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.
After years of reading on this forum, I am starting to conclude that we believe the WR position is the most important position in football.
The the way you move the ball now. The QB is still clearly most important. The RB used to be the most valued position by teams because that was the way of generating yardage and points. Now though its about the playmakers on the boundary. Its why a year ago you had teams paying a premium to trade for star receivers and move up in the draft for that position as well.
It shouldnt come as a surprise that for 3 years running now the team that won the SB is the team that made the risky move picking up disgruntled but talented receivers either on the trade market or by FA. This organization has routinely been one of the last to adjust to the trends in the league.
Only since Wolf
Well we did sign "risky, disgruntled, character-flawed" Koren Robinson in 2007 but it didn't result in a SB win so nobody cares or remembers.
Just like lupe's post...there are tons of teams who do these types of signings and many times they fail. It's just a convenient cherry picked batching to lump JuJu, AB and OBJ to team who also won a title.
The the way you move the ball now. The QB is still clearly most important. The RB used to be the most valued position by teams because that was the way of generating yardage and points. Now though its about the playmakers on the boundary. Its why a year ago you had teams paying a premium to trade for star receivers and move up in the draft for that position as well.
It shouldnt come as a surprise that for 3 years running now the team that won the SB is the team that made the risky move picking up disgruntled but talented receivers either on the trade market or by FA. This organization has routinely been one of the last to adjust to the trends in the league.
Only since Wolf
Well we did sign "risky, disgruntled, character-flawed" Koren Robinson in 2007 but it didn't result in a SB win so nobody cares or remembers.
Just like lupe's post...there are tons of teams who do these types of signings and many times they fail. It's just a convenient cherry picked batching to lump JuJu, AB and OBJ to team who also won a title.
I was referring to Kadarius Toney in KC but the point stands. 3 years in a row the Super Bowl winner picked up a disgruntled playmaker at the WR position and win the SB.
Yes there are teams that did the same and it didn’t work out but it is very clear that when you think you are a contender you need to add playmakers.
It shouldnt come as a surprise that for 3 years running now the team that won the SB is the team that made the risky move picking up disgruntled but talented receivers either on the trade market or by FA. This organization has routinely been one of the last to adjust to the trends in the league.
You make it sound so simple. As if the defending Super Bowl champions didn’t also trade away arguably the best WR in football. Seems like you have an agenda or pre-drawn conclusion and are just looking for correlations.
Well we did sign "risky, disgruntled, character-flawed" Koren Robinson in 2007 but it didn't result in a SB win so nobody cares or remembers.
Just like lupe's post...there are tons of teams who do these types of signings and many times they fail. It's just a convenient cherry picked batching to lump JuJu, AB and OBJ to team who also won a title.
I was referring to Kadarius Toney in KC but the point stands. 3 years in a row the Super Bowl winner picked up a disgruntled playmaker at the WR position and win the SB.
Yes there are teams that did the same and it didn’t work out but it is very clear that when you think you are a contender you need to add playmakers.
It’s worked 3 years in a row. Can’t deny it.
Many things you can’t deny, all 3 also didn’t draft their QB in their original slot, they had to get them. All QBs were at least 27 or older. All 3 QB’s have an ‘M’ in their names. All 3 teams were top 5 in sacks. Despite trading away better receivers, all teams also got disgruntled WRs from other teams at some point.
We were doing pretty well with Love on the ultimate team building algorithm until i got to the ‘M’ portion.
Well we did sign "risky, disgruntled, character-flawed" Koren Robinson in 2007 but it didn't result in a SB win so nobody cares or remembers.
Just like lupe's post...there are tons of teams who do these types of signings and many times they fail. It's just a convenient cherry picked batching to lump JuJu, AB and OBJ to team who also won a title.
I was referring to Kadarius Toney in KC but the point stands. 3 years in a row the Super Bowl winner picked up a disgruntled playmaker at the WR position and win the SB.
Yes there are teams that did the same and it didn’t work out but it is very clear that when you think you are a contender you need to add playmakers.
It’s worked 3 years in a row. Can’t deny it.
Many things you can’t deny, all 3 also didn’t draft their QB in their original slot, they had to get them. All QBs were at least 27 or older. All 3 QB’s have an ‘M’ in their names. All 3 teams were top 5 in sacks. Despite trading away better receivers, all teams also got disgruntled WRs from other teams at some point.
We were doing pretty well with Love on the ultimate team building algorithm until i got to the ‘M’ portion.
You can’t make a serious argument about being aggressive adding playmakers being a major deciding factor in winning super bowls you concurrently trade away the best WR in football.
It shouldnt come as a surprise that for 3 years running now the team that won the SB is the team that made the risky move picking up disgruntled but talented receivers either on the trade market or by FA. This organization has routinely been one of the last to adjust to the trends in the league.
