Packers Huddle

That's what I was getting at..for gutey to say the value wasn't there..not buying it. Especially after he tried to get other guys by trade..that right there says we have ok guys..but..could do better.
Maybe the udfa was a good grab..I guess we will see.

It seems clear that if we wanted a WR in the first round we were unlucky that not one of either Reagor, Jefferson and Aiyuk fell to us. Even if we traded up to 26 we still had no chance of getting them. If we loved Higgins and Pittman we would've simply stayed put and drafted them at 30.

I suspect most NFL teams had Mims with a 2nd round grade and sure enough he wasn't drafted until near the end of the 2nd round. Again we were unlucky he didn't fall to us at our 2nd round pick.

If the WR class was so deep according to the narrative then it was surprising to see just three WRs taken in the 3rd round and two WRs in the 4th round. This might explain why Gute said he didn't think where was great opportunity in the middle rounds.

The three 3rd round receivers were all taken before the Packers 3rd round pick.

Losing that 4th round pick hurt. There were several OL and WR taken after our 4th round pick such as Gandy-Golden, Driscoll and Bladasz.

It seemed like whatever we did we were doomed not to draft a WR.

Had we stayed at 30, kept our 4th round pick and never traded up or down then it would've too been difficult to draft a receiver we liked. It was either Higgins or Pittman in the 1st or wait all the way til the 4th round where Gandy-Golden was available. That was the extent of our WR options.

If we didn't want Higgins or Pittman then we would've had to reach for Mims in the 1st round or reach for Edwards in the 2nd round or reached for Gabriel Davis in the 3rd or wait until Gandy-Golden was finally available for our pick in the 4th.

The board simply did not fall our way at all. Drafting Love completely changed our draft and made drafting an OL or WR increasingly difficult.

Whether that is the right decision remains to be seen but it's difficult to pass up on a QB talent like that. Another opportunity may never fall our way again for a long time and lets face it, Rodgers is old and I don't blame the Packers at all for drafting a QB.

One could argue had we traded down from 30 or packaged some picks to move up in the 2nd round we would've been in position to grab Mims. If we had done so then its likely Mims would've been a Packer today.

Had we stayed at 30 who else could we have drafted? Love and Queen were likely gone. A RB perhaps? with Swift, CEH, Dobbins, Akers and Taylor all still on board. Higgins and Pittman were there. OL Robert Hunt was there. DT Blacklock was there. We had some options.

If we did the draft differently:
Stay at 30, Trade up in 2nd round (give up 2nd and 5th):
1st Taylor, 2nd Mims, 3rd Deguria, 4th Biadasz, 6th Runyan, 6th Stephaniak, 6th ????, 7th ????

Stay at 30, trade up in 3rd round (give up 3rd, 5th and 6th - This is what the Detriot gave up to move up in the 3rd round):
1st Blacklock, 2nd Dillion, 3rd Edwards, 4th Biadasz, 6th Runyan, 6th Stephaniak, 7th ????

Trade down from 30 (Assume we get a 2nd and a 3rd):
2nd Mims, 2nd Dillion, 3rd Josh Jones, 3rd Deguria, 4th Biadasz, 5th Martin, 6th Runyan, 6th ????, 6th ????, 7th ????

Freewheelingutey wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 16:00

That's what I was getting at..for gutey to say the value wasn't there..not buying it. Especially after he tried to get other guys by trade..that right there says we have ok guys..but..could do better.
Maybe the udfa was a good grab..I guess we will see.

Yes, we could do better.

But the WRs available in the draft weren't players he thought were better. I have no idea how you think "we like Hopkins or Robby Anderson" equates to "we want Denzel Mims." Proven players are always going to be more valuable than speculative players. Why on earth do you think wanting Robby Anderson means that the draft board in round one showed a good value to select a guy like KJ Hamler who went in round 2? The logical construct that you are building has a very weak foundation and crumbles upon any prodding.

