Yeah, and so what? We are saying that Aaron Rodgers likely hasn't been as good so far as one of the best quarterbacks to ever play the game going along with THE best coach to ever coach (try to deny that fact objectively)? That's not exactly shocking. If Tom Brady is the metric by which all quarterbacks are compared, there aren't going to be many other successful quarterbacks in the history of the NFL. Tom Brady has been a great player despite his physical limitations and he has had the best coach ever behind him at all times. I have no doubt Aaron Rodgers would have had much more success if he was coached by Bill Belichick rather than ho hum Mike McCarthy. McCarthy might be a good coach, but Belichick STOMPS him.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

I think the point is people keep acting like it's all TTs fault that we haven't won more Superbowls with Rodgers at QB and it's some absurd thing without acknowledging the reality of Rodgers' responsibility for many of our playoff exits. People just make mountains of excuses for him because he's more likeable than any GM or coach.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

So if Bill/Bill is better than Ted/Mike because he had Brady, does that mean Vince/Vince was better than Ted/Mike because he had Starr?

I'm perfectly okay with looking at Ted and Mike as a package. Then again, who hired Mike?

I happen to think that Rodgers (except for last year) is better than Brady at their position. (And he is certainly better than, ahem, Matt Cassell.) But unlike Brady, Rodgers has never had a stud OL or a stud DL. And who is responsible for the quality of OL and DL players the Packers have (or more often haven't) had over the last decade?

For example, this year, the OL was as good as it has ever been under Ted's management. And it was -- still -- no better than a middle-of-the-road OL:
Bakhtiari: last year, makes the step up to average.
Sitton: declined from absolute stud to still damn good.
Center: declined from slightly above average to below average.
Lang: Above average.
Bulaga: Average to below average.
Backups: Below average on good days.

Tell me, which position group has Belichek never been above this "middle of the road"quality in his entire tenure as GM/HC?
Off.backfield? No. WR/TE? No. No. OL? no. DL? No. LB? No. DB? No.

Belichek has had weak position groups in his tenure. But he has never had a position group that for an entire decade has never got beyond "middle of the road." I'm not sure he's ever went five years with a position or position group always at "middle of the road" or worse. Maybe punter.

Ted? How many years has the DL been below average? How many years were safeties average? How many years was LB corps (except for Matthews) average or worse?

Originally Posted by: Wade 

Since Karlos Dansby was cut by the browns I've been thinking he would be an interesting addition if he'll sign cheaply. He's old and only has a couple more years in the league but he was a better ILB last year than anyone on our roster not named Mathews. He's also been paid well for awhile now so he may take a 1-2 year vet minimum contract to play with a contender.

Originally Posted by: isocleas2 

The Packers already had coverage issues with young guys like Ryan. Not sure the team needs another old liability trying to cover a 23 year old TE or RB out of the backfield.

Originally Posted by: musccy