You make it sound so simple. As if the defending Super Bowl champions didn’t also trade away arguably the best WR in football. Seems like you have an agenda or pre-drawn conclusion and are just looking for correlations.
thats because it is simple, teams that have skill position talent tend to do better then teams that don't have that talent all else being equal, thats why some teams, the smart teams that is, add those type players because they think that player could be the difference maker, like Wolf did with Rison, again with Jackson, and also Howard.
just because some teams do it and it doesn't produce a Lombardi trophy doesn't mean teams shouldn't do it, or that it's a waste of resources.
. All 3 QB’s have an ‘M’ in their names.
obviously there is a shortage of great QB's with the letter M in there names
Last edited by Yoop on 17 Jul 2023 08:57, edited 1 time in total.
The the way you move the ball now. The QB is still clearly most important. The RB used to be the most valued position by teams because that was the way of generating yardage and points. Now though its about the playmakers on the boundary. Its why a year ago you had teams paying a premium to trade for star receivers and move up in the draft for that position as well.
It shouldnt come as a surprise that for 3 years running now the team that won the SB is the team that made the risky move picking up disgruntled but talented receivers either on the trade market or by FA. This organization has routinely been one of the last to adjust to the trends in the league.
Only since Wolf
Well we did sign "risky, disgruntled, character-flawed" Koren Robinson in 2007 but it didn't result in a SB win so nobody cares or remembers.
Just like lupe's post...there are tons of teams who do these types of signings and many times they fail. It's just a convenient cherry picked batching to lump JuJu, AB and OBJ to team who also won a title.
BS, it happened to work, it's factual, quit defending what hasn't worked, rather then just blaming the QB as you've done most of your adult life, smell the freaking roses, teams with skill position talent WIN, it's why teams look for skill position talent to compete, and pay huge money to add those players.
these dang tactics you seem hell bent on dis proving, you and 004 and all the rest of you QB blamers have a track record of success, give a good QB receivers and the odds of winning go drastically up.
As WAlly said, Ron Wolf knew that, added Rison, Howard, and Jackson, and we won a SB.
why you or anyone would argue against those realities doesn't make a lick of sense.
all to defend the insane BS thats went on with the last few years of Thompson and now this GM
thats why some teams, the smart teams that is, add those type players because they think that player could be the difference maker, like Wolf did with Rison, again with Jackson, and also Howard.
And Anthony Morgan, Mark Ingram, and Terry Glenn? It's easy to say, we won a Super Bowl, so this has to be why, but Wolf also added Reggie White, Sean Jones, Santana Dotson, Mike Prior, and Eugene Robinson on the other side of the ball. So maybe it isn't just offensive playmakers.
thats why some teams, the smart teams that is, add those type players because they think that player could be the difference maker, like Wolf did with Rison, again with Jackson, and also Howard.
And Anthony Morgan, Mark Ingram, and Terry Glenn? It's easy to say, we won a Super Bowl, so this has to be why, but Wolf also added Reggie White, Sean Jones, Santana Dotson, Mike Prior, and Eugene Robinson on the other side of the ball. So maybe it isn't just offensive playmakers.
and if it weren't for the 3 I mentioned Reggie may have never gotten a SB ring, Gute added a bunch of defensive players, and what do we have to show for that?
obviously having both a great defense and offense is best, but I'd rather chance it with great Offense and average defense then vice versa, points matter
just because some teams do it and it doesn't produce a Lombardi trophy doesn't mean teams shouldn't do it, or that it's a waste of resources.
Some teams DON'T do it and win the Lombardi.
Frankly, the Chiefs are not proof of the thing that you two are arguing; they are a counterexample. They have 1 star receiver, who is not even a WR, and then a bunch of guys who are not stars. The guys after Kelce are not even up-and-coming stars. They are JAGs, niche guys, or has-beens.
In fact, for the SB win, they DEFEATED a team that did what yous are advocating (Philly, who had way better weapons around the O).
And for all the complaining about not acquiring enough WR help through the draft, hoo boy, your heads would *explode* if we invested as little into it as KC. Check their draft history; they take the position way less seriously than we have.
“Most other nations don't allow a terrorist to be their leader.”
“... Yet so many allow their leaders to be terrorists.”—Magneto
KC's big FA WR spending spree last year (which, again, didn't put together any real Dream Team at WR, just a bunch of just Ehh guys) was owed to necessity, exactly because they didn't draft and develop anything great at the position than Tyreek Hill.
They since opted not to bring back Juju, the guy who was the most productive WR signing for them last year, without having anyone on their roster who has proven the ability to give his team similar receiving production.
What's this insanity Brett Veach has cooked up? Why do we defend this insanity?! KC is wasting Mahomes's prime!!!!
Just for the record, I am not -opposed- to having lots of good WR talent. My thing is that, for one thing, the people who are most militant about this have an unrealistic idea of what that means, and for two, I accept that it is one way to achieve the goal yet it is not the only way, which seems to be the mindset of the said militant crowd.
Last edited by Labrev on 17 Jul 2023 09:03, edited 1 time in total.
“Most other nations don't allow a terrorist to be their leader.”
