Why can't Wisconsin sports fans have nice things?

[CheezWizHed]

So is anybody changing their mind on the old "Would you rather be consistently good over the long haul and only win one championship or win multiple championships surrounded by a whole bunch of suck"?

[sarcasm]I don’t think you framed that question correctly. In addition to being consistently good, we also got a sledding hill.[/sarcasm]

 

Consistently good, a sledding hill and multiple championships (13 to be exact). Even if you want to be more recent, we've won 2 SBs (appeared in 3) since everyone else in the NFL North had their last (and only) Super Bowl victory (or appearance).

[HarveysWBs]

Bottom line, the Packers are the second-best franchise of the last ten years. I am as sick as anybody about the missed opportunities, but if the only team doing things better than you is the Belichick-era Patriots, you're still living right. That can be the case, while 2014 and 2020 are both simultaneously unacceptable failures. This is the tension in which the franchise finds itself now. And resolving towards mediocrity is a lot more likely than going the other way.

[SomewhereInTime]

So is anybody changing their mind on the old "Would you rather be consistently good over the long haul and only win one championship or win multiple championships surrounded by a whole bunch of suck"?

 

 

I mean that depends on how big of a multiple it is and how long the periods of suck are. Would I trade the Packers since '07 with the NY Giants over that time period? No, not in a million years.

[SomewhereInTime]

This all really brings home for me the fact that you can make a super strong case for February 2011-February 2021 being the best decade in Wisconsin sports history...

 

...and it produced one championship. That is equal parts exciting and humbling.

 

 

(Not including the 2020's) Did you know that if you start with the 1920's there are only two decades where a Wisconsin major professional sports team hasn't won a title. As much as people like to bring up curses and bad luck, there are many other regions with a far worse current situation and/or sports history (Minnesota).

[OldSchoolSnapper]

So is anybody changing their mind on the old "Would you rather be consistently good over the long haul and only win one championship or win multiple championships surrounded by a whole bunch of suck"?

 

IMO, you experience more joy as a Browns fan, seeing them make the playoffs and win one game, after a ton of horrible losing, than the Packers have given me for 10 years.

 

Lower expectations are easier to surpass. The Brewers postseason losses never hit me like the Packers. Because I expect the Packers to compete and see a team usually good enough to go far. They just lose in truly agonizing ways.

[adambr2]

0 for our last 7 in professional conference championship (0 for 4 Packers, 0 for 2 Brewers, 0 for 1 Bucks). Oof. Brutal.

[HiAndTight]

0 for our last 7 in professional conference championship (0 for 4 Packers, 0 for 2 Brewers, 0 for 1 Bucks). Oof. Brutal.

 

 

Snapper just touched on this in his last post, but after that Brewers NLCS loss I was alright. The Packers' losses to Seattle and now this year have hurt the most. The Buck's loss to the Raptors was pretty bad, but you had the 24-year-old MVP.

 

It feels like the only way things could get worse for the Packers...would be if they decided it'd be better to move on from their MVP QB.

 

This is probably just feeling the suck of losing a game like that, but if the Packers lost Rodgers...I'm not sure I wouldn't become a fan of whichever team got him. SF in particular. Put him in a system he knows with all types of talent on defense, their own All Pro LT, a running game.

 

Let him get his SB wins...god knows he can't count on this franchise to help him as a normal QB(and by normal, I mean normal franchise QB).

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'd absolutely hop on whatever team took Rodgers. I'd still want to see the Packers move forward positively, but I'd love cheering for Rodgers. I never felt that way about #4.

[CheezWizHed]

I'd absolutely hop on whatever team took Rodgers. I'd still want to see the Packers move forward positively, but I'd love cheering for Rodgers. I never felt that way about #4.

 

#12 vs #4 is an interesting comparison of players.

- Rodgers is the better overall QB.

- Favre was the better overall leader - type of person you bust your butt for.

- Rodgers plays 3D chess on the field and was better at dissecting the defense.

- Favre is out there playing backyard football and was more likeable.

 

That said, once Favre started playing games (I'm going to retire for real this time - TT drafts 2 QB for backups - Oops, I guess I'll play again), I was ready to move on.

 

Both are HOF QBs but really hard to compare them as their styles were completely different. Ironically, I think both were best suited for the era they played in and wouldn't have been as good if they switched spots.

 

But you do have to note that precious few teams have had HOF level QBs (or none?) for 29 consecutive years. Trust me... Viking fans would love to have our problems.

[SomewhereInTime]

I'd absolutely hop on whatever team took Rodgers. I'd still want to see the Packers move forward positively, but I'd love cheering for Rodgers. I never felt that way about #4.

 

#12 vs #4 is an interesting comparison of players.

- Rodgers is the better overall QB.

- Favre was the better overall leader - type of person you bust your butt for.

- Rodgers plays 3D chess on the field and was better at dissecting the defense.

- Favre is out there playing backyard football and was more likeable.

 

That said, once Favre started playing games (I'm going to retire for real this time - TT drafts 2 QB for backups - Oops, I guess I'll play again), I was ready to move on.

