Successful Season

[YoHoChecko]

Since I don't expect much of a season, I feel like things are going to roll downhill much worse than Baseball (those guys stand way apart out on the field...)

Just beat the Bears. Beat the crap out of them.

That is all. Successful season.

I sort of feel this way about the Vikings. I'm sick of hearing about what a great offseason they had because of their 12-pick draft in a year where rookies are going to have serious challenges.

I'm STOKED about going 1-0, and if after that, part of the season gets canceled, we at least get to claim the top spot in our division for another year :D

[Yoop]

Since I don't expect much of a season, I feel like things are going to roll downhill much worse than Baseball (those guys stand way apart out on the field...)

Just beat the Bears. Beat the crap out of them.

That is all. Successful season.

I sort of feel this way about the Vikings. I'm sick of hearing about what a great offseason they had because of their 12-pick draft in a year where rookies are going to have serious challenges.

I'm STOKED about going 1-0, and if after that, part of the season gets canceled, we at least get to claim the top spot in our division for another year :D

neither of you picked up on my plug of Ford versus Ferrari with my analogy using race care and driver comparison to QB as it relates to team.

If you live the American dream of we are the best, then you owe it to yourself to watch the movie, Shelby and Mills are my hero's

[go pak go]

Since I don't expect much of a season, I feel like things are going to roll downhill much worse than Baseball (those guys stand way apart out on the field...)

Just beat the Bears. Beat the crap out of them.

That is all. Successful season.

I sort of feel this way about the Vikings. I'm sick of hearing about what a great offseason they had because of their 12-pick draft in a year where rookies are going to have serious challenges.

I'm STOKED about going 1-0, and if after that, part of the season gets canceled, we at least get to claim the top spot in our division for another year :D

neither of you picked up on my plug of Ford versus Ferrari with my analogy using race care and driver comparison to QB as it relates to team.

If you live the American dream of we are the best, then you owe it to yourself to watch the movie, Shelby and Mills are my hero's

I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't state whether that quote came from that movie or not.

But in racing circles I have been around the last 20 years the saying is there...it's just it's the complete opposite. The saying is,

A good car can get you into contention, but it's the driver's skill and talent that will put you over the top

Which completely makes sense because a good driver can't put bad equipment in the top ten. But there are usually 5 cars or so a year who have the ability to win. It is then the driver and crew chief's role to make the adjustments and drive the car to victory lane.

How I would correlate that to football is you could make the argument that in years where the Packers were maybe a middling .500 team, #4/#12 got them to the show anyways. (you really only need to win 1 to 2 more games or so to go from average team to playoff team). You used to hear announcers say "Brett Favre is worth 10 wins." This would be like a driver taking a 20th car and putting in the top 10.

But don't make any mistake. The Packers have had years where the team was there. 1997, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014 were all years the team was there. Just for various reasons...they didn't happen. Fault can be blamed on many factors and many people in all of those years.

And Yoho, I enjoyed those years. I enjoyed them immensely at the time. But it doesn't also mean I have a bit of a "gosh darnett" when I think about those years too because of how they really should be remembered.

[YoHoChecko]

And Yoho, I enjoyed those years. I enjoyed them immensely at the time. But it doesn't also mean I have a bit of a "gosh darnett" when I think about those years too because of how they really should be remembered.

Looking back and thinking "gosh, I really feel like we could have won more in those windows and I wish we had" is fine. I feel that way, too. I still can't get over losing the 97 Super Bowl to the Elway Broncos when we had the best team in the league that year. I get it.

I'm talking about the people who enter every season thinking Super Bowl is the only way to judge success. And the people who CAN'T enjoy a season, even when things are going well, because they want it to be going better, or perfectly, even. When a 15-1 season or a 13-3 season isn't enjoyed, it's the fan's problem, not the team's. Last year I found myself enjoying the team MORE when I stayed away from this board--that I would feel good about a win and then see people ragging on how it wasn't a good enough win or the team we beat isn't impressive to beat.

Too much talk about how we're not good enough. It's true! We weren't good enough. We were a team VASTLY over-achieving in our first year with a new HC. THAT'S EXCITING. That's a cinderella story! That's being ahead of schedule. We went from a 6-win team to a 13-win team in one year and people were MAD that we didn't go from a 6-win team to a Super Bowl team in one year.

