Packers 2020 team discussion

[PinaMadness]

Packers 31 - Eagles 17

 

Fans and analysts continue to question the 2020 draft as the Packers stockpile another W.

As well they should. They spent their first three picks on players that will do next to nothing to help them win now. The Packers have stockpiled lots of regular season wins the past 10 years. Where has it gotten them?

[sveumrules]

Packers 31 - Eagles 17

 

Fans and analysts continue to question the 2020 draft as the Packers stockpile another W.

As well they should. They spent their first three picks on players that will do next to nothing to help them win now. The Packers have stockpiled lots of regular season wins the past 10 years. Where has it gotten them?

 

New England has won three of the last ten Super Bowls, they've clearly been the best team of the last decade.

 

The other teams to win a Super Bowl in the last ten tears are KC, PHI, DEN, SEA, BAL, NYG & GB.

 

Out of those teams, the only one I'd put on the same level as the Packers for the last decade is SEA, so...2nd or 3rd best team of the last ten years?

[pacopete4]

Draft and develop baby! Fly cheeseheads fly!

[adambr2]

Packers 31 - Eagles 17

 

Fans and analysts continue to question the 2020 draft as the Packers stockpile another W.

As well they should. They spent their first three picks on players that will do next to nothing to help them win now. The Packers have stockpiled lots of regular season wins the past 10 years. Where has it gotten them?

 

New England has won three of the last ten Super Bowls, they've clearly been the best team of the last decade.

 

The other teams to win a Super Bowl in the last ten tears are KC, PHI, DEN, SEA, BAL, NYG & GB.

 

Out of those teams, the only one I'd put on the same level as the Packers for the last decade is SEA, so...2nd or 3rd best team of the last ten years?

 

Depends on what your measuring stick is. Seattle has played in multiple Super Bowls and won one. Denver has played in multiple Super Bowls and won one. San Francisco is not a team you mentioned, yet they have played in 2 Super Bowls the last 10 years. Atlanta, Carolina, Rams, have all played in the Super Bowl over that time frame.

 

I enjoy the fact that we typically find regular season success, but to say 10 years without a Super Bowl appearance now seems insufficient in comparison to our opportunities seems like a fair statement, I think.

[nodakfan17]

Depends on what your measuring stick is. Seattle has played in multiple Super Bowls and won one. Denver has played in multiple Super Bowls and won one. San Francisco is not a team you mentioned, yet they have played in 2 Super Bowls the last 10 years. Atlanta, Carolina, Rams, have all played in the Super Bowl over that time frame.

I’ve never considered losing a Super Bowl to be an accomplishment.

[sveumrules]

 

As well they should. They spent their first three picks on players that will do next to nothing to help them win now. The Packers have stockpiled lots of regular season wins the past 10 years. Where has it gotten them?

 

New England has won three of the last ten Super Bowls, they've clearly been the best team of the last decade.

 

The other teams to win a Super Bowl in the last ten tears are KC, PHI, DEN, SEA, BAL, NYG & GB.

 

Out of those teams, the only one I'd put on the same level as the Packers for the last decade is SEA, so...2nd or 3rd best team of the last ten years?

 

Depends on what your measuring stick is. Seattle has played in multiple Super Bowls and won one. Denver has played in multiple Super Bowls and won one. San Francisco is not a team you mentioned, yet they have played in 2 Super Bowls the last 10 years. Atlanta, Carolina, Rams, have all played in the Super Bowl over that time frame.

 

I enjoy the fact that we typically find regular season success, but to say 10 years without a Super Bowl appearance now seems insufficient in comparison to our opportunities seems like a fair statement, I think.

 

Seattle made it to two Super Bowls, though if Bostick does his job, GB probably makes it to one of those SBs instead. For the decade, GB won 102 games & made the playoffs 8 times compared to 100 wins & 8 playoff appearances for SEA. Head to head is 4-4 for the decade. I'd put SEA 2nd/GB 3rd, but again the margin is essentially one botched on side kick.