They didn't stay at 30 though..moved up to 26..the best remaining ilb was right there..they didn't draft him. Didn't draft a dt either. Middle of defense is still weak. What happens when other teams run it right up the middle of that defense again..300+ yds and 5 tds by halftime?
Had they drafted at 30 and kept 4th rder could have gotten a dt and probably moved up in rd 2 for a 2nd tier wr. Didn't do either.

Freewheelingutey wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 16:34

They didn't stay at 30 though..moved up to 26..the best remaining ilb was right there..they didn't draft him. Didn't draft a dt either. Middle of defense is still weak. What happens when other teams run it right up the middle of that defense again..300+ yds and 5 tds by halftime?
Had they drafted at 30 and kept 4th rder could have gotten a dt and probably moved up in rd 2 for a 2nd tier wr. Didn't do either.

You complain about WRs and then when the team moves up to 26, you point out the ILB.

Yes, there are many things we could have done differently as a team, but your questions about WR value are a sham to make your anger feel more vindicated. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that at 26 or 30, there were no WRs left with a 1st round grade. At 62, there were no WRs left with a second round grade. And at 96 there were no WRs left with a 3rd round grade. That's what Gutey indicated in multiple conference call questions; and that's how a TON of us felt, live, as we were watching. We could have manipulated the board. We could have reached for a need. We could have done a number of things differently. But to say the board fell badly for us at WR rings true. To say that Gutey is lying about the value of the WRs in the draft and it's proven by his previous (tepid) desire to upgrade with Anderson or Hopkins doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Freewheelingutey wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 16:34

They didn't stay at 30 though..moved up to 26..the best remaining ilb was right there..they didn't draft him. Didn't draft a dt either. Middle of defense is still weak. What happens when other teams run it right up the middle of that defense again..300+ yds and 5 tds by halftime?
Had they drafted at 30 and kept 4th rder could have gotten a dt and probably moved up in rd 2 for a 2nd tier wr. Didn't do either.

It's a real bugger isn't it.

But since we are in speculation now, what would have happened had Aaron suffered another significant injury in the next 3 years? (not out of the norm. Rodgers has had injuries now in 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018....that's 6 in 8 seasons where Rodgers has had a serious and limiting injury)....now we may at least have an answer for that.

This is the funniest football player of all time and I really wish he was a packer.

I was trying to point out that there were better players available. They are gonna pay Rodgers alot of money in the next 2-3. Why not give him better, more reliable wrs, or a defense that doesn't get pounded every playoff game? What difference does it make if they reach for a wr? If that guy becomes a stud? They reached for most of the guys they drafted anyway.
The draft fell that way because they chose to have it that way. If they really wanted a big time wr there werw ways to get one.

Freewheelingutey wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 17:56

I was trying to point out that there were better players available. They are gonna pay Rodgers alot of money in the next 2-3. Why not give him better, more reliable wrs, or a defense that doesn't get pounded every playoff game? What difference does it make if they reach for a wr? If that guy becomes a stud? They reached for most of the guys they drafted anyway.
The draft fell that way because they chose to have it that way. If they really wanted a big time wr there werw ways to get one.

You're trying to point out that Gutey didn't make our needs and the draft's value align. I COMPLETELY agree with that, and am disappointed.

But when you sprinkle in that "all the picks were reaches" or claim that Gutey is being dishonest when he says he didn't think the board fell in a way that made WR value make sense for us when we picked, then you start to get over the top, for me. You don't know what the board looked like. And it is insane to think that the Packers were selecting players at NON-need positions for reasons aside from value of the Packers board.

Really liking a specific player MEANS that you have graded or rated that player very highly. Why would they draft AJ Dillon if he wasn't the top player on their board at the time? Why would they draft Jordan Love if they didn't think he represented tremendous value?

