Skip to main content

You presented 2 different choices, which one would you choose

1. TT "goes for it", the defense gets better, and the offense keep humming along. You see that in the next 5 years. the Packers win a Super Bowl, and make the playoffs 2 other years ( No Super Bowl win ), miss playoffs 2 other years.

2. Ted sits on his hands, and keeps doing what he does. The Packers make the playoffs all 5 years. 2 of those years they make it to the NFC Championship ( 1 in Green Bay, and 1 on the road ), but you do not know the outcome of either NFC title game.

Which one would you choose?

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

So you can have 2 chances in 2 different seasons to win just 2 games to win a Super Bowl (Option 2) or no chance to win a Super Bowl (Option 1).

Is this a joke or just a loaded choice designed to engender support for TT staying the course?

 

Hmmm Slobby, this is an interesting question. You kinda stack the deck a bit for number 2, IMO. However, I will choose #1 as sitting on his hands hasn't worked so far except for a year where I will say they caught a bit of a break with their playoff draws. Let's just say that Philly, Atl and Chicago that year wouldn't stack up too well (IMO) to any of the three the club played this year. Give me the sure thing!

Note: If Slobby was magic and he could actually make one of these that wouldn't be much fun!

Option 2  We are a spoiled bunch, and I love that GB has been in the playoffs for such a long string of years. I obviously would love to win the SB every year, but there's also no denying IMO that this past season for example was a blast.

That we get to be in the race each and every year is such a treat. I'll take that every time, thank you.

Option 1 is basically a worse version of what has happened in real life. Packers win SB in 2010, make the playoffs in 2011, 2012, fast forward to 2015 and many fans are complaining about the fact that we haven't won a SB in 5 years. The big difference between real life and Option 1 is that the Packers MADE the playoffs the following two years and didn't have to "go for it". So why, in this scenario, is that option suddenly so appealing? That's real life and you all hate it. 

Why appealing?

1.  A championship is won and no hands were sat on.

2. No guarantee for a championship and hands were sat on which likely allows for a couple of units being woefully overmatched come playoff time.

That's my opinion and I am sticking to it! I also suspect Slobby wasn't looking for 100 replies picking option 2 ( or maybe he was).

SteveLuke posted:

So you can have 2 chances in 2 different seasons to win just 2 games to win a Super Bowl (Option 2) or no chance to win a Super Bowl (Option 1).

Is this a joke or just a loaded choice designed to engender support for TT staying the course?

 

Well you win 1 super Bowl with option 1

Slobknocker posted:
SteveLuke posted:

So you can have 2 chances in 2 different seasons to win just 2 games to win a Super Bowl (Option 2) or no chance to win a Super Bowl (Option 1).

Is this a joke or just a loaded choice designed to engender support for TT staying the course?

 

Well you win 1 super Bowl with option 1

Got it, that makes the choice more complicated.

Packers win the next 5 Super Bowls while giving up 35+ points per game in each win. Rodgers wins SB MVP 5x.

McStupidFace.com is the #1 web-site in 'Murica, just slightly ahead of FireCapers.com, since he is still the DC.

Janis is still on the team as a gunner. Career receiving stats: 37 catches, 1151 yards, 15 TDs, 132 drops. 

guaranteed Supper Bowls rarely work out. I would like to spend some money on some big hitter FAs on D though. I think one pass rusher, one Middle guy and 2 D backs would do it. Draft O line and resign Perry and Lacy.   but that's just me

 

Grave Digger posted:

Option 2. Always option 2. Give yourself a chance to win a SB every year or guarantee 1 and then not have a chance other years. I'll always take the chance to win 5 SBs over a 1 and done. 

How do they have a chance to win 5?  Option 2 says they make playoffs all 5 but only get to NFCCG in 2 of those years.  

It's basically 1 SB win vs. chance but no guarantee of 2 SB wins (having to win the NFCC to even get that chance).  I don't see it as clear cut.  

DH13 posted:
Grave Digger posted:

Option 2. Always option 2. Give yourself a chance to win a SB every year or guarantee 1 and then not have a chance other years. I'll always take the chance to win 5 SBs over a 1 and done. 

How do they have a chance to win 5?  Option 2 says they make playoffs all 5 but only get to NFCCG in 2 of those years.  

It's basically 1 SB win vs. chance but no guarantee of 2 SB wins (having to win the NFCC to even get that chance).  I don't see it as clear cut.  

Agreed.  We've been the NFCC two out of the last three seasons, and that hasn't led to another Lombardi.  Been there, done that.  As a result, I get the sinking feeling that we've wasted three years of Rodgers' prime.  

This has been discussed ad nauseum, but I'll say it again.  You look at the teams that have won Super Bowls over the past decade, and it becomes clear that in addition to drafting well, you must also supplement your roster via free agency.  TT has failed to adequately do that.  As a result, the Packers have consistently fallen short.  

If we continue to do the same, you can't expect different results.  There is a good chance that we'll continue to make the playoffs, but fail to win it all.  That's unacceptable, especially when you have a player of Rodgers' caliber at the most important position.  Other teams seem to capitalize on having a great QB (e.g., Manning, Brady, etc.).  We should be able to do the same.  

Really, scenario brings us to the old saying, "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush."  If you could assure me that a specific course of action would get the Packers their second Lombardi with Rodgers under center, I would take that in a second.  With that in mind, I'll go against the majority and state that I would choose No. 1.     

The way I read it is that they go to the playoffs 5 years and you know they go to the NFCC 2 years, implying that you only know for sure they advance in 2 of the 5 years, but the other 3 years you don't know. I read it as those other 3 years are a mystery, but maybe I'm wrong. 

Even if you're right, it's still pretty clear cut. I will take a playoff birth over missing the playoffs, at a minimum you are first in the division or you're second, but still have a good overall record. If you miss the playoffs you're guaranteed to be 2nd in the division and be at or barely above .500. 

Lambeau Lobo posted:

....  You look at the teams that have won Super Bowls over the past decade, and it becomes clear that in addition to drafting well, you must also supplement your roster via free agency.  TT has failed to adequately do that.  As a result, the Packers have consistently fallen short.  

Psst. The Packers are one of those teams that have won a Super Bowl in the last decade. TT has only recently fallen short...but I get your point. 

As for the original question : If you could be guaranteed one Super Bowl win vs. a chance at two others. I take the sure thing. The taste of NFCC failure is fresh...and it tastes bad.  

Lambeau Lobo posted:

This has been discussed ad nauseum, but I'll say it again.  You look at the teams that have won Super Bowls over the past decade, and it becomes clear that in addition to drafting well, you must also supplement your roster via free agency.  TT has failed to adequately do that.  As a result, the Packers have consistently fallen short.  



Free agency is often the price paid for drafting poorly. If you're drafting well then you don't need free agents, which has been the case on the Packers offense. On the defense though they haven't drafted well overall, but aren't bringing free agents to supplement. 

Of the last 10 SB winners, the only team that has heavily invested in free agents over draft/develop has been the Broncos. Elway didn't want to wait on development, he pursued as many FA's as he could afford, but even then only 9/22 starters were NOT drafted by Denver. New England hasn't invested heavily in FAs, of their 22 starters only 2 of them were NOT drafted by New England (Alan Branch, Marty Bennett). The Seattle SB defense from 2013, all Seattle draft picks, they supplemented on offense 4/11. New Orleans in 2009 had 6 out of 22 non-New Orleans draft picks. For the record, the 2016 Packers had 3 starters who weren't Packer draft picks, it seems as though TT is keeping pace with other teams. He's just missing on defensive players. 

Packdog posted:
Lambeau Lobo posted:

....  You look at the teams that have won Super Bowls over the past decade, and it becomes clear that in addition to drafting well, you must also supplement your roster via free agency.  TT has failed to adequately do that.  As a result, the Packers have consistently fallen short.  

