2022 NFL Discussion Thread

[Fear The Chorizo]

What would GB following that even look like? GB was pretty much all in this season. It's pretty much inconceivable they return with as good a roster. You don't really have to be as good as they were to win a championship, but I'm not sure how the Packers go "all in".

 

Basically just doing the exact same thing they did to set their 2021 roster up, and then possibly having to swing some trades using draft capital or do some crazy cap gymnastics to keep their roster as loaded as it can be. If Rodgers wants to come back to GB I don't see how you don't do something like the Rams did in 2021, TB did in 2020/2021, or the Saints did in 2019/2020 - it will make the pain of crawling out from cap hell worse and take longer, but it's probably worth a shot doing whatever you can to run it back with as many players as you can next season.

[logan82]

I believe Young does get kind of overlooked.

 

Big time. His eight season stretch as a starter is the most dominant run in NFL history from an efficiency standpoint. Lead the league in RATE+ six of those seasons with still impressive 120 & 128 marks in the other two seasons.

 

Plus he is probably the best scrambler out of the QBs that come up in the best ever conversation.

 

My tiers are probably something like..

 

Young/Rodgers (efficiency masters)

Montana/Brady (if rings are more your thing)

Peyton/Favre/Brees/Marino (not as efficient as tier 1 / not as many rings as tier 2)

I never thought of Young as a top 5 quarterback(mind you this is coming as a lifelong 49ers fan) but my brother said he was. This was about 10 years ago we had a conversation and we both agreed Montana was #1. Before Brady was considered a GOAT and Rodgers had to many years under his belt. I think it is mostly disappointment Young only won one Super Bowl. Looking back though, he has the stats and was exactly what you want as a quarterback. Scrambled but was always pass first. On the other hand, he retired because of concussions so the scrambling probably cut his career a bit short. The rules of the time did not help either. It was rumored he was the fastest member of the team.

[adambr2]

I'm pretty much done lamenting the "what ifs" when someone else wins the Super Bowl. I've felt for probably half of the Super Bowls the last 10 years that the Packers were better than both teams on the field. Yet, those teams were on the field and the Packers were at home watching like they always are. For whatever reason they aren't the same team during the playoffs as they are during the regular season. It is what is. They haven't gotten the job done and we can only pin it on bad luck for so long.

[sveumrules]

For whatever reason they aren't the same team during the playoffs as they are during the regular season.

 

Most of the reason is because the level of competition is much more evenly matched in the playoffs than during the regular season. The randomness of a playoff game is exponentially higher than the randomness of 16/17 regular season games.

 

Outside of Brady/NE no other QB or franchise has multiple SB wins during the 14 seasons that Rodgers has been QB.

 

Could the Packers have convincingly been the 2nd best team of the last 14 years instead of just arguably the 2nd best team of the last 14 years? Sure.

 

But either way, whatever disappointments fans might have felt (or stopped feeling altogether over the years) have been bourne out of a level of success which was only clearly bettered by one franchise.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I think 0-4 in NFC title games since 2014 is part of that "what if" lamentation. getting beat in 2011 by a clearly inferior giants team. this year by a clearly inferior 49ers team. both in the divisional round.

 

sure, it's tougher opposition in the playoffs but 0-4 in the title game leaves almost anyone saying "they can't get it done when it counts"

[PeaveyFury]

Problem with that narrative is though, is that other than last year where they were basically a toss up/slightly favored because of the home game, they were heavy underdogs in the other three games. They essentially lost games they were supposed to lose.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I am not so sure that 2011 Giants team was all that inferior. All the Packers did that year was score a bunch of points, they were embarrassing defensively and gave up massive yards all year. They needed a FG as time expired to beat the Giants just a few weeks earlier. The Giants also had a bunch of injuries and only got their font 7 healthy at the tail end of the season. There WERE folks lamenting that they were going to be a match-up problem for the Packers.

 

I had trepidations about that Packers team. They won a lot of sloppy high-scoring games all year. You are always in jeopardy when so heavily dependent on one side of the game.

 

As Peavey said, I only really bemoan 2014 and this season. 2014 they obviously should have beaten Seattle, and this year, man, not even getting past a basically .500 team that lost the NFCCG. Holding that team without an offensive TD. That is just ineptitude.

 

One of the worst parts of that SF loss IMO is it gave a lot of credibility to a narrative that previously was just a dumb hot take. "Rodgers can't do it" and "they can't close" when a) they were usually expected to lose the games they lost and b) Rodgers lost a bunch of them while playing great and failing to score 40 points.

 

This year nothing like that happened; they just blew it against a crappy team.

[CheezWizHed]

The 2011 Giants got hot at the end of the year but I think by roster stand-point, they were clearly inferior.

[PeaveyFury]

The 2011 Giants got hot at the end of the year but I think by roster stand-point, they were clearly inferior.

