2025-26 NFL Playoffs Thread

[OldSchoolSnapper]

13 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

So the reasonable takeaway is we and every fan of an NFL team should expect 10 super bowl appearances in a 25 year span? I'm not sure that's the argument to use to counter people that say Packers fans are spoiled. I understand the angle of the Patriots revamping their team post Brady/Belichick but one super bowl appearance out of a worst to first team doesn't exactly convince me that should be widely accepted as normal. I'm more inclined to believe it supports randomness.

I'm open to hearing about a more average expectation and what that should look like.

And I'm not one that's claiming we're spoiled either. We've had some pretty hard bounces since 2011. I would have expected at least one super bowl appearance since then and I think a case can be made for 2 to 3 more at minimum. Emphasis on appearance, winning a super bowl is a whole other thing.

I just think it is and continues to be really hard to get there. That there are a tiny number of teams that have achieved a volume of appearances like the Patriots, Chiefs and Eagles over the past 20 years pretty firmly feels like the exception, not the rule.

Denver, LA and Seattle would have all been qualifying for their 3rd Super Bowl since the Packers last appearance. San Francisco has also played in three. Philadelphia too. Kansas City. Some of these teams have done it with entire regime changes of either the star QB, coach, or both. Toss in New England and that is 7/32, nearly 25% of the league.

Is getting to the Super Bowl hard? Sure, okay. Is it this ultra-Herculean task that is continually parroted to the point we are expected to be thankful for getting knocked out in the Wild Card? No, it's not. 

The issue becomes having it both ways. We are told to be thankful for how well-run the team is, despite what is becoming overwhelming evidence that a lot of teams are run much better. I don't quite see why it's controversial to be better than the Jets and want more. And there is not much hard evidence we're on the cusp. We appear to be about 14th consistently. The last team in the dance and the first one out. Yet we are the Great Green Bay Packers of Titletown - it's weird to me that people take issue with fans being disappointed in the results lately. This is not a place that's supposed to be happy about losing the Wild Card or Divisional.

This team is decent but stagnating. And it has cemented its reputation right now as likely the biggest choking team in the sport. And wha'ts worse, they seem happy about it, doling out extensions and raises to the brass for being average.

[SeaBass]

2 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Denver, LA and Seattle would have all been qualifying for their 3rd Super Bowl since the Packers last appearance. San Francisco has also played in three. Philadelphia too. Kansas City. Some of these teams have done it with entire regime changes of either the star QB, coach, or both. Toss in New England and that is 7/32, nearly 25% of the league.

That's exactly it, 3 to 4 appearances in a 20ish year span kind of feels reasonable for a well run organization. That leaves plenty of room for the other 75% of the league to have teams that get 1 or none in that same span. I just said I think it would be reasonable to think the Packers should have had 2 to 3 more appearances since 2011 and I think that tracks with this statement. They've just failed when those years came and that happens too.

[adambr2]

23 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

So the reasonable takeaway is we and every fan of an NFL team should expect 10 super bowl appearances in a 25 year span? I'm not sure that's the argument to use to counter people that say Packers fans are spoiled. I understand the angle of the Patriots revamping their team post Brady/Belichick but one super bowl appearance out of a worst to first team doesn't exactly convince me that should be widely accepted as normal. I'm more inclined to believe it supports randomness.

I'm open to hearing about a more average expectation and what that should look like.

And I'm not one that's claiming we're spoiled either. We've had some pretty hard bounces since 2011. I would have expected at least one super bowl appearance since then and I think a case can be made for 2 to 3 more at minimum. Emphasis on appearance, winning a super bowl is a whole other thing.

I just think it is and continues to be really hard to get there. That there are a tiny number of teams that have achieved a volume of appearances like the Patriots, Chiefs and Eagles over the past 20 years pretty firmly feels like the exception, not the rule. I'm not even sure the Eagles should be included on that list. It's pretty much just been Patriots and Chiefs.