“... Yet so many allow their leaders to be terrorists.”—Magneto
obviously having both a great defense and offense is best, but I'd rather chance it with great Offense and average defense then vice versa, points matter
Peyton Manning and the Broncos vs LOB in the Super Bowl. Patrick Mahomes against Tampa in the Super Bowl. The Jared Goff Rams against Belichick in the Super Bowl. That is in the last decade. When was the last time one of these great offenses won their teams a Super Bowl?
I am not saying offensive is not important, it certainly is, but it seems to me that balance wins out far more, especially lately, than any juggernaut offense than we have seen.
obviously having both a great defense and offense is best, but I'd rather chance it with great Offense and average defense then vice versa, points matter
Peyton Manning and the Broncos vs LOB in the Super Bowl. Patrick Mahomes against Tampa in the Super Bowl. The Jared Goff Rams against Belichick in the Super Bowl. That is in the last decade. When was the last time one of these great offenses won their teams a Super Bowl?
I am not saying offensive is not important, it certainly is, but it seems to me that balance wins out far more, especially lately, than any juggernaut offense than we have seen.
Yep and the Packers were an offensive juggernaut in 2011, and then ran into a front 4 against the Giants and it didn't matter who our WR's were.
just because some teams do it and it doesn't produce a Lombardi trophy doesn't mean teams shouldn't do it, or that it's a waste of resources.
Some teams DON'T do it and win the Lombardi.
Frankly, the Chiefs are not proof of the thing that you two are arguing; they are a counterexample. They have 1 star receiver, who is not even a WR, and then a bunch of guys who are not stars. The guys after Kelce are not even up-and-coming stars. They are JAGs, niche guys, or has-beens.
In fact, for the SB win, they DEFEATED a team that did what yous are advocating (Philly, who had way better weapons around the O).
And for all the complaining about not acquiring enough WR help through the draft, hoo boy, your heads would *explode* if we invested as little into it as KC. Check their draft history; they take the position way less seriously than we have.
whaaaa???? they've had at least 2 all pro receivers the last 6 years, and drafted 1 in the 2nd round the last 2 years.
obviously having both a great defense and offense is best, but I'd rather chance it with great Offense and average defense then vice versa, points matter
Peyton Manning and the Broncos vs LOB in the Super Bowl. Patrick Mahomes against Tampa in the Super Bowl. The Jared Goff Rams against Belichick in the Super Bowl. That is in the last decade. When was the last time one of these great offenses won their teams a Super Bowl?
I am not saying offensive is not important, it certainly is, but it seems to me that balance wins out far more, especially lately, than any juggernaut offense than we have seen.
Yep and the Packers were an offensive juggernaut in 2011, and then ran into a front 4 against the Giants and it didn't matter who our WR's were.
zipo run game, and a bottom 3rd defense, so they went prevent and pin there ears back rushing Rodgers, minus there ability to pressure Rodgers and they would have lost just as 15 other teams did, even a average ability to run and average defense and we win probably win the SB that season.
Last edited by Yoop on 17 Jul 2023 10:34, edited 1 time in total.
KC's big FA WR spending spree last year (which, again, didn't put together any real Dream Team at WR, just a bunch of just Ehh guys) was owed to necessity, exactly because they didn't draft and develop anything great at the position than Tyreek Hill.
They since opted not to bring back Juju, the guy who was the most productive WR signing for them last year, without having anyone on their roster who has proven the ability to give his team similar receiving production.
What's this insanity Brett Veach has cooked up? Why do we defend this insanity?! KC is wasting Mahomes's prime!!!!
Just for the record, I am not -opposed- to having lots of good WR talent. My thing is that, for one thing, the people who are most militant about this have an unrealistic idea of what that means, and for two, I accept that it is one way to achieve the goal yet it is not the only way, which seems to be the mindset of the said militant crowd.
I'am not militant about this, anyone who thinks our WR room was sufficient between 2015 and 2022 is on crack for christ sakes, get out with your name calling.
lets get this straight, anyone here that supports building a team spending every high pick on defense is the militant one, anyone that supports having Adams and a bunch of very raw talent to end a HOF QB's career I consider the militant ones.
you people cry about not having more Lombardi's, yet over look these beyond obvious short comings are the militant ones, you have no idea what to complain about so you just blame the QB.
you people cry about not having more Lombardi's, yet over look these beyond obvious short comings are the militant ones, you have no idea what to complain about so you just blame the QB.
you people cry about not having more Lombardi's, yet over look these beyond obvious short comings are the militant ones, you have no idea what to complain about so you just blame the QB.
No one is talking about the QB other than you.
Yep, in fact, I'd say if you were just to scan any posts that assign blame for us not having more trophies during Rodger's career in GB, you'd probably find the most of them blaming mediocre play on defense, game planning, crapping the bed against the Seahawks, etc. The only time I've seen Rodger's name come up is mentioning that it would have been great if he had a vintage moment where he carried the team on his back and masked the shortcomings mentioned above, but I haven't seen any posts (maybe other than the 2021 Divisional Round loss against SF for good reason) solely blaming Rodgers for the loss.