 

I think this is fair and accurate. Though I think you could make the same statement about the 2010 Packers in a lot of ways. They were the red-hot team at the end of the year, not necessarily the best.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The 2011 Giants got hot at the end of the year but I think by roster stand-point, they were clearly inferior.

 

On offense, sure. On defense, no, I think they were vastly better, particularly up front.

 

22 y/o JPP, Osi, Tuck, and Chris Canty on the same front is just ridiculous. Kiwanuka was a 1st round pick.

 

The Packers had gotten through the year on forcing turnovers but they were really a sieve in terms of yardage. The blueprint for beating them was pretty clear, if you had a pass rush from a base defense and didn't turn the ball over you had a chance. For a 15-1 team, they played a good amount of close games.

 

Should they have won? Yeah I guess. But that loss doesn't look so ridiculous when the Giants went on to do the same thing two more times including against BB's Patriots.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The one that stings most to me is that NFCCG loss to the Seahawks - they may have been underdogs due to the Seattle being the reigning champs and playing that game on the road, but at the time they played that game I though GB was the better team even with a hobbled Rodgers. They dominated that game for 3 quarters until special teams and overly cautious offensive playcalling left the door open for Seattle to pull off a miracle comeback.

 

That 2011 Giants squad almost handed the Packers their first regular season loss in NY that season - there wasn't a vast talent gap between those teams.

 

The 2010 Packer team that won the Super Bowl was everyone's pick in the preseason due to their talent - then all the injuries hit and they scuffled through October-mid December. I think they were indeed the best team in the league in a down year, once they got Rodgers back from that concussion and still had good health in key spots it was easy to see on the field they were no ordinary 6 seed. ATL went 13-3 in a bad division that year, so they were ripe for knocking off as a #1 seed and the Packers' uneven regular season allowed the Bears to be a #2 seed who won their divisional playoff game against a Seahawk team who finished the regular season 7-9.

[homer]

I think Packers were top 5 in Off and Def efficiency going into the playoffs in 2010.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The one that stings most to me is that NFCCG loss to the Seahawks - they may have been underdogs due to the Seattle being the reigning champs and playing that game on the road, but at the time they played that game I though GB was the better team even with a hobbled Rodgers. They dominated that game for 3 quarters until special teams and overly cautious offensive playcalling left the door open for Seattle to pull off a miracle comeback.

 

This is still the top for me as well, with this season's loss to SF right behind it. The stakes were just too high to fail as they did so I can't see another loss ever topping that one, especially in the fashion they did so.

 

This year had more of "We'd win this game 99/100 times" feel to it. There were paths you could see for SF, but I don't think any of them involved Deebo having 80 all-purpose yards or Kittle having 60. They did absolutely nothing on offense and beat Aaron Rodgers. It just can't happen that way.

 

Homer touched on this but in 2010 they were really good. They didn't trail by more than 7 all season. Problem was that their offense, actually, was pretty bad in the first half of the season. There were back-to-back OT losses early on and a couple other heartbreakers (ATL, NE) and a loss to the Lions that Rodgers missed most of. They had a LOT of bad breaks but really were a 12-13-win if you read between the lines. By the end of the season nobody really wanted to play them, part of the reason the Bears had clinched the division but tried their best to keep them out of the playoffs in Week 17.

[PeaveyFury]

When was the last time the Lions held the last pick in the first round?

[nate82]

When was the last time the Lions held the last pick in the first round?

 

Unless it was from a trade I don't think they have and if they did it would be sometime in the late 90's early 2000's maybe.

[young guns]

When was the last time the Lions held the last pick in the first round?

 

Unless it was from a trade I don't think they have and if they did it would be sometime in the late 90's early 2000's maybe.

'53 and '54 were the only years they used the last pick of the first round to pick a player. I don't know I they've ever possessed it and traded it in other drafts.

[Vgmastr]

I wonder if this is the season the Packers finally get an international game, as they're the only team that hasn't played in one. After adding the 17th game teams will now be forced to give up a home game once every eight years. With the NFC getting the extra game this year it'll be interesting to see if they grab the Packers the first chance they get. If not this year, it'll be either '24, '26 or '28, assuming they're not an away team during one of the AFC's years, but part of the reason they've never played in one is teams don't want to give up a Green Bay game because Packer fans travel so well. With how well Packer fans travel, I think a Packer home game in London would a pretty cool atmosphere.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Problem with that narrative is though, is that other than last year where they were basically a toss up/slightly favored because of the home game, they were heavy underdogs in the other three games. They essentially lost games they were supposed to lose.

 

 

Even if that's the story, the other narrative (in this thread) is that "once you get to the playoffs, you're playing other tough teams", or "it's a crapshoot". On top of that, the Packers had Aaron "king of the regular season" Rodgers in all of those games. At some point, it's ok for the fans to say "wow, they haven't gotten it done in the last decade".