 

Both are HOF QBs but really hard to compare them as their styles were completely different. Ironically, I think both were best suited for the era they played in and wouldn't have been as good if they switched spots.

 

But you do have to note that precious few teams have had HOF level QBs (or none?) for 29 consecutive years. Trust me... Viking fans would love to have our problems.

 

Based on what passes as a HOF level QB, there are likely a dozen in the league right now and by no means do you need one of them to win a Super Bowl. You need great players, good players, and above average players starting at many different positions along with good coaching, QB is just one of those positions.

[adambr2]

I look back on the Brewers league championship games this last series mostly with fondness of good memories. Sucks that we couldn't punch a WS ticket on either (remember, we WERE the higher seed with HFA for both), but still, I look back on them as wonderful sports seasons.

 

I look back on the '14-15 and '20-'21 Packers conference championships mostly with disdain and disgust. '16-'17 and '19-'20 sucked too, but I had no expectations for those. I definitely have different bars for the Packers and Brewers.

[SomewhereInTime]

I look back on the Brewers league championship games this last series mostly with fondness of good memories. Sucks that we couldn't punch a WS ticket on either (remember, we WERE the higher seed with HFA for both), but still, I look back on them as wonderful sports seasons.

 

I look back on the '14-15 and '20-'21 Packers conference championships mostly with disdain and disgust. '16-'17 and '19-'20 sucked too, but I had no expectations for those. I definitely have different bars for the Packers and Brewers.

 

In time you can look back at those Packers seasons with good memories, just like with the Brewers, but in the moment it's an absolute killer. I will never forget how awful I felt walking out of Miller Park after game 7, but I appreciate the memories and will also never forget how great game 163 at Wrigley was.

 

I'm at least appreciative that we have teams that are this competitive and in the near future one of them will likely break through and win another title. Better to be relevant and come just short of a title than to be like Minnesota or something.

[logan82]

Can't really compare QBs in the last 20 years to anything that happened before 2000. The game has fundamentally changed to favor the passing game.

 

Favre I think hurt the team by playing as much as he did. I think if he had opted out when injured the Packers would have been better off some of the time. I would take Rodgers over Favre for a team that was just a QB short of the Super Bowl but I would take Favre on a truly crappy team. Favre was way to volatile to be on a consistently winning team. Too many turn overs.

 

Interesting to look at the career of Alex Smith vs Rodgers though. Alex kind of got screwed a bit as he had to deal with 7 different offensive coordinators and 3 different head coaches over as the 49ers QB. I really believe in franchise consistency in the NFL.

[HiAndTight]

I'd absolutely hop on whatever team took Rodgers. I'd still want to see the Packers move forward positively, but I'd love cheering for Rodgers. I never felt that way about #4.

 

 

I felt just the opposite about Favre. I didn't want to see him succeed. Especially with him forcing his way to Minny.

 

But in a scenario in which Rodgers wanted to stay and the Packers didn't do everything to make that happen....absolutely. But I really hope we don't have to cross that bridge.

 

I couldn't have imagined saying something like that at any other point in my life as a Packers fan(not to make it sound more serious than it is).

[HiAndTight]

I look back on the Brewers league championship games this last series mostly with fondness of good memories. Sucks that we couldn't punch a WS ticket on either (remember, we WERE the higher seed with HFA for both), but still, I look back on them as wonderful sports seasons.

 

I look back on the '14-15 and '20-'21 Packers conference championships mostly with disdain and disgust. '16-'17 and '19-'20 sucked too, but I had no expectations for those. I definitely have different bars for the Packers and Brewers.

 

In time you can look back at those Packers seasons with good memories, just like with the Brewers, but in the moment it's an absolute killer. I will never forget how awful I felt walking out of Miller Park after game 7, but I appreciate the memories and will also never forget how great game 163 at Wrigley was.

 

I'm at least appreciative that we have teams that are this competitive and in the near future one of them will likely break through and win another title. Better to be relevant and come just short of a title than to be like Minnesota or something.

 

Not sure when that time will come!

 

I look at the last 10 years and see just too many lost opportunities. The Dodgers were so much more talented, that loss had a "oh, that sucks," type feeling. Not the pissy mood I've been in for the last two days where I've had to remind myself not to let that seep into real life.

[MrTPlush]

Outside of the pretty short peak of his career Brett Favre really wasn’t that special. A good QB for the time, certainly, but for a guy who won the MVP three years in a row he really fell off a cliff quick after that.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Outside of the pretty short peak of his career Brett Favre really wasn’t that special. A good QB for the time, certainly, but for a guy who won the MVP three years in a row he really fell off a cliff quick after that.

 

I actually agree with this. He was more flash than substance and was enormously popular and relatable and it led to an exaggeration of the player he actually was. His longevity/streak was his calling card but there is a lot of mediocre play between those lines.

 

You can basically draw a line where Holmgren leaves GB and his play falls off a cliff. His season in Minnesota was the only one resembling his MVP years. "Wasn't that special" is probably a bit of hyperbole, but I've never thought he's in the same strata as Rodgers and it goes beyond just the admittedly inflated stats of Rodgers's era.

