JS: Blame for underachieving season falls on Mike McCarthy, Ted Thompson

[Cheesedog]

No, we weren't the 'best' in 2010, but we were the hottest and won the playoff tournament. We might have been the hottest just two SBs ago, but didn't get the 'luck' part of the equation down.

The ironic part of this discussion is that you can't win the SB without making the playoffs. MM and TT have gotten us to the NFL's version of the 'Dance' repeatedly. The frustration is how close we've come and how one or two things (TT's FA allergies) might have put us over the top. Every year I read on different boards how we should be more like this team or do things like that team. Hell, three years ago a lot of posters on this site thought we should be more like the 49ers (c'mon, you remember too.) How'd that one work out?

We're stuck with MM and TT for now and that's a problem most of the teams wish they had.

In 2010 GB was the most balanced... Which is really the most important part for a team like GB. Both offense and defense were equally responsible for that SB win.

A team like GB needs balance to succeed. Can't rely heavily on just he D or the O, Packers aren't built for that.

 

[FlaPack]

In 2010 GB was the most balanced... Which is really the most important part for a team like GB. Both offense and defense were equally responsible for that SB win.

A team like GB needs balance to succeed. Can't rely heavily on just he D or the O, Packers aren't built for that.

2010 had more play makers especially on defense. Collins Matthews Woodson

 

[Half Empty]

No, we weren't the 'best' in 2010, but we were the hottest and won the playoff tournament. We might have been the hottest just two SBs ago, but didn't get the 'luck' part of the equation down.

The ironic part of this discussion is that you can't win the SB without making the playoffs. MM and TT have gotten us to the NFL's version of the 'Dance' repeatedly. The frustration is how close we've come and how one or two things (TT's FA allergies) might have put us over the top. Every year I read on different boards how we should be more like this team or do things like that team. Hell, three years ago a lot of posters on this site thought we should be more like the 49ers (c'mon, you remember too.) How'd that one work out?

We're stuck with MM and TT for now and that's a problem most of the teams wish they had.

Just came from the "Critical offseason" thread, and the comments here look pretty much the same. Tired of agitating for a Lombardi, so I'll leave the folks who can be happy without one alone. No need to rain on that parade.

 

[FlaPack]

Just came from the "Critical offseason" thread, and the comments here look pretty much the same. Tired of agitating for a Lombardi, so I'll leave the folks who can be happy without one alone. No need to rain on that parade.

I don't think anyone is happy not to have a Lombardi Trophy. But at the same time I'm not going to call a 10-6 season or an 12-4 season a failure without one. It's the nature of Sports and more so the NFL that winning even a division on a consistent basis is difficult.

Each season is different. in football and college basketball the tournament is one and done. If talent and coaching alone guaranteed a championship Duke wins a National Championship every other year. Ohio state plays Alabama each year.

I know this sounds harsh and not meant to be towards any specific poster but unless this team won the SB each year or every other year it's failure to many.

 

[Half Empty]

I'll take a leap an figure that I'm (at least one of) the specific poster to which you refer. What you say doesn't sound at all harsh, it sounds like a different point of view. That's fine, and I often wish I could be happy with winning seasons, division titles, or other standards. When my team is considered in the top few each year, I can't accept excuses. I'm too old to be able to live through another Lombardi-to-Holmgren cycle. While we've got a very reasonable chance to win it all, I want to see it. Certainly part of that is having come on board before Lombardi - now THOSE fans in the '60s were spoiled. Perhaps the 'spoiled' designation annoys me because I interpret that to mean not just whining or wanting something, but also getting it, and by that standard, the Lombardi-or-bust crowd has been anything but spoiled since Holmgren-Favre.

Sorry, I said I was going to let it go, but hitting exposed nerves often results in an involuntary response.

 

[Dubz41]

Hey Half, how about instead of spoiled we say 'unreasonably fortunate'?

In the era of parity that the NFL has fostered we have been unreasonably fortunate to have had 20+ years of tremendous QB play.

 

[Half Empty]

My knee-jerk reaction was 'sure, I can live with that'. However, I then realized that your second sentence is exactly my problem - all that tremendous QB play has gotten us how many brass rings? If one is unreasonably fortunate enough to be rich, good looking, etc., but the one girl you're after keeps saying 'no'...

 

[FlaPack]

My knee-jerk reaction was 'sure, I can live with that'. However, I then realized that your second sentence is exactly my problem - all that tremendous QB play has gotten us how many brass rings? If one is unreasonably fortunate enough to be rich, good looking, etc., but the one girl you're after keeps saying 'no'...

And great QB play only got new Orleans 1. Only got STL 1 with Warner 1 Manning has 2 but let's be honest only 1 was due to his QB play. Going even further back Marino had 0.

I get the point. I do. But since 1997 only 3 teams have repeated. Only 9 have made return trips. And it's not just QB play. Balt, Seattle and TB won with defense.
So did Denver this year.

It's the NCAA March Madness analogy. It's one and done. Look at Kentucky last year. The list goes on

 

[Half Empty]

Since it's only you and me, maybe I really can cut it off, but not before a couple of points.

Your first paragraph is difficult with which to argue, factually. However, right after the period, I'm sure your thinking was "so we're no worse than those guys" or something like that. Mine was two-fold - "agree, it sucked to be the fans of any of those teams and waste that QB talent" and "what does that have to do with the Packers? - I don't care about the other teams, I want mine to win (when reasonable)".

The second paragraph appears to say that more than just a great QB is needed, with which I certainly agree. It also emphasizes defense, and that's another sore point with me. Over the past few years, conventional wisdom has been that all we need is a pretty good D to go with the juggernaut offense, and we're in. Well, this year, we had the D, the offense was way down, and yet, in the end, the D managed to screw it up again.

I might note that you include Alabama above. Would be totally on board with the Packers having their success. Heck, even your other example, Ohio State, has two championships this century.

Finally, I understand one-and-done (heck, as a Packer fan, I expect it ) However, the March Madness analogy falls a little short in that the eventual winner has to do it six times. In the NFL, four max, three for the better teams.

Again, more power to you for your viewpoint. There are many areas of life that I can look at as you do. Pro football just isn't one of them.

 

[FlaPack]

Alabama may have been a bad example. Maybe should have used Florida or FSU or USC. My point with one and done has nothing to do with numbet of games. For elite programs you really don't get challenged till the next weekend. I digress. My point was one bad bounce one missed assignment one bad call can cost you the game. And a Lombardi. I can name dozens if examples. It's not just throwing the best talent out there or the best coaching. Using a cliche "any given Sunday".