Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

A Hypothetical Question
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pugger


Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 8628
Location: N. Fort Myers, FL
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

byzr wrote:
if Rodgers goes down for the season right now i don't see a lot of hope. our commitment to running is not there and our defense just isn't consistent enough to get us to the top.
that being said we have been told we're going to nastier and run the ball so if that goes well then things could be really different.

Rodgers goes down 5-11


You really think so? Ted used 2 precious draft picks on RBs so I'm thinking we are going to truly try to be more balanced this season than any one before now.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Polaris


Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 3135
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm sorry, but the people who think Aaron Rodgers is the difference between us being a 13-3 team and a 5-11 team are just giving him way too much credit.

Rodgers is a top QB, and it's a QB driven league. But he's not worth 8 games all by himself.....that's an insult to the rest of the team, IMO.

We have an above-average defense, and above average special teams. We have an above average group of receivers. We've made some moves to improve our offensive line and run game. And we have an above average coaching staff.

The Patriots won 11 games without Brady a few years ago and while I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that our backups would do as good of a job as Cassell did I don't think that we're going to be one of the weakest teams in the league if Rodgers got hurt. IMO, that's just nonsense and pretty insulting to the rest of the team on top of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DavidatMIZZOU


Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 9666
Location: The ZOU
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polaris wrote:
I'm sorry, but the people who think Aaron Rodgers is the difference between us being a 13-3 team and a 5-11 team are just giving him way too much credit.

Rodgers is a top QB, and it's a QB driven league. But he's not worth 8 games all by himself.....that's an insult to the rest of the team, IMO.

We have an above-average defense, and above average special teams. We have an above average group of receivers. We've made some moves to improve our offensive line and run game. And we have an above average coaching staff.

The Patriots won 11 games without Brady a few years ago and while I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that our backups would do as good of a job as Cassell did I don't think that we're going to be one of the weakest teams in the league if Rodgers got hurt. IMO, that's just nonsense and pretty insulting to the rest of the team on top of it.


It isn't that I think Rodgers is worth 8 wins. I do think Harrell is worth at least 4 losses by himself though. Nothing he has done in the NFL has suggested otherwise. He makes decisions slow, he moves slow and he throws slow. He also trips over his own feet and fumbles when all he has to do is not turn the ball over for 1 play.
_________________
GO PACK GO!

mistakebytehlak wrote:

My god it must be so terrible to have three teams that consistently make the playoffs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pugger


Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 8628
Location: N. Fort Myers, FL
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, it is indictment against Harrell more than anything. Maybe Coleman will supplant Graham. He does have better physical tools than Harrell, that's for sure.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Polaris


Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 3135
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If it's an indictment of Harrell, aren't you also indicting M3 and TT and their ability to identify, acquire, and develop talent at the QB position? I mean, Harrell has been in the system for quite a while now....if he could single-handedly cost us four games then obviously M3 and TT don't know what they're doing?

Here's the answer: TT and M3 know what they're doing. Harrell isn't nearly the disaster that some here would have us believe. Rodgers isn't worth 8 games by himself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mikemike778


Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 250
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Casell did OK when Brady went down. If either of the back-ups did OK and could act as an adequate game manager we could get somewhere between 7 and 9 wins. If they didn't then probably 3-13.

And trade Coleman if that did example did happen.

Would people prefer say Harrell to come in do OK as a game manager take us to 7-9 keeping us competitive whilst never in much danger of any better than that or for us take 1st overall ? Not just 1st overall - your second becomes pretty much a late first, your third a late second etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 4464
Location: Evanston, IL
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mikemike778 wrote:
Casell did OK when Brady went down. If either of the back-ups did OK and could act as an adequate game manager we could get somewhere between 7 and 9 wins. If they didn't then probably 3-13.

And trade Coleman if that did example did happen.

Would people prefer say Harrell to come in do OK as a game manager take us to 7-9 keeping us competitive whilst never in much danger of any better than that or for us take 1st overall ? Not just 1st overall - your second becomes pretty much a late first, your third a late second etc.


When does a second become a second, then?

That's some weird reasoning.
_________________
Simian07:
Quote:
I'd argue Jordy is probably around the 30th-40th best receiver in the NFL, maybe 50th.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pugger


Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 8628
Location: N. Fort Myers, FL
PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polaris wrote:
If it's an indictment of Harrell, aren't you also indicting M3 and TT and their ability to identify, acquire, and develop talent at the QB position? I mean, Harrell has been in the system for quite a while now....if he could single-handedly cost us four games then obviously M3 and TT don't know what they're doing?

Here's the answer: TT and M3 know what they're doing. Harrell isn't nearly the disaster that some here would have us believe. Rodgers isn't worth 8 games by himself.