 

I do wonder how Favre's career would have gone if somehow Holmgren had stayed in GB for 15 years. But during the middle and end of his career, I thought I was going mad. I felt like the only fan within a 100 mile radius saying "They cannot win with this guy, he loses the ball way too often, and him throwing a dumb pick to end the season has become a tradition." It just felt like nobody could say it at the time.

[pacopete4]

There is a reason that Favre plateaued after the 98 season or so and the majority of that goes to him having horrendous talent around him. Check out some of those rosters. It's pathetic. Not only that, but he never really had much for a coaching staff after that either. It really is a shame what the organization did after letting Holmgren walk out the door.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I've always thought the Favre's supporting talent argument was kind of weak. The guy had Ahman Green flirting with 2,000 yards and the Packers were 10-6 because of Favre when they should have been 13-3. He kept them from advancing in the playoffs as well.

 

The coaching staff is more relevant to me as he played under four coaches in Green Bay alone during his career and seven throughout his career by my count. That would be disruptive to anybody.

[HiAndTight]

I've always thought the Favre's supporting talent argument was kind of weak. The guy had Ahman Green flirting with 2,000 yards and the Packers were 10-6 because of Favre when they should have been 13-3. He kept them from advancing in the playoffs as well.

 

The coaching staff is more relevant to me as he played under four coaches in Green Bay alone during his career and seven throughout his career by my count. That would be disruptive to anybody.

 

 

I think part of the problem is when you look back at older rosters, you don't appreciate their impact as much. But he had great OL's for a good stretch of his career and a dominant running game.

 

He just threw too many games away. The Eagles game...throwing the ball up on 1st down when you'd run for 220 yards or whatever it was.

 

Favre was a HOF'er and you can't take that away from him, but Rodgers definitely is on a whole other level.

[pacopete4]

He had Ahman Green, yes. But after that, it was weak. If people are complaining Rodgers doesn't have enough talent right now, they should look at the depth of those teams. Brutal.

 

I do agree that Favre was too careless with the football. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Unfortunately, terrible leadership from the Packers organization to the coaches on down created the monster. If he was surrounded by Holmgren or even a coach like Holmgren, his career plays out much differently in my opinion. Favre can take ownership of it obviously but it was twofold with the terrible decision making of the front office during that time period.

[HiAndTight]

He had Ahman Green, yes. But after that, it was weak. If people are complaining Rodgers doesn't have enough talent right now, they should look at the depth of those teams. Brutal.

 

I do agree that Favre was too careless with the football. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Unfortunately, terrible leadership from the Packers organization to the coaches on down created the monster. If he was surrounded by Holmgren or even a coach like Holmgren, his career plays out much differently in my opinion. Favre can take ownership of it obviously but it was twofold with the terrible decision making of the front office during that time period.

 

 

I just don't agree. There was a long stretch he had a dominant OL, a great RB(Green's 2003 season he ran for the 5th most yards in a season in NFL history IIRC).

 

He also had more consistent defenses. They weren't always great, but they forced quite a few turnovers.

 

There were years they were better than others, but on balance, I think he had some pretty talented teams. And the teams often lost BECAUSE of him, not in spite of him as is the case with Rodgers.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Would have loved for the Packers to ever have the kind of ball-hawk defenses they had in the 2000s during Rodgers's career. They were almost always a middle of the road, bend but don't break defense got a lot of sacks and picks.

[pacopete4]

Would have loved for the Packers to ever have the kind of ball-hawk defenses they had in the 2000s during Rodgers's career. They were almost always a middle of the road, bend but don't break defense got a lot of sacks and picks.

 

I was curious about his stuff to see if I was misremembering.

 

INT & Sack Defensive Rankings:

 

Favre (Ages: 31-34) (43-21)

2000: INT- 8 / SK- 19 (9-7)

2001: INT- 10 / SK- 3 (12-4)

2002: INT- 24 / SK- 7 (12-4)

2003: INT- 8 / SK- 20 (10-6) *Favre thumb injury

 

Rodgers (Ages: 31-34) (39-25)

2014: INT- 7 / SK- 17 (12-4)

2015: INT- 9 / SK- 6 (10-6)

2016: INT- 8 / SK- 7 (10-6)

2017: INT- 20 / SK- 10 (7-9) *7 Games

[OldSchoolSnapper]

When you lay it out like that it isn't surprising I guess. I must have just remembered Ed Donatell getting a lot of sacks/TOs for a year or two. One of the annoying things to me has been that the offense and defense never have seemed to gel in the same season, and I should have said it that way. It's only happened 3 times that I remember, 2013 (the numbers are bad but I remember them looking solid before Rodgers got hurt), 2014, and this year to some extent. 2014 was arguably the best team they've had under Rodgers...it is jus such a shame.

 

2010 was mostly a defensive team and it wasn't until much later their offense found its stride. 2011 was an awful defense, 2012 was the year Kap ran for 200 yards in the playoffs.

 

My only real exception to that list is 2016. I didn't know their sack and int totals were so favorable, but that defense was baaaaaad. The offense was not very good either until the 'run the table' stuff.

 

2015 stands out as the one season I remember the defense far outplaying the offense. '17 and '18 were not great on either side.