I'd guess that Love was in a very high tier on their board and was the only player left from that tier. In fact, I'd guess that Love and Queen were the only players left from the NEXT tier, even. I'd guess that Jefferson, Reagor, Queen and MAYBE Ayiuk were in the same tier, below Love, on the Packers' board. And that having so few players left with a first round grade but still having one player left in their elite tier (probably with guys like Jeudy, Lamb, and Ruggs) made them jump at the value.

I disagree with trading for value-only purposes that don't meet needs. But that's what it sounds like they did.

But I can't for the life of me understand the complaints that Gutey was drafting players that were neither needs NOR were atop their value boards. What were they then? What do you think they're doing in the draft prep? Obviously, if you select a player, it's almost always going to be the best player available from a position you NEED, or the best player available regardless of need. If it isn't the best player, you'd pick someone else, who is. If it doesn't meet a need, why would anyone not believe that it was the best player? There is zero other motivation to select a player.

So yes, I agree with your complaint that if the Packers wanted to add a top-tier WR who they thought would be better than the guys they currently have, whether they believe that to have cut off at Ayiuk (1st), at Mims (2nd), or at Edwards (3rd), they could have manipulated the board to align value with need, or they could have just abandoned value and selected for a need (which I'm less keen on, but understand the motivation and temptation). They could have. I'm disappointed that that didn't happen.

But

• When Gutey says the board fell in a way that the value at WR was never there, I agree and I believe that he means it.

• When Gutey says that after a certain point in the early run, they didn't have guys that they thought would make the team, I find that a little surprising, but if that certain points was after the 3rd, I believe him. I loved that guy Mooney that the Bears jumped in front of us to draft, but I wanted to take him in the 6th or 7th because he might not have made the team as a rookie and I wanted to stash him on the PS.

• And when Gutey says that the guys he took were the top guys on their board, I see no reason not to believe him... especially BECAUSE they didn't meet immediate needs, even if my value evaluations, as an amateur with limited access to information, disagrees with some of those value assessments.

Freewheelingutey wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 17:56

I was trying to point out that there were better players available. They are gonna pay Rodgers alot of money in the next 2-3. Why not give him better, more reliable wrs, or a defense that doesn't get pounded every playoff game? What difference does it make if they reach for a wr? If that guy becomes a stud? They reached for most of the guys they drafted anyway.
The draft fell that way because they chose to have it that way. If they really wanted a big time wr there werw ways to get one.

I don't disagree with wanting Queen. I wanted Queen. He was my #3 on our "realistic players" to the Packers behind Kenneth Murray and Justin Jefferson.

As for WR at 26, I really don't think there was one that made sense 26 to 30. Clearly Mims was not rated at that level as Higgins, Pittman, Hamler, Shenault and Claypool all went ahead of Mims. Honestly all the guys who went from 26 to Mims's spot were not good fits for the Packers and I would not have wanted them except for Shenault....though even him I was lower on than say YoHo....and he doesn't bring that elite speed we want.

So I think the only thing that would have made sense was Queen. And I agree. I am mad about that. That's what I thought the pick was. But the Packers instead saw a talent they couldn't refuse. And the dude has insane talent. My goodness his arm is absolutely ridiculous.

And I guess I would reply to your "what difference does it make if they reach on a WR..." with....what difference does it make if in 3 years we have the next hot young generatinal talent QB in Jordan Love?

The packers are always planning for three years ahead. That is a great thing bc it has helped us field good teams and be competitive over the last 26 years. The downside is they refuse to push the chips to the middle of the table and take big swings and go for it now, and figure out the next few years later. A lot of championship teams push the envelop more than we have. Probably why we only have one sb appearance in 20 years. However, it is nice to year after year have a team that is probably going to make you smile on Sunday sept-December.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 18:24

The packers are always planning for three years ahead. That is a great thing bc it has helped us field good teams and be competitive over the last 26 years. The downside is they refuse to push the chips to the middle of the table and take big swings and go for it now, and figure out the next few years later. A lot of championship teams push the envelop more than we have. Probably why we only have one sb appearance in 20 years. However, it is nice to year after year have a team that is probably going to make you smile on Sunday sept-December.