We'll see if Harrell has improved enough to show us he isn't a disaster when he performs in the preseason games this summer, won't we? I think Coleman has more raw talent than Graham has and I'll be disappointed if he doesn't win the #2 job when it is all said and done.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Polaris


Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 3135
PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pugger wrote:
Polaris wrote:
If it's an indictment of Harrell, aren't you also indicting M3 and TT and their ability to identify, acquire, and develop talent at the QB position? I mean, Harrell has been in the system for quite a while now....if he could single-handedly cost us four games then obviously M3 and TT don't know what they're doing?

Here's the answer: TT and M3 know what they're doing. Harrell isn't nearly the disaster that some here would have us believe. Rodgers isn't worth 8 games by himself.


We'll see if Harrell has improved enough to show us he isn't a disaster when he performs in the preseason games this summer, won't we? I think Coleman has more raw talent than Graham has and I'll be disappointed if he doesn't win the #2 job when it is all said and done.


. As a college QB, Harrell put up some unbelievable numbers

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/graham-harrell-1.html

Over 5000 yards in his junior and senior seasons? 93 TDs to 23 INTs? This is what you'd call "prolific". This is a better resume than Matt Flynn came with.

I suspect that Harrell is going to be the #2 this year, and I suspect that he's going to be a more capable QB than many here believe he can be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rbens06


Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 794
PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polaris wrote:
I'm sorry, but the people who think Aaron Rodgers is the difference between us being a 13-3 team and a 5-11 team are just giving him way too much credit.

Rodgers is a top QB, and it's a QB driven league. But he's not worth 8 games all by himself.....that's an insult to the rest of the team, IMO.

We have an above-average defense, and above average special teams. We have an above average group of receivers. We've made some moves to improve our offensive line and run game. And we have an above average coaching staff.

The Patriots won 11 games without Brady a few years ago and while I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that our backups would do as good of a job as Cassell did I don't think that we're going to be one of the weakest teams in the league if Rodgers got hurt. IMO, that's just nonsense and pretty insulting to the rest of the team on top of it.


For what the Patriots did with Cassell you can look at what happened to the Colts without Manning. That Colts team had a decent oline. It was young, but had some good pieces. The receiver core was solid, Addai was still a decent runner and the defense may not have been elite, but again had some good pieces. However, the Colts offense was never really able to get going. Peyton was the key to that engine and without him they just could not start. I undoubtedly believe that with Peyton the Colts would have been a playoff contending team. I also do not believe that saying Rodgers is worth 8 games is that big of an insult to the rest of the team. As you mentioned QB is the most important position on the team, there is a reason that most teams drafting in the top 5, and even top 10, had quarterback issues. You can have elite receivers, a good oline, and a solid running game, but if the quarterback cannot read and react to what is going on then there is a good chance the team is in for a long season.


Polaris wrote:
If it's an indictment of Harrell, aren't you also indicting M3 and TT and their ability to identify, acquire, and develop talent at the QB position? I mean, Harrell has been in the system for quite a while now....if he could single-handedly cost us four games then obviously M3 and TT don't know what they're doing?

Here's the answer: TT and M3 know what they're doing. Harrell isn't nearly the disaster that some here would have us believe. Rodgers isn't worth 8 games by himself.


I agree that McCarthy and TT know what they are doing, but I think you can still indict Harrell without going against either McCarthy or TT. First, we have had very good durability at the position during TT and McCarthy's tenure. We have never really had to go to our backup for a long stretch. This allows TT to spend more time, attention, and resources at other positions. I do not want it to sound like I think they do not care about the backup spot, but I think with an established, young quarterback that has proven to be durable they are able to focus elsewhere. Second, Harrell has only had one season at our number two QB, which was a season that we drafted a QB, albeit a 7th rounder. Finally, Harrell is undeniably a big drop off from Rodgers. Harrell does not have the experience of playing meaningful time in a meaningful NFL game. He is bound to read and react slower than Rodgers. This alone can cost a team some wins.

Polaris wrote:
As a college QB, Harrell put up some unbelievable numbers

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/graham-harrell-1.html

Over 5000 yards in his junior and senior seasons? 93 TDs to 23 INTs? This is what you'd call "prolific". This is a better resume than Matt Flynn came with.

I suspect that Harrell is going to be the #2 this year, and I suspect that he's going to be a more capable QB than many here believe he can be.


Harrell did have amazing numbers in college, but that does not make him a good NFL quarterback. I am not saying that he cannot or is not a ok backup to have, but just the college stats do not always translate. That was a very QB friendly system he played in and was somewhat ahead of its time. Also, if numbers really meant a lot he would have been drafted or at least signed as an undrafted free agent.

Overall, I think that if something did happen to Rodgers early in the season/preseason and we rolled with Harrell/Coleman we probably would end up between the Colts and Patriots scenario.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GreenReign


Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Posts: 314
Location: 31 Spooner St.
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mikemike778 wrote:
Casell did OK when Brady went down. If either of the back-ups did OK and could act as an adequate game manager we could get somewhere between 7 and 9 wins. If they didn't then probably 3-13.