 

DEN won 89 games & made 5 playoffs, SF won 80 games & made 4 playoffs, ATL won 89 games & made 5 playoffs, CAR won 78 games & made 4 playoffs, LA won 73 games & made 2 playoffs. Those teams all look to be a clear notch below SEA/GB to me.

[PinaMadness]

I didn't mean to send the game thread off kilter, but it just irks me to think other teams seem to put winning Super Bowls a bigger priority than this organization does. They seem content to just win divisions over the long haul and see what happens after that, while the Seattle's and New Orleans's of the world draft playmakers and make moves to position themselves for a title run. How good would Carlos Dunlap look in a green jersey right about now? Over the decades I've rooted for this team, I always thought the goal for team and fans alike was "Super Bowl or Bust". Maybe that has changed over recent history, and that's a shame.

 

OK, rant over.

[adambr2]

Depends on what your measuring stick is. Seattle has played in multiple Super Bowls and won one. Denver has played in multiple Super Bowls and won one. San Francisco is not a team you mentioned, yet they have played in 2 Super Bowls the last 10 years. Atlanta, Carolina, Rams, have all played in the Super Bowl over that time frame.

I’ve never considered losing a Super Bowl to be an accomplishment.

 

Meh. It's definitely not close to the same level as winning one, but to lose a Super Bowl you have to win a Conference Championship, which I would take at this point.

[nodakfan17]

Depends on what your measuring stick is. Seattle has played in multiple Super Bowls and won one. Denver has played in multiple Super Bowls and won one. San Francisco is not a team you mentioned, yet they have played in 2 Super Bowls the last 10 years. Atlanta, Carolina, Rams, have all played in the Super Bowl over that time frame.

I’ve never considered losing a Super Bowl to be an accomplishment.

 

Meh. It's definitely not close to the same level as winning one, but to lose a Super Bowl you have to win a Conference Championship, which I would take at this point.

I consider playoff wins to be an ancillary measure of success and to lose a Super Bowl, a team still needs 2-3 playoff wins. That’s still something; however, I’d argue a team like the Packers going 3-3 in the playoffs over a 3-year span is still more impressive than a flash in the pan team going 3-1 in a single playoff appearance (and failing to advance or even qualify in subsequent years). By no means am I suggesting Packer fans should be satisfied with the past decade, but it’s fun to root for a team that’s in the hunt every year.

[adambr2]

I think it depends who you are and what you've accomplished, too. I think most Viking fans would take five 4-12 seasons to finally bring home one ring in the sixth year rather than to just be in the playoffs and see what happens every one of those years.

[nodakfan17]

I would absolutely take a Super Bowl this year followed by 5 (even 10) embarrassing seasons, however, given the choice between merely making the Super Bowl (followed by 5 losing seasons) or 5 years of 10-win seasons and annual playoff disappointment, give me the 10-win seasons. I badly want the Packers to win another Super Bowl, but I’ve enjoyed their sustained success.

[homer]

Why would people think the Packers don't put a priority on winning a Super Bowl. Not sure where that idea comes from.

[PeaveyFury]

Why would people think the Packers don't put a priority on winning a Super Bowl. Not sure where that idea comes from.

 

I think there are a lot of people that don’t understand or don’t agree with how the Packers draft and equate that to ‘not prioritizing winning’ or whatever that means. Not acknowledging, of course, that the reason the Packers have had nearly three decades of high-level sustained success is that they’re playing chess while some teams staple their head to the game table.

[OldHeidelberg]

I didn't mean to send the game thread off kilter, but it just irks me to think other teams seem to put winning Super Bowls a bigger priority than this organization does. They seem content to just win divisions over the long haul and see what happens after that, while the Seattle's and New Orleans's of the world draft playmakers and make moves to position themselves for a title run. How good would Carlos Dunlap look in a green jersey right about now? Over the decades I've rooted for this team, I always thought the goal for team and fans alike was "Super Bowl or Bust". Maybe that has changed over recent history, and that's a shame.