It's a crappy way to be a fan; it's a crappy way to view life, in general. People, generally, need to enjoy the fun stories and the fun experiences and the unexpected wild rides more, and complain about the lack of perfection less. If you go through life with a "if you're not first, you're last" outlook, you're going to spend most of your life in last.

[Yoop]

I sort of feel this way about the Vikings. I'm sick of hearing about what a great offseason they had because of their 12-pick draft in a year where rookies are going to have serious challenges.

I'm STOKED about going 1-0, and if after that, part of the season gets canceled, we at least get to claim the top spot in our division for another year :D

neither of you picked up on my plug of Ford versus Ferrari with my analogy using race care and driver comparison to QB as it relates to team.

If you live the American dream of we are the best, then you owe it to yourself to watch the movie, Shelby and Mills are my hero's

I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't state whether that quote came from that movie or not.

But in racing circles I have been around the last 20 years the saying is there...it's just it's the complete opposite. The saying is,

A good car can get you into contention, but it's the driver's skill and talent that will put you over the top

Which completely makes sense because a good driver can't put bad equipment in the top ten. But there are usually 5 cars or so a year who have the ability to win. It is then the driver and crew chief's role to make the adjustments and drive the car to victory lane.

How I would correlate that to football is you could make the argument that in years where the Packers were maybe a middling .500 team, #4/#12 got them to the show anyways. (you really only need to win 1 to 2 more games or so to go from average team to playoff team). You used to hear announcers say "Brett Favre is worth 10 wins." This would be like a driver taking a 20th car and putting in the top 10.

But don't make any mistake. The Packers have had years where the team was there. 1997, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014 were all years the team was there. Just for various reasons...they didn't happen. Fault can be blamed on many factors and many people in all of those years.

And Yoho, I enjoyed those years. I enjoyed them immensely at the time. But it doesn't also mean I have a bit of a "gosh darnett" when I think about those years too because of how they really should be remembered.

WHAT QUOTE? I didn't quote anyone, obviously it takes both a great driver and car to win Lemans, and the duo of Shelby(Car) and Mills (driver) where great, and just like with Rodgers, Mills had a lot to do with the development of that car, just as Rodgers had with the development of McCarthy's offense.
, and he'll have a lot to do with any success that Lafluer has

and your wrong, the team was not there in 97, we could not stop the run,, same with all those teams, at some point in each of those games some player or lack of the player, cost us the game, and it was rarely the QB

[go pak go]

Ya I sort of went off on one of my " quit blaming the driver, it's a car problem" rants there.

I think just like with the race car driver, he alone only puts you in contention to win, and thats really been our problem, we just have not kept the car performing as well as we should have

I was referring to this reference. This is backwards. It's usually the car puts you in contention. The driver is what puts you over the top.

But I then said "quote" because you mentioned it came from the Shelby Ford movie so I thought maybe you were quoting a movie or something.

But these arguments are stupid because there are so many variables with all of them.

1997 - I can't comment on this. I was too young.

2003 - Was it Favre throwing an INT in overtime? Or us failing to convert inside the goalline on 4th down? Or Sherman not going for it on 4th down with the Eagles defense tired? Or 4th and long? All are valid variables.

2007 - Was it Favre throwing to Driver in OT (getting Picked) with Grant open? Or was it Jackson not making the right cut on his reception? Or was it Ruvell Martin not catching the pass which would have been a 1st down? Or Al Harris getting destroyed by Plaxico and us not making any adjustments?

2009 - Was it Rodgers overthrowing a wide open Greg Jennings for a walkoff touchdown? Or the defense allowing 50+ points? Or the refs blowing a face mask call?

on and on and on.

So I don't really understand what you are trying to prove here? Yes the team let us down. But the quarterbacks have also let us down. Just as much as they have pumped us up and made games and seasons exciting. Like YoHo mentioned, all the greats pretty much have done both. They are just as much part of the team as anyone else.

But make no mistake. We have had championship caliber teams in my lifetime where we didn't win it all. I listed the seasons where the team was good enough to win it all. They were championship caliber teams. And I would say having 8 - 11 teams where we as fans were like, "yeah...that was a legitimate championship level team" in 25 years is impressive. I do not and will not say that the organization "failed" any quarterback by not providing him the tools or team to get it done.