My issue with this is, like, ok... who pushes the chips to the table? What are the examples of this?

The Saints are FREQUENTLY cited as a team trying to maximize the end of Bress' career. The Rams, too, went all-in a couple times the past season or two with wild trades and big contracts.

What better has that done for them than us? 13-3 seasons without a Super Bowl title for the Saints in 19 and the Rams in 18? That's exactly what we just got. When the Rams followed their 13-3 year by going all in again, they went 9-7!

Have the Pats pushed all the chips in to go hog wild for it? They're the gold standard, right? When have they ever sacrificed the future for the now to get there?

What is this GO GET A CHAMPIONSHIP team-building model that has ever worked better than the result the Packers JUST achieved?

For all the talk about Payton and Brees, they have 1 Super Bowl. For all the talk about the Seahawks being willing to be aggressive, Wilson has won 1 Super Bowl. NO ONE aside from Brady and the Pats has done any more than we have over the years. And they have NEVER built for the now instead of the future. And they have Brady on sweetheart discount deals. And they have maybe the greatest coach in NFL history. YES, they make trades and they sign a ton of free agents, though rarely top-flight ones. But I've never seen an offseason aside from maybe the Moss trade in which the media is like "wow, Belichick is really pushing all the chips in the win now"

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 18:32

Drj820 wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 18:24

The packers are always planning for three years ahead. That is a great thing bc it has helped us field good teams and be competitive over the last 26 years. The downside is they refuse to push the chips to the middle of the table and take big swings and go for it now, and figure out the next few years later. A lot of championship teams push the envelop more than we have. Probably why we only have one sb appearance in 20 years. However, it is nice to year after year have a team that is probably going to make you smile on Sunday sept-December.

My issue with this is, like, ok... who pushes the chips to the table? What are the examples of this?

The Saints are FREQUENTLY cited as a team trying to maximize the end of Bress' career. The Rams, too, went all-in a couple times the past season or two with wild trades and big contracts.

What better has that done for them than us? 13-3 seasons without a Super Bowl title for the Saints in 19 and the Rams in 18? That's exactly what we just got. When the Rams followed their 13-3 year by going all in again, they went 9-7!

Have the Pats pushed all the chips in to go hog wild for it? They're the gold standard, right? When have they ever sacrificed the future for the now to get there?

What is this GO GET A CHAMPIONSHIP team-building model that has ever worked better than the result the Packers JUST achieved?

For all the talk about Payton and Brees, they have 1 Super Bowl. For all the talk about the Seahawks being willing to be aggressive, Wilson has won 1 Super Bowl. NO ONE aside from Brady and the Pats has done any more than we have over the years. And they have NEVER built for the now instead of the future. And they have Brady on sweetheart discount deals. And they have maybe the greatest coach in NFL history. YES, they make trades and they sign a ton of free agents, though rarely top-flight ones. But I've never seen an offseason aside from maybe the Moss trade in which the media is like "wow, Belichick is really pushing all the chips in the win now"

First of all, I wasn’t saying I despised our philosophy. Just saying how I see it to be, and listing a pro and a con of it.

But I do think the pats are the gold standard of being steady eddies and winning, yet even they trade for Moss, bring in AB, trade for Sanu, and make a ton of other trades. They give up guys for 4th round picks and trade for playera like danny Shelton all the time to get themselves to the competitive level they want to be at. But yes, they are the model example of a franchise.

Eagles are a franchise that loaded up as much as possible and then had to strip it down a bit after they paid Wentz. But during the time right before and after the super bowl they brought in Michael Bennett, haloti ngata (sp), brought in Alshon Jeffrey, Chris long, acquired jay Ajayi and ronald Darby in trades, signed lagarette blunt.

