on nobody's all-time lists.
Sometimes it's the QB. Sometimes it's the supporting cast. Sometimes it's the coaching. And always it's also luck.
concerning the complacency of about 4 or 5 years ending when Rodgers forced Guty and Murphy to &%$@ can McCarthy, finally, and Murphy sitting on his hands the last few years with Ted, now before you accuse me of being a hater, I think you know I loved both of them when they where in there prime years, Murphy, not so much.