[lupedafiasco]

And Yoho, I enjoyed those years. I enjoyed them immensely at the time. But it doesn't also mean I have a bit of a "gosh darnett" when I think about those years too because of how they really should be remembered.

Looking back and thinking "gosh, I really feel like we could have won more in those windows and I wish we had" is fine. I feel that way, too. I still can't get over losing the 97 Super Bowl to the Elway Broncos when we had the best team in the league that year. I get it.

I'm talking about the people who enter every season thinking Super Bowl is the only way to judge success. And the people who CAN'T enjoy a season, even when things are going well, because they want it to be going better, or perfectly, even. When a 15-1 season or a 13-3 season isn't enjoyed, it's the fan's problem, not the team's. Last year I found myself enjoying the team MORE when I stayed away from this board--that I would feel good about a win and then see people ragging on how it wasn't a good enough win or the team we beat isn't impressive to beat.

Too much talk about how we're not good enough. It's true! We weren't good enough. We were a team VASTLY over-achieving in our first year with a new HC. THAT'S EXCITING. That's a cinderella story! That's being ahead of schedule. We went from a 6-win team to a 13-win team in one year and people were MAD that we didn't go from a 6-win team to a Super Bowl team in one year.

It's a crappy way to be a fan; it's a crappy way to view life, in general. People, generally, need to enjoy the fun stories and the fun experiences and the unexpected wild rides more, and complain about the lack of perfection less. If you go through life with a "if you're not first, you're last" outlook, you're going to spend most of your life in last.

Losers mentality.

[Pckfn23]

How would that be a loser's mentality? We don't play the games, coach the games, or deal in personnel decisions...

[lupedafiasco]

Ya I sort of went off on one of my " quit blaming the driver, it's a car problem" rants there.

I think just like with the race car driver, he alone only puts you in contention to win, and thats really been our problem, we just have not kept the car performing as well as we should have

I was referring to this reference. This is backwards. It's usually the car puts you in contention. The driver is what puts you over the top.

But I then said "quote" because you mentioned it came from the Shelby Ford movie so I thought maybe you were quoting a movie or something.

But these arguments are stupid because there are so many variables with all of them.

1997 - I can't comment on this. I was too young.

2003 - Was it Favre throwing an INT in overtime? Or us failing to convert inside the goalline on 4th down? Or Sherman not going for it on 4th down with the Eagles defense tired? Or 4th and long? All are valid variables.

2007 - Was it Favre throwing to Driver in OT (getting Picked) with Grant open? Or was it Jackson not making the right cut on his reception? Or was it Ruvell Martin not catching the pass which would have been a 1st down? Or Al Harris getting destroyed by Plaxico and us not making any adjustments?

2009 - Was it Rodgers overthrowing a wide open Greg Jennings for a walkoff touchdown? Or the defense allowing 50+ points? Or the refs blowing a face mask call?

on and on and on.

So I don't really understand what you are trying to prove here? Yes the team let us down. But the quarterbacks have also let us down. Just as much as they have pumped us up and made games and seasons exciting. Like YoHo mentioned, all the greats pretty much have done both. They are just as much part of the team as anyone else.

But make no mistake. We have had championship caliber teams in my lifetime where we didn't win it all. I listed the seasons where the team was good enough to win it all. They were championship caliber teams. And I would say having 8 - 11 teams where we as fans were like, "yeah...that was a legitimate championship level team" in 25 years is impressive. I do not and will not say that the organization "failed" any quarterback by not providing him the tools or team to get it done.

We have had championship caliber teams sure. But whens the last time you seen this team make a move to put us over the top? I would say once this team has actually been the very best in the league since Rodgers took over and that was 2014. Even then they went into the season with a glaring need at LB and didnt address it. They had to move Clay inside.

And no Im not saying sacrifice the farm for one good harvest. You dont need to trade 1st round picks and screw up the cap with a big money signing. You look at what the Patriots did acquiring Moss for peanuts. Look what Marshawn did the the Chickens. What Tony G for the Falcons. Even this year the 9ers trading for Sanders. Most of these teams didnt win but they at least got there. They were the ones that really put their names in the hat for a championship.