 

We had a pair of 4-seeds in the Super Bowl this year. Packers have had the 1-seed two years in a row and done nothing with it, and had the 1 seed in 2011. Blew a gimme in 2014. Got absolutely annihilated by the Falcons and the 49ers. Yep, the Falcons were the "better" team. The Packers didn't even show up for that game. The 9'ers were the better team in 2019, and the Packers didn't even show up.

 

I'm not saying the Packers can, should have, could have won any of those games, but with Rodgers, and the amount of times they've made it to the NFC title game, and the amount of times they've been in the playoffs, and the amount of times they've had the 1-seed, ...... With the narrative being "anything can happen in the playoffs"........it's *fair* for fans to say "this team isn't performing up to expectations over the last decade in the playoffs. Nothing more (and definitely nothing less) than that.

[sveumrules]

Even with admittedly not performing up to expectations in the postseason during the Rodgers era, they still have the 2nd most postseason wins over that time frame. QB Postseason Records Since 2008...

 

Brady: 23-10 (35-12 career)

Rodgers: 11-10

Russ Wilson: 9-7

Brees: 8-7 (9-9 career)

Big Ben: 8-8 (13-10 career)

Peyton: 7-6 (14-13 career)

 

Favre was 13-11 in the playoffs, Young was 8-6, Elway was 7-7 before Terrell Davis showed up, Marino was 8-10. Outside of Brady & Montana (16-7) even the best QBs of the last 30 years or so are all right around .500 for the postseason, which I believe backs up the idea that increased level of competition & randomness are a contributing factor.

 

I'd love it if AR12 (& the rest of the team) had capitalized on one of those other chances to make them definitively the 2nd best franchise of the last 14 years instead of just arguably the 2nd best franchise of the last 14 years, but hopefully that'll just make it all the sweeter when they pull it off next year. I mean hey...they're due!!

[tmwiese55]

have NFL espn show on background not paying much attention. They're going on and on about Kirk Cousins, basically saying how bad he is, the contract means they'll be forced to have another year with, they have to stomach it, etc. Meanwhile, his stats are on the bottom of the screen with the 4400 yds 33 TD and only 7 INTs.

[logan82]

Even with admittedly not performing up to expectations in the postseason during the Rodgers era, they still have the 2nd most postseason wins over that time frame. QB Postseason Records Since 2008...

 

Brady: 23-10 (35-12 career)

Rodgers: 11-10

Russ Wilson: 9-7

Brees: 8-7 (9-9 career)

Big Ben: 8-8 (13-10 career)

Peyton: 7-6 (14-13 career)

 

Favre was 13-11 in the playoffs, Young was 8-6, Elway was 7-7 before Terrell Davis showed up, Marino was 8-10. Outside of Brady & Montana (16-7) even the best QBs of the last 30 years or so are all right around .500 for the postseason, which I believe backs up the idea that increased level of competition & randomness are a contributing factor.

 

I'd love it if AR12 (& the rest of the team) had capitalized on one of those other chances to make them definitively the 2nd best franchise of the last 14 years instead of just arguably the 2nd best franchise of the last 14 years, but hopefully that'll just make it all the sweeter when they pull it off next year. I mean hey...they're due!!

A .500 record in the playoffs probably means you made it to the championship game often. Especially if your team was #1 or #2 going in.

[TURBO]

Any doubt as to Brady being the GOAT for anyone should have disappeared by now...

[sveumrules]

Any doubt as to Brady being the GOAT for anyone should have disappeared by now...

 

Brady definitely has won the most Super Bowls of any QB.

 

But does that mean he was the GOAT or does it mean he was a really good QB who got to spend most of his career with one of the best HCs of all time?

 

For me personally its more of the latter than the former.

[TURBO]

Any doubt as to Brady being the GOAT for anyone should have disappeared by now...

 

Brady definitely has won the most Super Bowls of any QB.

 

But does that mean he was the GOAT or does it mean he was a really good QB who got to spend most of his career with one of the best HCs of all time?

 

For me personally its more of the latter than the former.

 

ok, but that is funny to me.

 

His stats, his wins, his playoff wins, his super bowl wins, what more can it take to understand that the guy is just flat out the best to ever play the game.

 

Of course his coach had something to do with it, but could any QB have done what he has done based on who his coach is?

 

I mean, he did pretty damn well after leaving that coach as well.

 

Nope, I don't think it can be argued any longer that Brady is the GOAT, period...

[CheezWizHed]

I'll admit that you have to take a very narrow focus to not see Brady as the best. The point of football isn't to score TDs, gain yards, or not throw INTs. It is to win and win championships. That is why people say Bart Starr was better than Rodgers or Favre.

 

Brady had an incredible knack to win when the pressure was on and elevating those around him. I'd trade Favre+Rodger's legacies if it meant winning 7 Super Bowls and losing another 3. Sorry, but that is what it is about...