 

OK, rant over.

 

Since you started it I will add this has been gripe of mine for awhile now too, for a non-profit they sure are focused on profits and it does seem like the model is make the playoffs and hope for the best. I will bet they won't be dipping into the "rainy day" fund much to cover their losses this year, rather they will jack ticket prices, maybe even only temporarily to kick the cost back onto us fans.

 

Back to the game like every year I keep waiting for the defense to turn the corner, now that the CB's are healthy again they should be getting better. Eagles are 27th in the NFL in yards, seems like a good chance for the defense to put up a strong showing. As always wish it was a noon kickoff...

[PeaveyFury]

 

Since you started it I will add this has been gripe of mine for awhile now too, for a non-profit they sure are focused on profits and it does seem like the model is make the playoffs and hope for the best. I will bet they won't be dipping into the "rainy day" fund much to cover their losses this year, rather they will jack ticket prices, maybe even only temporarily to kick the cost back onto us fans.

 

What in the world is this based on? I don’t think I’ve EVER heard the organization discuss “making profits.”

 

Implying that the organization is focused more on profits rather than on winning is borderline outrageous.

[PinaMadness]

Why would people think the Packers don't put a priority on winning a Super Bowl. Not sure where that idea comes from.

 

I think there are a lot of people that don’t understand or don’t agree with how the Packers draft and equate that to ‘not prioritizing winning’ or whatever that means. Not acknowledging, of course, that the reason the Packers have had nearly three decades of high-level sustained success is that they’re playing chess while some teams staple their head to the game table.

That, and having Favre and Rodgers as their quarterbacks.

[homer]

 

Since you started it I will add this has been gripe of mine for awhile now too, for a non-profit they sure are focused on profits and it does seem like the model is make the playoffs and hope for the best. I will bet they won't be dipping into the "rainy day" fund much to cover their losses this year, rather they will jack ticket prices, maybe even only temporarily to kick the cost back onto us fans.

 

What in the world is this based on? I don’t think I’ve EVER heard the organization discuss “making profits.”

 

Implying that the organization is focused more on profits rather than on winning is borderline outrageous.

 

I guess because they're the only team that releases financial data to the public? Not sure.

[PeaveyFury]

 

Since you started it I will add this has been gripe of mine for awhile now too, for a non-profit they sure are focused on profits and it does seem like the model is make the playoffs and hope for the best. I will bet they won't be dipping into the "rainy day" fund much to cover their losses this year, rather they will jack ticket prices, maybe even only temporarily to kick the cost back onto us fans.

 

What in the world is this based on? I don’t think I’ve EVER heard the organization discuss “making profits.”

 

Implying that the organization is focused more on profits rather than on winning is borderline outrageous.

 

I guess because they're the only team that releases financial data to the public? Not sure.

 

[sarcasm]Maybe it’s the millions they’re expecting to make on those AJ Dillon jerseys?[/sarcasm]

[sveumrules]

Why would people think the Packers don't put a priority on winning a Super Bowl. Not sure where that idea comes from.

 

I think there are a lot of people that don’t understand or don’t agree with how the Packers draft and equate that to ‘not prioritizing winning’ or whatever that means. Not acknowledging, of course, that the reason the Packers have had nearly three decades of high-level sustained success is that they’re playing chess while some teams staple their head to the game table.

That, and having Favre and Rodgers as their quarterbacks.

 

Any team that wanted Favre could have traded for him, Ron Wolf actually did. If BF.net existed at the time I'd imagine most of the reactions would have been, "why did they trade a 1st rounder for a 3rd string QB when we still have Majik?!?!"