Seahawks are another example of a team that loaded up when Wilson was cheap, and then stripped it down. And they still went after Clowney, RBs in the first round, and other moves.

broncos pushed the chips to the middle before the 2015 season with the signings of manny sanders, aquib talib, demarcus ware, tj ward and Shaq Barrett.

Bucs are doing it now that they have Brady.

You already mentioned the rams efforts.

Saints as you mentioned are always willing to give up a future draft pick to get who they want. Signed Jared cook, gave us a first, signed eli Apple.

Cowboys are pretty loaded on Offense, desperately need a secondary...yet grab CeeDee when they have a chance. Bring in Robert Quinn for a year.

the chiefs, bring in honey badger, sign Sammy Watkins. Sign Terrell Suggs late last year for the playoff run. Sign Jeremiah attouchou, sammie Coates, trade a first rounder for frank clark, sign shady McCoy,

Now you may not consider all these moves “pushing the chips to the middle of the table” like giving up a first to move up in the draft would be. But all of the transactions listed above are from teams that thought they had a chance to win and were close, and they actively went out and tried to get better instantly for the following season.

Chiefs giving a first rounder for frank Clark would be the best most recent example, patriots trading for Danny Shelton, Trent brown, and Jason McCourty were the pats big trades the year before there last sb.

So ya, I think it’s common for teams that are very close to do more to put themselves over the hump than we do. So it seems to me, for better or worse.

Just imagine if we drafted this guy. Everyone would be praising Gute for bringing in that speed and dynamic guy.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 19:21

So ya, I think it’s common for teams that are very close to do more to put themselves over the hump than we do. So it seems to me, for better or worse.

I very much appreciate taking time to list out all of those examples, and I agree. But I also would say that the "for better or for worse" is not a statement just to gloss over.

What you did there was look back at teams who won the Super Bowl and then saw what moves they made THAT YEAR that appeared to be going "all-in." I'll also point out how very very few of those items on the list involved the NFL Draft, which is what we are discussing here, right now.

Well, had you done that for the Packers in 2019, you could point out that:

• they splurged on free agency to get two high-priced pass rushers and fill needs at S and OG

• they traded up in the draft to fill their need at S

• they drafted for need

• they successfully addressed mid-season shortcomings by claiming a punt returner and luring a starting RT out of retirement

• they restructured Rodgers' contract to free up a little cap space

We did all those things, and we went 13-3 and we lost the NFCCG.

And this year, we don't have the cap space to do the same things. So we signed an injury-budget ILB in an attempt to upgrade a need position. We signed an injury-budget RT in attempt to save money (making up for the splurge last year and thinking ahead to the extensions this year), and we added an injury-budget WR to address a weakness. We're continuing to go about business.

But ONE season after our most active overhaul of the roster in years, we have a draft in which we fail to address ONE need and suddenly we're "only looking for the future" and not pushing in our chips.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 19:47

Drj820 wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 19:21

So ya, I think it’s common for teams that are very close to do more to put themselves over the hump than we do. So it seems to me, for better or worse.

I very much appreciate taking time to list out all of those examples, and I agree. But I also would say that the "for better or for worse" is not a statement just to gloss over.

What you did there was look back at teams who won the Super Bowl and then saw what moves they made THAT YEAR that appeared to be going "all-in." I'll also point out how very very few of those items on the list involved the NFL Draft, which is what we are discussing here, right now.

Well, had you done that for the Packers in 2019, you could point out that:

• they splurged on free agency to get two high-priced pass rushers and fill needs at S and OG

• they traded up in the draft to fill their need at S

• they drafted for need

• they successfully addressed mid-season shortcomings by claiming a punt returner and luring a starting RT out of retirement

• they restructured Rodgers' contract to free up a little cap space

We did all those things, and we went 13-3 and we lost the NFCCG.

And this year, we don't have the cap space to do the same things. So we signed an injury-budget ILB in an attempt to upgrade a need position. We signed an injury-budget RT in attempt to save money (making up for the splurge last year and thinking ahead to the extensions this year), and we added an injury-budget WR to address a weakness. We're continuing to go about business.

