I think it's pretty fair to rate this team without Rodgers involved. It's a good indicator for how much talent we have on our roster. I mean, you'd want to look at your other player groups from an unbiased perspective as possible. That'd be with the most average QB in the league. Now, Hundley was far below average, so he dragged the entire team down, but Rodgers is so far above average you can't objectively say if half of our receivers are any good, because he'll make them look good.

QB is such a ridicuslously important position that it can hide some major flaws on your team. Mickey Loomis and Bill Polian had cushy jobs for years because of just that. It's when that QB is not around, those flaws start to show.

I'm not saying you can subtract Rodgers when you're talking about the complete roster. I'm just saying that Rodgers would've given the Browns at least 6 wins this year.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 

How is it fair to remove the best player on a team and THEN rate them? That seems so idiotic to me. I don't understand the value in removing a piece and then rating. It's perception manipulation. Again, that to me is as stupid as taking a RB longest run and saying without that run we stopped him to below 100 yards. Yet, with the longest run he had over 180. You can't freaking take a player away and then rate the team. Why? Because the player is a part of the team!

Perhaps I'm being too analytical. I just don't get it at all.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Because you want to have an unbiased look. If that RB you keep talking about has 5 carries and 1 of them was for over 80 yards, while he ran for 5 yards on the other 4, it's fair to place that asterik. That's why these stat-records always have a minimum of games played, minimum of passes thrown, minimum of whatever.

Anyway, Rodgers skews the view of our team so badly that you can't objectively look at the talent level of our team in wins/losses without taking him out. But I think I went into that enough in that last post.

You leave out so many aspects if you just say that 10 wins = good team.

It's like a 1996 Ford Escort with worn tires, rusty undercarriage and horrible suspension, but with a BMW M240i's engine.

That wouldn't make for a great car overall, but one with the most important piece in place to put it above the rest and most likely outperform quite a few of them. