Offseason 2021 - Trades, Free Agency, QB Carousel

eagle eye

el Fenomeno wrote:

So then, if Tampa Bay finish 9-8 next year and fail to make the playoffs, would you say that's a successful season?

It's a good season.

el Fenomeno

eagle eye wrote: »

It's a good season.

That settles that, so. I won't even bother.

[Deleted User]

eagle eye wrote: »

It's a good season.

I get this.

I remember the 80s when the Packers could never dream of winning seasons, 4 wins and not having the Bears run up the score and throw TDs to the Fridge was good.

It makes me a bit more accepting of the Packers failure to win a raft of SBs. I think 1 more would have been a fair return, but of all the playoff defeats tbh the Seahawks/Bostick one is the only one that really still bothers me.

Foxtrol

Conor74 wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what he said 2 days ago, that it was not about the Love pick, it was about character and culture? Which I thought was fairly insulting, implying he is a better character than others. And that is an age old flaw with him, making it clear he thinks he is not just an excellent quarterback, but a better person than others, always smarter, the eye rolls about McCarthy and the insults like "I desperately want to be coached" etc. Respect may well be an issue, but it's arguable that he's the person who has shown a lack of it, and for a lot longer, than was shown to him. And the aging employee disrespecting the business that pays him a lot of money can't be surprised to find that business lining up his successor.

That is fine but then the business and customers shouldn't be moaning when that aging employee then tries to push his way out. Seems like the usual NFL fan reaction - fine when the team is at it but how dare the player respond or act similarly. What makes the situation even more laughable, the business owner didn't even tell the aging employee's manager that they were hiring someone to replace him (the front office didn't tell LaFleur either).

Here is Alex Smith discussing it - note the respect Reid showed to Smith, similar to the respect the 49ers gave Garoppolo prior to finalizing their trade up, and the Vikings showed Cousins. These QBs weren't with those teams nearly as long or done as much for the teams yet the teams treated them with some level of decency.

https://twitter.com/MySportsUpdate/status/1397642172074180626?s=20

[Deleted User]

Foxtrol wrote: »

That is fine but then the business and customers shouldn't be moaning when that aging employee then tries to push his way out...

I fully agree with you, he is pushing his way out. The moan is that he himself doesn't seem to appreciate this, and is trying to portray it as him being pushed out.

Barney92

Foxtrol wrote: »

It wasn't because saying 16 years would mean two teams would have won more than one title and diluted your point?

Can you point me to even a team this century that has had better back to back QBs than the Packers? Having back to back GOAT conversation QBs and winning regular season games or making playoff runs that fail to even make it to Super Bowls isn't success to me. GB have had a competitive advantage over nearly every team they play each season and have little to show for it other than stats.

Foxtrol wrote: »

They have been to 1 Super Bowl this century, there have been about around 20 that have been to as many or more. If 20 teams isn't a compelling argument I don't know what is, especially when few of those teams had the competitive advantage of GOAT conversation QBs like the Packers.

I mean saying this century is also picking a timeline to suit your argument. Favre played in the 90s too. Since you've talked about back to back QBs we could start in 1992 (the beginning of his time with the Packers). Since 1992 seven teams have won multiple super bowls, Patriots (6), Broncos and Cowboys (both with three), and then Packers, Bucs, Steelers, Ravens and Giants (two for each of them). Packers are also joint 4th in number of Super Bowls played since the start of Favre's time. I'd rate them as being a good bit above average on both marks. Now obviously if you go further back there's a big dropoff for the Packers until you go far enough back to their winning days early on.

Going into those that have won multiple super bowls since the Packers have had the two QBs.

I think the Giants are a decent comparator for the Packers since 1992 in terms of Super Bowl success, both with two wins and one defeat over that time. Since 1992 the Packers have missed the playoffs 8 times, compared to 19 times for the Giants. Giants lost six times in their first match in the playoffs, same as the Packers even though the Packers made the playoffs 11 more times. So on Super Bowls they've identical records since Favre started. Obviously the Giants won some going back further than that but you did bring up the back-to-back QB thing so I'll stick with the time they actually had the back-to-back qbs. Would you say that the Giants and Packers have been equally successful?

Steelers have won 2 and lost 2 since Favre joined the Packers, missed the playoffs 10 times, and lost 7 times in their first game.

Bucs - missed the playoffs 21 times.

Cowboys - missed 15 playoffs, 6 defeats in first round

Ravens - 12 missed playoffs, although they were a new team in 96, 4 defeats in first round.

Pats - missed playoffs 8 times, but won 6 super bowls.

Perhaps the Packers have underperformed since 1992, in terms of super bowls won, given the quality they have had at QB, but their performance has been clearly a good bit above average since Favre joined (rather than ok to above average). They've been in the top five teams in the league since Favre joined, joint most playoff appearances, second most playoff wins, and have been gone on deep playoff runs fairly regularly. They were an onside kick recovery from a fourth super bowl appearance too, but a player made a mess of it not following his assignment. Can that be put down to the Packers not being in "win now" mode? Last season (officiating aside) has been mainly placed on poor coaching decisions (as well as an unfortunately bad game by King), with some of the defensive calls and decision making at the end scrutinized heavily. Sure the coaches might not be in "win now" mode either I suppose, not like the coaches don't have a massive incentive to win the Super Bowl or anything.

How many teams would you say have been more successful than the Packers over the period they've had their two QBs? I'd argue that the Patriots are the only ones that have been clearly more successful. You could also make the case for the Cowboys or Broncos because they have more super bowl wins, although I don't think have been on broader measures.

eagle eye

The Packers are regularly serious contenders for the Superbowl, that's success.

ELM327

Let's give a new participation trophy so.
Like a trophy in the EPL for reaching the champions league consistently.

Barney92

ELM327 wrote: »

Let's give a new participation trophy so.
Like a trophy in the EPL for reaching the champions league consistently.

I don't think anyone is saying the Packers are perfect or that they deserve some participation trophy (although in a way they have received one most years they've got to the playoffs in the form of a divisional title).

Anyway back to the topic at end, the front office has (for the most part) done a fairly good job over the years. However, decisions in recent years (including the Love pick) have led to them being judged as being further away from the Super Bowl than they have been in recent times. If they sort it out with Rodgers that could all change though.

cosatron

ELM327 wrote: »

Let's give a new participation trophy so.
Like a trophy in the EPL for reaching the champions league consistently.

U must of really hated following the Pat's this season with cam at qb if that's your attitude or did u start following the Pat's when they started winning

ELM327

cosatron wrote: »

U must of really hated following the Pat's this season with cam at qb if that's your attitude or did u start following the Pat's when they started winning

"U must of".


Never have 2.5 words made me shudder more.


Anyway, I've been a pats fan for over 20 years at this stage. They were selected as my "team to support" when I rented madden 98 and pressed "random team". So yes, I remember the patriots before brady and I follow them after brady too. I don't agree with Cam as the answer (unless you want a barely mobile QB that can overthrow everyone).

[Deleted User]

ELM327 wrote: »

Let's give a new participation trophy so.
Like a trophy in the EPL for reaching the champions league consistently.

But every club in the EPL is a failure as at most they have a couple of wins in the Champions League going back to the 90s...

ELM327

The champions league is not the "postseason" of soccer. The aim is to win the EPL.

Realt Dearg Sec

ELM327 wrote: »

The champions league is not the "postseason" of soccer. The aim is to win the EPL.

Most clubs would regard making it into the champions league as a successful season so I'm not sure this really supports your point.

Foxtrol

Barney92 wrote: »

I mean saying this century is also picking a timeline to suit your argument. Favre played in the 90s too. Since you've talked about back to back QBs we could start in 1992 (the beginning of his time with the Packers). Since 1992 seven teams have won multiple super bowls, Patriots (6), Broncos and Cowboys (both with three), and then Packers, Bucs, Steelers, Ravens and Giants (two for each of them). Packers are also joint 4th in number of Super Bowls played since the start of Favre's time. I'd rate them as being a good bit above average on both marks. Now obviously if you go further back there's a big dropoff for the Packers until you go far enough back to their winning days early on.

Going into those that have won multiple super bowls since the Packers have had the two QBs.

I think the Giants are a decent comparator for the Packers since 1992 in terms of Super Bowl success, both with two wins and one defeat over that time. Since 1992 the Packers have missed the playoffs 8 times, compared to 19 times for the Giants. Giants lost six times in their first match in the playoffs, same as the Packers even though the Packers made the playoffs 11 more times. So on Super Bowls they've identical records since Favre started. Obviously the Giants won some going back further than that but you did bring up the back-to-back QB thing so I'll stick with the time they actually had the back-to-back qbs. Would you say that the Giants and Packers have been equally successful?

Steelers have won 2 and lost 2 since Favre joined the Packers, missed the playoffs 10 times, and lost 7 times in their first game.

Bucs - missed the playoffs 21 times.

Cowboys - missed 15 playoffs, 6 defeats in first round

Ravens - 12 missed playoffs, although they were a new team in 96, 4 defeats in first round.

Pats - missed playoffs 8 times, but won 6 super bowls.

Perhaps the Packers have underperformed since 1992, in terms of super bowls won, given the quality they have had at QB, but their performance has been clearly a good bit above average since Favre joined (rather than ok to above average). They've been in the top five teams in the league since Favre joined, joint most playoff appearances, second most playoff wins, and have been gone on deep playoff runs fairly regularly. They were an onside kick recovery from a fourth super bowl appearance too, but a player made a mess of it not following his assignment. Can that be put down to the Packers not being in "win now" mode? Last season (officiating aside) has been mainly placed on poor coaching decisions (as well as an unfortunately bad game by King), with some of the defensive calls and decision making at the end scrutinized heavily. Sure the coaches might not be in "win now" mode either I suppose, not like the coaches don't have a massive incentive to win the Super Bowl or anything.

How many teams would you say have been more successful than the Packers over the period they've had their two QBs? I'd argue that the Patriots are the only ones that have been clearly more successful. You could also make the case for the Cowboys or Broncos because they have more super bowl wins, although I don't think have been on broader measures.

If you read the thread, I was the one who was pushing to take the full period of Favre and Rodgers but the Packers fan I was discussing it with pushed for this century so I gave in and went with it

Blut2 wrote: »

If you think the Green Bay management's current long term strategy is so awful, and you don't want to talk about "when football was in its infancy", can you point to many teams other than the Patriots who've been more consistently successful than the Packers this century? Thats the real question. If the Packers have been "consistently OK to above average" then surely it must be 10-15 teams?

You start getting to my point in bold but then veer off again. You and others are continuously trying to compare the Packers with teams that didn't have close to the QBs that they've had over that period. I asked this earlier and no one answered so I'll see if I have better luck trying again - over the guts of the 30 year period when the Packers had Rodgers and Brady what other team even came close to that consistent GOAT conversation level QB play?

Barney92

Foxtrol wrote: »

Fair and I agree with a lot of the above.

'We don't do win now' stinks of real arrogance from the front office though, a similar kind to the arrogance that led them to not communicate the potential QB pick last year to their HC and QB.

I don't think it is surprising that a front office that never goes 'all-in' has struggled to even make it to Super Bowls in the last 30 years despite having two QBs in the wider GOAT discussion (not saying either are #1 before anyone drags this off topic, just that they would be on many top 5 or 10 lists). That is a terrible return and should cause a team to reevaluate their approach.

Okay, perhaps you were pushing to include the whole period since the beginning of Favre. They're joint fourth in both super bowl wins and appearances over that time, one behind second place in both. One poorly covered onside kick has prevented them from being joint second on appearances and potentially wins. I don't think it's a terrible return. Could they have done better - obviously. They had opportunities to win games that they've lost, but I don't think that is because of any lack of committing to a "win now" strategy. I'd say the Packers have been more successful than a lot of "win now" strategies over the years. Yeah, in a way it's easier because their QBs have allowed them to be in contention pretty much every year, but pretty much every other team in the league could have had either or both of Favre and Rodgers but they didn't take either of them.

Blut2

The argument that going "win now" over the last 20-30 years would have made the Packers more successful, while at the same time crediting the success they did have only to being lucky enough to have both Favre and Rodgers, is also completely contradictory.

If the Packers management had been focused on "winning now" in 2005 when Favre was still playing they never would have drafted Rodgers that year. But instead thanks to their focus on long term stability they took a comparatively unneeded QB in the first round and sat him for multiple seasons to develop him, and have a successor to Favre. Which seems to have worked out quite well for the team.

D9Male

The offseason sucks.

Itssoeasy

D9Male wrote: »

The offseason sucks.

Yep it does.

Foxtrol

Blut2 wrote: »

The argument that going "win now" over the last 20-30 years would have made the Packers more successful, while at the same time crediting the success they did have only to being lucky enough to have both Favre and Rodgers, is also completely contradictory.

If the Packers management had been focused on "winning now" in 2005 when Favre was still playing they never would have drafted Rodgers that year. But instead thanks to their focus on long term stability they took a comparatively unneeded QB in the first round and sat him for multiple seasons to develop him, and have a successor to Favre. Which seems to have worked out quite well for the team.

That logic is based on hitting with one QB in the draft, which in any year is a complete gamble especially when so many teams passed on him. They won with their lottery ticket and then squandered it away by making bad passive decisions year after year. The best front offices can balance being forward thinking while also being aggressive, doing both when the time is right. GB have done the latter and despite hitting the lottery they failed to make anything of it. Again, I don't know how you call that success.

Barney92 wrote: »

Okay, perhaps you were pushing to include the whole period since the beginning of Favre. They're joint fourth in both super bowl wins and appearances over that time, one behind second place in both. One poorly covered onside kick has prevented them from being joint second on appearances and potentially wins. I don't think it's a terrible return. Could they have done better - obviously. They had opportunities to win games that they've lost, but I don't think that is because of any lack of committing to a "win now" strategy. I'd say the Packers have been more successful than a lot of "win now" strategies over the years. Yeah, in a way it's easier because their QBs have allowed them to be in contention pretty much every year, but pretty much every other team in the league could have had either or both of Favre and Rodgers but they didn't take either of them.

As you've continued to refuse to answer my question to name another team that came close to having the consistent top level QB as the Packers over that 30 year period I'll just have to presume it is because there simply isn't any team close to them. You could maybe say the Patriots due to Brady's longevity but he was only there for around 2/3 of that period (as insane as that is in itself) and look at the difference in success.

Saying joint 4th is pretty misleading, there are more than 3 teams who have competed in more Super Bowls during that period and a few with the same number. None of those had that same consistent quality at QB.

Again, your acceptance of bold negates the rest of the comparisons against other teams. Obviously they are more successful than a lot of 'win now' teams because they had significantly better QBs. I give them all the credit in the world for the two QB decisions but they have gotten a poor return from them and to me a big piece of that was down to their passive front office philosophy, which I'm sure was and is validated to themselves by the type of comparisons and stats that have been used here.

I've tried to get out of this conversation twice already but I am really calling a day on it this time because it is just circular. Packers fans are entitled to feel they've been successful but to me when you take into account their QBs they haven't gotten close to where they should have.

Barney92

Foxtrol wrote: »

Saying joint 4th is pretty misleading, there are more than 3 teams who have competed in more Super Bowls during that period and a few with the same number. None of those had that same consistent quality at QB.

I'm happy getting out of the conversation too but I'm sorry the above is just not true. Three teams have played in more super bowls (Patriots, Steelers and Broncos), and three teams have won more super bowls (Patriots, Cowboys and Broncos). (I double checked this and am pretty sure, but am open to correction) So that would put the next tier at joint 4th in each measure, and the use of the word joint means that there are other teams at the same level. I know we're on opposite sides of this but to call it misleading is strange. Had I just said 4th then yeah I could get on board with what you've said. I also listed all the teams with the same number of super bowl wins, as in the teams they are joint fourth with, in a previous post was wasn't trying to hide anything.

el Fenomeno

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Most clubs would regard making it into the champions league as a successful season so I'm not sure this really supports your point.

A club like West Ham or Leicester making the CL is seen as a successful season because they are not expected to, and it would be seen as performing better than their expectations.

On the other hand, it wouldn't be seen as successful for the likes of Barcelona or PSG this season - who despite making the CL this season, would not view this as a good season.

It's why the notion of "a winning season is a successful season" is ridiculous. You cant just dictate a flat benchmark as being the cut-off point for whether a season is successful or not. Expectations are different for every team, and it's dynamic throughout the season.

The Chiefs went 14-2 last year. Made the Super Bowl having won it the year before, and have some of the very best playera in the league at their respective positions, and one of the best head coaches.

To suggest the Chiefs going 9-8 and missing the playoffs next year should be considered a successful season is a ludicrous statement.

Realt Dearg Sec

el Fenomeno wrote: »

A club like West Ham or Leicester making the CL is seen as a successful season because they are not expected to, and it would be seen as performing better than their expectations.

On the other hand, it wouldn't be seen as successful for the likes of Barcelona or PSG this season - who despite making the CL this season, would not view this as a good season.

It's why the notion of "a winning season is a successful season" is ridiculous. You cant just dictate a flat benchmark as being the cut-off point for whether a season is successful or not. Expectations are different for every team, and it's dynamic throughout the season.

The Chiefs went 14-2 last year. Made the Super Bowl having won it the year before, and have some of the very best playera in the league at their respective positions, and one of the best head coaches.

To suggest the Chiefs going 9-8 and missing the playoffs next year should be considered a successful season is a ludicrous statement.

Yeah I didn't make that statement.

el Fenomeno

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Yeah I didn't make that statement.

I didn't say you did?

paulie21

Julio Jones been traded to the Titans

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1401564030691647489?s=19

Blut2

Will be interesting to see how the contract details work out. But on the face of it a 2nd round pick is decent value for the Titans for him.

eagle eye

Jones and AJ Brown is a serious combo at WR.
Go cover that and Henry.

LMHC

Julio at the titans really good trade. I was hoping Packers could look a trade for Jones to sort out the Rodgers issue.

DJ_Eoghan

Good deal for the titans. Surprised it took this long, but looking at the length of time and picks, it seems there was not a big market for Julio (unless there were teams in who he didn’t want to go to).

LMHC

DJ_Eoghan wrote: »

Good deal for the titans. Surprised it took this long, but looking at the length of time and picks, it seems there was not a big market for Julio (unless there were teams in who he didn’t want to go to).

I don't know why. As far as i can make out GB were looking at it Jeff Reinebold done a write up on it. Its a shame would of been nice to see him line up this year.