Super Bowl appearances since our most recent:

Seahawks 3
Patriots 6
Chiefs 5
Eagles 3
49ers 3
Broncos 2
Rams 2
Bucs
Bengals
Falcons
Panthers
Ravens
Giants

It is not as hard as we make it out to be. It should not be this hard for an organization that seems to have an internal belief and belief among their fanbase that they are very well-run. It should not be this hard for an organization that has benefited from high end QB play for almost this entire stretch.

[adambr2]

11 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

That's exactly it, 3 to 4 appearances in a 20ish year span kind of feels reasonable for a well run organization. That leaves plenty of room for the other 75% of the league to have teams that get 1 or none in that same span. I just said I think it would be reasonable to think the Packers should have had 2 to 3 more appearances since 2011 and I think that tracks with this statement. They've just failed when those years came and that happens too.

A lot more teams would be on the list if we included “shoulda, but failed when we had a chance.”

Lions, Bills, Saints, Jags, to name a few. 49ers, Chiefs, and even Patriots would be on this list numerous more times.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

23 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

That's exactly it, 3 to 4 appearances in a 20ish year span kind of feels reasonable for a well run organization. That leaves plenty of room for the other 75% of the league to have teams that get 1 or none in that same span. I just said I think it would be reasonable to think the Packers should have had 2 to 3 more appearances since 2011 and I think that tracks with this statement. They've just failed when those years came and that happens too.

It isn't 20 years though. For the teams mentioned it's 8-13. For the stability and QB talent GB had, it damn well should be better than 1 in the last 28 years. That's organizational failure. You can have bad bounces. Having them nearly every year you are good enough is a sign of something else. You have the wrong people somewhere.

Did Ted Thompson really do enough to support Aaron Rodgers? 

Has Gute gotten enough from his draft picks to supplement the roster?

Can MLF coach his way out of a wet paper bag?

I think the answers to those questions are more telling than bad luck.

[SeaBass]

18 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Super Bowl appearances since our most recent:

Seahawks 3
Patriots 6
Chiefs 5
Eagles 3
49ers 3
Broncos 2
Rams 2
Bucs
Bengals
Falcons
Panthers
Ravens
Giants

It is not as hard as we make it out to be. It should not be this hard for an organization that seems to have an internal belief and belief among their fanbase that they are very well-run. It should not be this hard for an organization that has benefited from high end QB play for almost this entire stretch.

Discounting the 1 appearance teams, since 2 teams are guaranteed to go every season, that's 20% of the leagues teams that made it twice or more. It feels reasonable to say good teams have a better chance at having multiple shots in a short time span.

11 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

A lot more teams would be on the list if we included “shoulda, but failed when we had a chance.”

Lions, Bills, Saints, Jags, to name a few. 49ers, Chiefs, and even Patriots would be on this list numerous more times.

So it is hard then?

I'm not denying the Packers have underachieved here. I was in favor of revamping leadership as well. I don't know, I think we should be doing better and I still think it's a hard game. Can both be true?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think the problem is that the Packers still walk around with a badge that says "Titletown" and "Best franchise in sports" when they are getting lapped by the Seahawks rolling over with Sam Darnold and the Eagles firing their entire staff, sending off their 1st round QB for a new one and achieving more. The 49ers, Patriots, etc. are also doing it with entire franchise makeovers.

I don't want to hear the lame excuse that anyone got a "top pick" either. That is a guarantee of absolutely nothing. These teams deserve all the credit they get. The Packers are complacent to be what they are. THAT is the root of the issue. The problems they currently face are the result of bad drafting and bad contracts.

When they have legit chances, they choke or suck. Is there another coach in the NFL who would kick a FG at 31-23 in the NFCCG with the best player in the world at QB? Go for it and miss and then at least we don't have to wonder if we would have scored.

[adambr2]

22 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

Discounting the 1 appearance teams, since 2 teams are guaranteed to go every season, that's 20% of the leagues teams that made it twice or more. It feels reasonable to say good teams have a better chance at having multiple shots in a short time span.