But ONE season after our most active overhaul of the roster in years, we have a draft in which we fail to address ONE need and suddenly we're "only looking for the future" and not pushing in our chips.

Well I am not avoiding reality for this particular offseason (I understand the cap situation). I was pointing out teams who had been very good, were close, and made moves to attempt to get over the hump. Several years of over the last decade with the best qb in football we have been in those exact situations...very good, close, and just not quite there yet roster wise. We continued to plan for three years down the road. Hence why the ship has remained steady for all this time.

But I do not consider our offseason last year to be in the same category as the examples I listed above. Why? Because we weren’t close or very good when we made massive overhaul moves that happened to work very well. We had just fired a coach, a gm, and missed the playoffs two years in a row.

go pak go wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 19:29

Just imagine if we drafted this guy. Everyone would be praising Gute for bringing in that speed and dynamic guy.

whew, that's fun to watch.

And yes, Ervin is exactly the type of player I'd have liked. The difference is that Ervin has been in the league for 4 years now and not been much other than a punt returner. Is that because the Texans aren't creative enough on offense or prefer big bruising backs? Maybe it is just that! I've mentioned in a few threads, mostly at the suggestion of NCF, that maybe Ervin can be a guy like that for us this year. But it's tough to project a 4-year veteran to do something when he hasn't shown many signs of it in his professional career. A rookie has yet to prove he doesn't belong; a 4-year vet who has yet to prove he does belong can often be seen as someone who has shown that he doesn't.

That was probably a confusing way to word it, but my hopes are up for Ervin, my fingers are crossed. I was openly very happy when he was re-signed; I posted as much. But given that we currently have about 8 RBs on the roster, and given that for 4 years, Ervin has been pushed off the offensive field and relegated to a special teams guy, it would be folly to COUNT on him. Hope for him, definitely. Rely on him? Not quite.

A step forward from MVS and a successful, creative implementation of Tyler Ervin could provide a LARGE amount of what I'm looking for in this offense--particularly if Ervin can run routes at all. I hoped that the draft could provide a higher-likelihood guy in those roles than a 3rd-year 4th round pick and a 4th-year 4th round pick who have not yet produced quite what we need them to... especially the 4 year vet on his 4th team.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 18:24

The downside is they refuse to push the chips to the middle of the table and take big swings and go for it now, and figure out the next few years later. A lot of championship teams push the envelop more than we have.

Ok, I'll play.

Name them.

This push the chips in and go for it now concept is oft sited by fans, and has been studied quite a bit. There is scant evidence that it has ever worked. And the concept by definition sets the team back in the long run.

The concept that does in fact appear to have a lot of success is having a QB on a cheap contract break out, and get a few years with that guy, while being able to keep together a team that developed into being elite around him and pick up a few extra pieces because the cap allows it.

Another concept that has a lot of success; a pretty darn good team has a down year for whatever reason, key injury maybe ('18 49ers) or just absurd "luck" ('08 Packers), gets a high pick, and knocks it out of the park with that pick.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 19:54

Well I am not avoiding reality for this particular offseason (I understand the cap situation). I was pointing out teams who had been very good, were close, and made moves to attempt to get over the hump. Several years of over the last decade with the best qb in football we have been in those exact situations...very good, close, and just not quite there yet roster wise. We continued to plan for three years down the road. Hence why the ship has remained steady for all this time.

But I do not consider our offseason last year to be in the same category as the examples I listed above. Why? Because we weren’t close or very good when we made massive overhaul moves that happened to work very well. We had just fired a coach, a gm, and missed the playoffs two years in a row.

That's fair. But I'm just pointing out that for a large number of those teams--like the Saints and the Cowboys and what the Eagles did before their Super Bowl run (there was that big offseason where the players deemed themselves some sort of gawdy nickname that flamed out entirely) and then after their Super Bowl run... it didn't work. That the teams who go all in aren't MORE successful than we are. The teams that push the chips in fail as often as they succeed (depending on what failure is.. if it's a Super Bowl, they fail much more often than they succeed).