Every year the Packers front office is ok with just being competitive and good enough. The vibe I get from them is that if theyre just successful enough to raise ticket prices the next season thats fine and if they win a Super Bowl along the way thats good too. And the vibe I get from most fans is good enough is just good enough as well.

[Packfntk]

Every year the Packers front office is ok with just being competitive and good enough. The vibe I get from them is that if theyre just successful enough to raise ticket prices the next season thats fine and if they win a Super Bowl along the way thats good too. And the vibe I get from most fans is good enough is just good enough as well.

Yes, I am sure when designing the plan for the upcoming seasons, the front office has said, "We are just good enough to be competitive, right where we want to be".



They are doing what they think is right for the organization, not your made up story that gets you through your day.

[Yoop]

Ya I sort of went off on one of my " quit blaming the driver, it's a car problem" rants there.

I think just like with the race car driver, he alone only puts you in contention to win, and thats really been our problem, we just have not kept the car performing as well as we should have

I was referring to this reference. This is backwards. It's usually the car puts you in contention. The driver is what puts you over the top.

But I then said "quote" because you mentioned it came from the Shelby Ford movie so I thought maybe you were quoting a movie or something.

But these arguments are stupid because there are so many variables with all of them.

1997 - I can't comment on this. I was too young.

2003 - Was it Favre throwing an INT in overtime? Or us failing to convert inside the goalline on 4th down? Or Sherman not going for it on 4th down with the Eagles defense tired? Or 4th and long? All are valid variables.

2007 - Was it Favre throwing to Driver in OT (getting Picked) with Grant open? Or was it Jackson not making the right cut on his reception? Or was it Ruvell Martin not catching the pass which would have been a 1st down? Or Al Harris getting destroyed by Plaxico and us not making any adjustments?

2009 - Was it Rodgers overthrowing a wide open Greg Jennings for a walkoff touchdown? Or the defense allowing 50+ points? Or the refs blowing a face mask call?

on and on and on.

So I don't really understand what you are trying to prove here? Yes the team let us down. But the quarterbacks have also let us down. Just as much as they have pumped us up and made games and seasons exciting. Like YoHo mentioned, all the greats pretty much have done both. They are just as much part of the team as anyone else.

But make no mistake. We have had championship caliber teams in my lifetime where we didn't win it all. I listed the seasons where the team was good enough to win it all. They were championship caliber teams. And I would say having 8 - 11 teams where we as fans were like, "yeah...that was a legitimate championship level team" in 25 years is impressive. I do not and will not say that the organization "failed" any quarterback by not providing him the tools or team to get it done.

I suppose I should have been more clear, and probably shouldn't have used a movie to try and make my point, which was you can build a great race car, just as you can build a great team, but there was only one Sam Mills, according to Carol Shelby to race the GT-40, and Rodgers was the best in this game, until we took away his race car, ahh shucks here I go with these analogy's again.

the reason we could go 15-1 imo is because no one could defend our spread offense, we could barely run the ball, and our defense minus Collins was in decline, unless you had a excellent pass rush, and just gave up everything underneath and smothered the deep zones you couldn't beat Rodgers and the receivers, people act as though it's hard to replace Nelson, Cobb, Jones, Jennings etc., well if LOve doesn't turn out you'll find out how hard it is to replace Rodgers.

we've spent almost all high picks on defense for 7 plus years, we'd have put ourselves in better position to win if we'd simply rebuilt the race car

[Waldo]

We have had championship caliber teams sure. But whens the last time you seen this team make a move to put us over the top?

I hope you are aware that this is not actually a thing and is just a media blowhard talking point.

Every championship team has its own unique story. Its journey. How it was built. How it wins. That one over the top move rarely ever part of the story, yet every year team after team tries as if it is a thing.

[Yoop]

We have had championship caliber teams sure. But whens the last time you seen this team make a move to put us over the top?

I hope you are aware that this is not actually a thing and is just a media blowhard talking point.