So it is hard then?

I'm not denying the Packers have underachieved here. I was in favor of revamping leadership as well. I don't know, I think we should be doing better and I still think it's a hard game. Can both be true?

Sure. It seems to be hard for all but a handful of teams in the league, and we are not among that handful. 

My biggest gripe is that we’ve had high end QB play basically by default almost the entire time. The biggest piece of the puzzle has been in place. You should not have a 16 year drought with that in place. 

Especially in a conference that has generally been wide open. We’ve had no Patrick Mahomes to compete with. No Tom Brady (except for a very short time). 

Meanwhile, the Sam Darnolds and Nick Foles of the world are getting there. Drake Maye, in his second season. 

This isn’t an indictment of Aaron Rodgers and Jordan Love but rather an indictment of an organization that is by and large, failing them.

[adambr2]

I think the career of AJ Hawk is the perfect facsimile for the modern Green Bay Packers.

Top 5 picks, super high expectations…and never really lived up to them. But, he was competent. So we payed him. And he continued to be competent, but never great.

That’s today’s Packers. I don’t think Matt Lafleur is a bad coach, I think he’s a very average one, and the organization is happy with that. Brian Gutekunst is not a bad GM, he’s a very average one, and the organization is happy with that.

We don’t look at teams like the Chiefs and Patriots and think, “we really want to be more like them.”

We look at teams like the Jets and Browns and say “we really don’t want to become them.”

So as a result, we’ve become the NFC’s Steelers, with a slightly higher ceiling and a slightly lower floor.

[yourout]

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, adambr2 said:

I think the career of AJ Hawk is the perfect facsimile for the modern Green Bay Packers.

Top 5 picks, super high expectations…and never really lived up to them. But, he was competent. So we payed him. And he continued to be competent, but never great.

That’s today’s Packers. I don’t think Matt Lafleur is a bad coach, I think he’s a very average one, and the organization is happy with that. Brian Gutekunst is not a bad GM, he’s a very average one, and the organization is happy with that.

We don’t look at teams like the Chiefs and Patriots and think, “we really want to be more like them.”

We look at teams like the Jets and Browns and say “we really don’t want to become them.”

So as a result, we’ve become the NFC’s Steelers, with a slightly higher ceiling and a slightly lower floor.

You nailed it..

We are the poster child for c+ football

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think some people are putting too much into the Pats' quick turnaround post Belichek, when that team pretty much was below average to stinking after Brady left following the 2019 season.  They were an afterthought until Vrabel pulled everything together this year - and they caught some seriously convenient breaks.

They hit a home run with Maye with the #2 overall pick last season (he's been decent but not setting the playoff world on fire), spent a ton of money in free agency because they had enormous cap room, and then walked through 3 games of playoffs in the AFC without having to beat Mahomes, Jackson, or Allen.  Their defense will keep them in the Super Bowl, but I'd be surprised if they win - and I think it's easy to see them being among the teams who got to a Super Bowl once in a 10-15 year stretch.

Lose and you're out in the NFL playoffs deals harsh doses of reality to teams with coaches who let the moment get to them - unfortunately I think MLF is one of those coaches and he just got extended.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

31 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

I think some people are putting too much into the Pats' quick turnaround post Belichek, when that team pretty much was below average to stinking after Brady left following the 2019 season.  They were an afterthought until Vrabel pulled everything together this year - and they caught some seriously convenient breaks.

They hit a home run with Maye with the #2 overall pick last season (he's been decent but not setting the playoff world on fire), spent a ton of money in free agency because they had enormous cap room, and then walked through 3 games of playoffs in the AFC without having to beat Mahomes, Jackson, or Allen.  Their defense will keep them in the Super Bowl, but I'd be surprised if they win - and I think it's easy to see them being among the teams who got to a Super Bowl once in a 10-15 year stretch.

