Seems like I've been applauding you a lot lately.

You must have borrowed that past results/future success line from mutual funds disclaimers hahahaha.

I could learn to like Seneca Wallace real quick if he ever had to get on the field and did a decent job.

My Point in this whole thing is that the PROBLEM is Packer weakness in the O Line, as well as RB until this season, and to a great extent, our D also. Aaron Rodgers is like an addiction. He is so damn good that we have been able to win big time even with all those other weaknesses. Losing him would be like getting off of whatever meds somebody is taking - suddenly all those aches and pains and weaknesses would really come to the surface and we'd be in a world of hurt.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

Historical fact: past results are never the basis for future success.

I am not saying the Wallace could never win games. I am saying it is very unlikely to have Super Bowl success with him in charge. Look at all the WCO teams that have not won the SB year in and year out. Some pretty skillful QBs have come up short. They have to have talent around them in order to succeed. Aaron has succeeded in the absence of a lot of talent. Wallace would most likely not. Why it is not because the WCO is a failure (and GB doesn't run a true WCO by the way.) it is because he is not talented enough and with all the injuries the team's talent level has dropped. Don't look at the success GB has had Rodgers at the helm and assume it will be exactly the same without him. Boykin and White will not look as good. Even Jones when he comes back and Jordy will see their numbers drop. All you have to do is look at Jennings in MN to know it is so.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Of course nerd meant the Packers organization as a whole which is a little silly. It doesn't matter what any other team did. Not even 2012 team which had so many of the current players on it. The team can only deal with the next game on their schedule not look backwards t years gone by in order to predict future victories.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

You're contradicting yourself.

We can take Seneca Wallace's past record and apply it to the future, but not take the historical records of teams in general? Remember, Wallace has been on some sh!t sucking teams. Take his record against the spread as a better indicator than his pure win/loss record.

And remember, in the playoffs, we'll have alot of these guys back. James Jones, Randall Cobb, Jermicheal Finley.

And no, the Packers DON'T run a pure WCO. They run a run and shoot vertical offense. WITH RODGERS. That's my point. We see what they're being forced to do now, with all these guys injured: adhere to fundamentals.

That's what they'd be doing with Seneca. They'd be helping him out with high percentage plays. They wouldn't be expecting him to hold the ball 8 seconds and take shots down the field.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

In the long run none of this matters. Aaron is not going down.

Originally Posted by: wpr