Every championship team has its own unique story. Its journey. How it was built. How it wins. That one over the top move rarely ever part of the story, yet every year team after team tries as if it is a thing.

ahhh man, there goes our dreams of instant gratification

I really think Billy B and NE did this about as good as any team ever has on a consistent basis, and of course winning does attract a aging vet that can still lift his game to that of a above average starter, and each year they have been able to replace expensive talent with these type players, I remember reading that NE devotes a lot to scouting to up coming FA's, if true that would account for there success at it, course it also helps to have a QB like Brady, very unassuming, Brady can max out the talent of most players, don't think I've heard of any player Brady didn't get along with.

most of the teams we've seen paying big money for players, didn't win, I had sticker shock with the Smith boys last year, and that seemed like a move to get us to the promised land, I agree that stuff usually isn't what it's hoped to be.

[Waldo]

NE built at least 4 completely different championship caliber teams

The first featured an absolutely punishing DL that was pointless to try to run against, and was more of a running team than passing team
The second was the Moss team
Then they hit on two HOF caliber TE's simultaneously in the draft which lead to a very difficult to defend offense (2nd and 4th rd picks)
Then came the mighty mite passing attack, which stacked up the teeny quick slot type receivers in a way that really stressed defenses

[Waldo]

If there is any set of traits you can point to that tend to be common for championship teams:

- QB on rookie deals or otherwise cheap
- Hitting on an elite unit (drafted usually, tho FA's sometimes factor in)

The '10 Packers had both of those, the pass defense was solid all around and truly great at hawking (main players - Wood FA, Williams UDFA, Collins drafted, Matthews drafted). Rodgers was still cheap.

Tho what put the '10 Packers over the top was their 6th round RB that came off PUP and got up to speed by the end of the year, giving the team a legit running game and some semblance of balance in the playoffs, but it was the hawking that led the way to that team's wins through the playoffs (pick-6 each in the divisional, championship, and super bowl).

[BF004]

If there is any set of traits you can point to that tend to be common for championship teams:

- QB on rookie deals or otherwise cheap
- Hitting on an elite unit (drafted usually, tho FA's sometimes factor in)

The '10 Packers had both of those, the pass defense was solid all around and truly great at hawking (main players - Wood FA, Williams UDFA, Collins drafted, Matthews drafted). Rodgers was still cheap.

Tho what put the '10 Packers over the top was their 6th round RB that came off PUP and got up to speed by the end of the year, giving the team a legit running game and some semblance of balance in the playoffs, but it was the hawking that led the way to that team's wins through the playoffs (pick-6 each in the divisional, championship, and super bowl).

I think its more of just having a plethora of talent on rookie deals. Whether that be the QB, which has a lot of weight, or just a ton of other contributors like Jennings, Jones, Nelson, College, Sitton, Raji, Matthews, Jolly, Shields. Assuming you already have a QB who isn't a liability (Flacco, Alex Smith, Matt Ryan, Rodgers, etc.) if not on a rookie contract.

[YoHoChecko]

- QB on rookie deals or otherwise cheap

The '10 Packers had both of those

I guess cheapish, but we were on Aaron Rodgers' second contract, which he signed at a mid-tier starter level.

In the next year, Eli was on his regular, big contract.

Flacco had just signed an extension but he was cheap that year.

Wilson was on a rookie deal

Brady was not top-tier money, but again on a mid-level starter contract.

The Broncos had an expensive vet paid appropriately (Manning)

Eagles had rookie contracts

Pats again

And then the Chiefs with Mahomes as a rookie.

So can we really say champions have "rookie contracts" as any sort of regular feature? Three times in the past 10 years? Second contracts signed before top value was reached happened as often. The Brady contract bargain is noteworthy, but both Mannings won while getting paid top dollar.

I think the overwhelming usefulness of rookie contracts is overstated because we have had a couple phenoms in Wilson and Mahomes. Even the Wentz situation was won by Nick Foles, on a low-level backup QB contract.

Having a cheaper-than-elite QB sure may help, but QB rookie contracts are very rare because it's very rare to be a great QB within the first 4 years in the league.

[Waldo]

- QB on rookie deals or otherwise cheap

The '10 Packers had both of those

I guess cheapish, but we were on Aaron Rodgers' second contract, which he signed at a mid-tier starter level.

In the next year, Eli was on his regular, big contract.

Flacco had just signed an extension but he was cheap that year.