And trade Coleman if that did example did happen.

Would people prefer say Harrell to come in do OK as a game manager take us to 7-9 keeping us competitive whilst never in much danger of any better than that or for us take 1st overall ? Not just 1st overall - your second becomes pretty much a late first, your third a late second etc.


Give me the 1st pick. I am of the mind set that if you miss the playoffs, then you my as well do it in a blaze of glory. What does 7 wins do for you? Absolutely nothing, knowing we would not make the playoffs, I would want us to get the best pick possible. I admit in 2005, I wanted us to lose week 17, and win the Bush/Williams sweepstakes. Instead we won week 17, and instead of picking 1st we pick 5th and end up with Hawk.

Call me less of a fan if you want, but when all hope is lost, it is better for the organization to get the best pick possible. Give me a choice between going 3-13 and picking Clowney or whatever other stud is on the board, or going 7-9, and picking 15th, I will take Clowney every time.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Polaris


Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 3135
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GreenReign wrote:

Give me the 1st pick. I am of the mind set that if you miss the playoffs, then you my as well do it in a blaze of glory.
.


Let's take a look at how many overall #1 picks have won a Super Bowl for the team that took them.

Going back to 1992 (start of the FA era):

Not Steve Emtman. Not Drew Bledsoe. Not Dan Wilkinson. Not Ki-jana Carter.Not Keyshawn Johnson.

But Orlando Pace did help the Rams win a Super Bowl. Peyton Manning got the Colts there. But Tim Couch, Courtney Brown, and Michael Vick didn't.

Neither did David Carr or Carson Palmer. Eli Manning did win Super Bowls, but not for the team that drafted him. Alex Smith and Jamarcus Russell didn't. Neither did Matt Stafford, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton, or anybody else.

So, in 20 years, you got one title from Peyton Manning. Orlando Pace helped, but wasn't nearly as important a piece as Marshall Faulk and some others. Eli Manning won two titles, but not for the team that drafted him.

Based on a 20 year history.....I'm not sure that first pick helps you that much unless there's a HOF QB available in the draft.

On the other hand, if you're a 7 win team that misses the playoffs, you can build the roster enough in one offseason to make the jump to a 10 win team that makes the playoffs.

So I think I'd rather be a 7 win team than a team that picks first in the draft.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wgbeethree


Joined: 15 Dec 2009
Posts: 3072
Location: Denver, CO via Racine, Wisconsin
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most teams that draft first are already devoid of talent and run by poor decision makers, hence them being the worst team in the league the year prior. One player isn't very likely to completely change that and even if they would those front offices are less likely to pick the "right" one.

That certainly isn't the case with the Packers. In most cases I'd agree with you that it's better to be a "mediocre" team than the "worst" because of what I pointed out that usually means. In this hypothetical scenario, for this team though I'd think the higher the pick the better. Give me Clowney and a healthy Rodgers in 2014 or if it's a career threatening injury the chance to add the best QB prospect to this team over a 7 win season.
_________________

TytybearsFan21 wrote:
Justo knows nothing about sportz

justo wrote:
I would be a terrible coach/anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Polaris


Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 3135
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Look to our own history.

We won the division 3 straight years and then in 2005 a few injuries combined with an "I don't give a crap" attitude from our QB and we sank to 4-12 and picked 5th. We only improved to 8-8 the following year and even if we'd had the first pick and taken Mario Williams instead of AJ Hawk it wouldn't have made much more of a difference on the W-L record.

Or you could look at the Colts. A perennial playoff team loses their QB, gets the first pick, and a franchise-caliber QB was available to them. They rebound to make the playoffs.

Some #1 picks are game-changers. Some aren't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rbens06


Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 794
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polaris wrote:
Look to our own history.

We won the division 3 straight years and then in 2005 a few injuries combined with an "I don't give a crap" attitude from our QB and we sank to 4-12 and picked 5th. We only improved to 8-8 the following year and even if we'd had the first pick and taken Mario Williams instead of AJ Hawk it wouldn't have made much more of a difference on the W-L record.

Or you could look at the Colts. A perennial playoff team loses their QB, gets the first pick, and a franchise-caliber QB was available to them. They rebound to make the playoffs.

Some #1 picks are game-changers. Some aren't.


I think this plays right into wgbeethree's theory/reasoning. At the time when we went 4-12 then to 8-8 TT was completely gutting and rebuilding this team. He inherited a bad cap situation and bit the bullet for that first season and rebounded nicely. Mario Williams, or whoever we would have taken at #1, probably would not have pushed us to the playoffs, but that is more of the roster we had at the time. Like wgbeethree give me that top pick, like Clowney, and a health Rodgers in 2014 over a mid round pick and a healthy Rodgers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group