Psst. The Packers are one of those teams that have won a Super Bowl in the last decade. TT has only recently fallen short...but I get your point. 

I understand that.  And we had a key free agent on that team by the name of Charles Woodson.  He kinda played a critical role on the squad.  

While he obviously wasn't a big name at the time, Tramon Williams also joined the team as a free agent.  

The Packers don't win either of their past two Super Bowls without the contributions of key free agents.  

Tramon was a UDFA who went through TC with the Texans, was cut in August, and then signed to GB in November. I guess technically he was a UFA, but not really much different a signing than Geronimo Allison or Ladarius Gunter. It's true though that Woodson was a key signing, but he had also been with GB for 5 years prior to the SB. It's not like he was a last minute addition that put them over the top, he had been with GB almost as long as he was with Oakland (8 years in Oakland, 5 in GB at that point). Probably the best acquisitions made that year which were out of character for TT were two very Bill Belichick moves: Erik Walden and Howard Green. Neither one was expensive but we got a big return on investment with both. Their stat lines aren't super impressive, but they were both great depth and the play at OLB and NT didn't drop off much at all when the starters needed a rest. 

Last edited by Grave Digger
Grave Digger posted:

Free agency is often the price paid for drafting poorly. If you're drafting well then you don't need free agents, which has been the case on the Packers offense. On the defense though they haven't drafted well overall, but aren't bringing free agents to supplement. 

The difference with GB being that they're annually drafting at the bottom of every round.  Hard to build a great offense from that position.  Doubly hard to build a great offense AND great defense.  Or even good defense.  Look at the impact just one draft at a higher position had on our team in 2009 with CM3 and Raji.  I'm pretty sure you can trace many of the recent SB teams (not just winners because the games have been close) back to drafting higher than the last 8 spots at some recent point in building their current roster.  NE and GB, maybe PIT are the only teams in the last 10 SB's that haven't been able at some point to draft high in each round.

You're left with two remedies.  You draft better - ok. tell us how this is done?  Or you take more risks in bringing in FA's.  The side benefit of the FA's is they can settle positions that have too much youth.

Except FA's are generally worth a lot less than they actually command on the open market. Maybe from a need standpoint, but if you're managing your cap responsibly then you're not pursuing most FA's unless you can get them to take less than fair market value. Most of the time that doesn't work, it works for BB sometimes because guys like Marty Bennett (who he didn't even sign) want to play for a ring. 

Drafting is a crapshoot. TT seems to prefer to go with safer picks, less bust but less boom. Guys that are super talented that make it to GB in the draft are there for a reason, it seems he tends to shy away from those guys. Alec Ogletree probably could have come in to GB and locked down the ILB position like he's done in LA, but he had some character concerns that ultimately led them to pick a safer pick with less upside in Datone Jones. TT doesn't want to get burned on a guy who can't keep together long enough to avoid a DUI, so he won't take a chance on a "bad boy" who might end up being a star. He needs to shift his qualifying ratio of character:talent more toward talent I think...that's not to say we need to bring in scumbags like Greg Hardy, but he took a chance on big mouth Mike Daniels and it's paid off. 

bvan posted:
Goalline posted:

Bring back Mike Sherman the GM.

He's turning Fedya-ese
I think he's turning Fedya-ese
I really think so

He's teaching me. I actually got a boner looking at a picture of Justine last week.

I would take the guaranteed Super Bowl any day.  But a "guaranteed" Super Bowl is fantasy, so in reality I'd go with option 2.  Too much randomness in a football season to put all your eggs into one year

bvan posted:
Goalline posted

He's teaching me. I actually got a boner looking at a picture of Justine last week.

Oh man, was it that sexy one in the coin headdress?

Actually, I was mistaken. It was Andre Agassi. So hard to tell them apart.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×