Wilson was on a rookie deal

Brady was not top-tier money, but again on a mid-level starter contract.

The Broncos had an expensive vet paid appropriately (Manning)

Eagles had rookie contracts

Pats again

And then the Chiefs with Mahomes as a rookie.

So can we really say champions have "rookie contracts" as any sort of regular feature? Three times in the past 10 years? Second contracts signed before top value was reached happened as often. The Brady contract bargain is noteworthy, but both Mannings won while getting paid top dollar.

I think the overwhelming usefulness of rookie contracts is overstated because we have had a couple phenoms in Wilson and Mahomes. Even the Wentz situation was won by Nick Foles, on a low-level backup QB contract.

Having a cheaper-than-elite QB sure may help, but QB rookie contracts are very rare because it's very rare to be a great QB within the first 4 years in the league.

It is a far more reliable trait than pretty much any other. The relative lack of QB's on big money deals is striking given how many of them there are and the assumption that they are the cream of the crop QB-wise.

I mean, how many times has a team with a QB on a top 5 QB contract even made the Super Bowl, let alone win it, in the Free Agency era? Given the importance of the position and the huge value over replacement, you'd expect at least half, if not 3/4 of teams making the Super Bowl have one of these guys, yet in practice it seems like it is practically a curse as the SB participation rate of these guys is so low.

[YoHoChecko]

It is a far more reliable trait than pretty much any other. The relative lack of QB's on big money deals is striking given how many of them there are and the assumption that they are the cream of the crop QB-wise.

How many QBs are starters on rookie contracts? If it's 9 or 10, then winning 30% of the past ten Super Bowls would be the expected percentage if it didn't matter at all.

So let's think last year:
- Kyler Murray
- Daniel Jones
- Gardner Minshew
- Baker Mayfield
- Sam Darnold
- Josh Allen
- Lamar Jackson
- Mitch Trubisky
- Patrick Mahomes
- Deshaun Watson
- Dak Prescott

11 of the 32 teams started players on their rookie contracts. The hit rate of winning the Super Bowl with a rookie contract player is the expected value if it were randomly assigned.

Players in the first year or two of their second contract (E. Manning the second time, Roethlisberger the second time, Rodgers, Flacco) were more common--usually a cap-cheap first year of an extension.

[NCF]

- QB on rookie deals or otherwise cheap

The '10 Packers had both of those

I guess cheapish, but we were on Aaron Rodgers' second contract, which he signed at a mid-tier starter level.

In the next year, Eli was on his regular, big contract.

Flacco had just signed an extension but he was cheap that year.

Wilson was on a rookie deal

Brady was not top-tier money, but again on a mid-level starter contract.

The Broncos had an expensive vet paid appropriately (Manning)

Eagles had rookie contracts

Pats again

And then the Chiefs with Mahomes as a rookie.

So can we really say champions have "rookie contracts" as any sort of regular feature? Three times in the past 10 years? Second contracts signed before top value was reached happened as often. The Brady contract bargain is noteworthy, but both Mannings won while getting paid top dollar.

I think the overwhelming usefulness of rookie contracts is overstated because we have had a couple phenoms in Wilson and Mahomes. Even the Wentz situation was won by Nick Foles, on a low-level backup QB contract.

Having a cheaper-than-elite QB sure may help, but QB rookie contracts are very rare because it's very rare to be a great QB within the first 4 years in the league.

It is a far more reliable trait than pretty much any other. The relative lack of QB's on big money deals is striking given how many of them there are and the assumption that they are the cream of the crop QB-wise.

I mean, how many times has a team with a QB on a top 5 QB contract even made the Super Bowl, let alone win it, in the Free Agency era? Given the importance of the position and the huge value over replacement, you'd expect at least half, if not 3/4 of teams making the Super Bowl have one of these guys, yet in practice it seems like it is practically a curse as the SB participation rate of these guys is so low.

Not sure where to find it, but I would want to look at position groups as a % of the cap.

The Seahawks gave a mid-level deal to Matt Flynn to be the starter. San Francisco made it to the Super Bowl with Alex Smith backing up Kap. All of these cheap rookie QB deals don't always capture the fact that teams are often paying someone to be the guy... even if that guy is no longer the guy.