I just don't think the "push the chips in, be aggressive, make a big run right now" model deserves any sort of special praise among fans, because it is no more successful than "be a perennial competitor and hope you can strike when the opportunities arise." We aren't perennial contenders at the expense of winning Super Bowls. If you show me a team that goes all in, wins the Super Bowl, crashes, reloads, gets close, goes all in again, and wins the Super Bowl again" as some sort of business cycle, then yeah, sure. Ok. But that team hasn't really existed. I guess the closest you could come is the Giants, but they got lucky more than pushed their chips in... and it hasn't happened for nearly a decade now.

Basically, the Patriots are the best in the business, primarily because Belichick is. And they blocked other teams from having that sort of sustained success because they're better than us. No one can win multiple Super Bowls in an era when the Pats win 6 of them. In our conference, ove rthe past decade, only the Seahawks and 49ers have made two trips to the Super Bowl, and no one has won more than one. No one has made as many trips to the NFC Championship game as us.

The Patriots beat everyone at this. Their domination does two things: 1) it sets a nearly impossible standard to try to replicate. And 2) It has diminished and blocked the accomplishments of other teams who could have had some of that success had the Patriots not existed.

That's really all there is to it. NO ONE is winning more Championships and games than we are... except the Patriots. Period.


Here is a post from the old forum I made on January 1st, 2020 (with a couple updated numbers given the outcome of the playoffs:

In the 2010s, the Packers were 102-56-2 in the regular season and 9-6 in the postseason.

The Packers won 6 NFC North Division Crowns, and one Super Bowl.

The Packers appeared in the playoffs 8 times and appeared in the conference championship game 3 times.

No team other than the New England Patriots did better than ANY of those numbers.

The Packers have the....
- 2nd most wins (regular season, playoffs, and total)
- 2nd most playoff games played (tied with the Seahawks)
- 2nd most division titles
- 2nd most playoff appearances (tied with the Seahawks)
- 2nd most Conference Championship Game appearances
- 2nd most Super Bowl titles (no one but the Pats had more than 1)

So for all the things we've complained about; for enduring the 2 non-playoff years, the firing of a HC, the transition of a GM... for having a hole at ILB that never died and going from a record-setting offense to constantly questioning its effectiveness....

for all of that, the Packers have been, unequivocally, the second-most successful NFL franchise of this decade.

It's been a joy, it's been heartbreaking, it's been fun, it's been frustrating... and it's been remarkably successful. I'm glad to be a Packers fan and I'm glad to have spent most of the decade debating this stuff with you all.

Waldo wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 20:03

Drj820 wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2020 18:24

The downside is they refuse to push the chips to the middle of the table and take big swings and go for it now, and figure out the next few years later. A lot of championship teams push the envelop more than we have.

Ok, I'll play.

Name them.

This push the chips in and go for it now concept is oft sited by fans, and has been studied quite a bit. There is scant evidence that it has ever worked. And the concept by definition sets the team back in the long run.

The concept that does in fact appear to have a lot of success is having a QB on a cheap contract break out, and get a few years with that guy, while being able to keep together a team that developed into being elite around him and pick up a few extra pieces because the cap allows it.

Another concept that has a lot of success; a pretty darn good team has a down year for whatever reason, key injury maybe ('18 49ers) or just absurd "luck" ('08 Packers), gets a high pick, and knocks it out of the park with that pick.

My original statement was a thought I had after freewheeling made comments about not going to get the WR We need. I didn’t say my opinion on the matter. Just that we aren’t the team that does that. The upside is we’ve stayed solid for over twenty years. The downside is we’ve been to three Super Bowls in 25 years while having the best qb in the league close to that entire time.

As for the teams that have done it different than us and won, I listed them a few posts above if you wanna check it out.