 

21 teams could have drafted Rodgers, the Cowboys & Vikings had two chances each, the Packers pulled the trigger & there were plenty of haters, "why draft a QB when you already have an HOF QB?!?!"

 

In both instances the Packers FO had much better foresight than their own fans & other NFL organizations.

[PinaMadness]

In some cases, yes. I was more than fine with the Rodgers pick given Favre's recent playoff failures, age and his continued waffling on retirement, but I'm specifically talking about the past 10 years.

[homer]

They were an onsides kick screw up from going to a 2nd Super Bowl. And had Nick Collins not gotten hurt...

[OldHeidelberg]

 

Since you started it I will add this has been gripe of mine for awhile now too, for a non-profit they sure are focused on profits and it does seem like the model is make the playoffs and hope for the best. I will bet they won't be dipping into the "rainy day" fund much to cover their losses this year, rather they will jack ticket prices, maybe even only temporarily to kick the cost back onto us fans.

 

What in the world is this based on? I don’t think I’ve EVER heard the organization discuss “making profits.”

 

Implying that the organization is focused more on profits rather than on winning is borderline outrageous.

 

I guess because they're the only team that releases financial data to the public? Not sure.

 

Selling worthless stock when they didn't need to after the last Super Bowl started the bad taste for me. I don't know if that financial disclosure tells us much other than the bottom line which is still a profit every year even after they buy up property and build the Titletown District. Do we even know how much Mark Murphy makes? I know you will say that TD is giving back to fans but they are constantly seeking ways to generate more revenue when they are rolling in cash and I don't think all of the TD is all about fans but will be happy to be corrected on that. I don't think they will ever go all in and sacrifice the future for the SB even though they can afford to just as easily as any of the billionaire owners, they have too much invested in the stadium expansion and TD to risk another decade like the 80's. I think we saw that in the Love pick.

 

I don't see how my opinion about the org being too focused on the business side of things rather than football is so out there but whatever, we are all entitled to our opinions here. Snark away.

[nodakfan17]

Have the Packers ever made an in-season trade for a player during the Rodgers era? That’s probably a source of angst for fans. I get that there may not be a good trade available every year, but once in a while?

[PeaveyFury]

Selling worthless stock when they didn't need to after the last Super Bowl started the bad taste for me. I don't know if that financial disclosure tells us much other than the bottom line which is still a profit every year even after they buy up property and build the Titletown District. Do we even know how much Mark Murphy makes? I know you will say that TD is giving back to fans but they are constantly seeking ways to generate more revenue when they are rolling in cash and I don't think all of the TD is all about fans but will be happy to be corrected on that. I don't think they will ever go all in and sacrifice the future for the SB even though they can afford to just as easily as any of the billionaire owners, they have too much invested in the stadium expansion and TD to risk another decade like the 80's. I think we saw that in the Love pick.

 

I don't see how my opinion about the org being too focused on the business side of things rather than football is so out there but whatever, we are all entitled to our opinions here. Snark away.

 

First off, you said "profits," not 'the business side of things’, so please don't move the target.

 

Second, if I recall, you've previously railed on the Titledown District here, with the admission that you haven't been there recently. Is that still the case? They're doing literally the same thing that the Cubs have done with Wrigleyville, which is a large part of the Cubs recent resurgence and success. There's nothing that can possibly viewed as negative, IMO, regarding the intention of making Lambeau a destination and revenue earning facility beyond 10 game days a year. How in the world can the Packers' situation on the field be HURT by their investments around/at the stadium?

 

Third, The NFL has a salary cap. The Packers, both this year and in the past, are within a couple of million dollars of the $200 million salary cap. What are they supposed to do to be more 'focused on winning?' Spend MORE money than allowed by the cap on players? They're likely going to spend virtually every penny of their cap room next year. Perhaps I'd buy your argument if they were routinely spending tens of millions of dollars less than the cap, but that is factually untrue.

[homer]

They sold that stock to finance the renovations to Lambeau Field.