 

Mahomes and Jackson weren't even in the playoffs and Allen and Jackson don't seem to be blocking too many guys from making the Super Bowl, so I don't know what merit that holds. In any case, they had an opportunity and maximized it, that's precisely what the Packers don't do. They had a #1 seed and faced Jimmy Garopollo and lost. They had a 21-6 lead over Caleb Williams in the 4th quarter and choked. They would have gone on to face Sam Darnold. I think they would have gotten smashed in Seattle, but they also would have had a path this year that didn't include facing any world-beater QB unless they'd played Stafford in the CG.

I mean arguably their best team of the last 3 seasons lost to Brock Purdy in a game they probably should have won. I think we're well past being able to attribute what New England does to good luck or what GB does to bad luck.

[adambr2]

28 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Mahomes and Jackson weren't even in the playoffs and Allen and Jackson don't seem to be blocking too many guys from making the Super Bowl, so I don't know what merit that holds. In any case, they had an opportunity and maximized it, that's precisely what the Packers don't do. They had a #1 seed and faced Jimmy Garopollo and lost. They had a 21-6 lead over Caleb Williams in the 4th quarter and choked. They would have gone on to face Sam Darnold. I think they would have gotten smashed in Seattle, but they also would have had a path this year that didn't include facing any world-beater QB unless they'd played Stafford in the CG.

I mean arguably their best team of the last 3 seasons lost to Brock Purdy in a game they probably should have won. I think we're well past being able to attribute what New England does to good luck or what GB does to bad luck.

The Packers play in the NFC, a wide open conference where pretty much every team has weaknesses that can be exploited. No elite QBs unless you count Jalen Hurts who is plenty vulnerable.

Other teams who took a shot on HOF level quarterbacks capitalized and won Super Bowls, not necessarily because of those QBs alone, but because they surrounded those QBs with great coaching and a sufficient supporting cast to win. The Broncos with Peyton Manning, then the Bucs with Tom Brady.

The Steelers with Aaron Rodgers were pretty much the Packers with Aaron Rodgers.

[adambr2]

Basically, we can’t discount or downplay anyone else’s path to the Super Bowl. The Patriots had to beat 3 NFL playoff teams to get to where they are.

That’s as many playoff wins alone as Matt Lafleur has in his entire tenure. 

No one is taking anything away from our 2010-11 run because we the NFC was down that year, nor should they.

[JosephC]

3 hours ago, adambr2 said:

Super Bowl appearances since our most recent:

Seahawks 3
Patriots 6
Chiefs 5
Eagles 3
49ers 3
Broncos 2
Rams 2
Bucs
Bengals
Falcons
Panthers
Ravens
Giants

It is not as hard as we make it out to be. It should not be this hard for an organization that seems to have an internal belief and belief among their fanbase that they are very well-run. It should not be this hard for an organization that has benefited from high end QB play for almost this entire stretch.

One thing I just noticed is...look at how this list is dominated by old head coaches.  And not only old head coaches, but how many of these old head coaches had either failed at a previous head coaching job or got pushed out of a different head coaching job for one reason or another?

Sure, you have some young guys like Sirianni who I would say is a dominant name on the list.  But Belichick, Reid, Carroll, Arians, and Fox.  Guys like Kubiak and Quinn didn't get their first head coaching job until they were well into their 40s.  Not a lot of hot-shots hired when they were 38 years old for their first NFL job seem to be showing up on that list for the team that hired him at that age.

[adambr2]

7 minutes ago, JosephC said:

One thing I just noticed is...look at how this list is dominated by old head coaches.  And not only old head coaches, but how many of these old head coaches had either failed at a previous head coaching job or got pushed out of a different head coaching job for one reason or another?

Sure, you have some young guys like Sirianni who I would say is a dominant name on the list.  But Belichick, Reid, Carroll, Arians, and Fox.  Guys like Kubiak and Quinn didn't get their first head coaching job until they were well into their 40s.  Not a lot of hot-shots hired when they were 38 years old for their first NFL job seem to be showing up on that list for the team that hired him at that age.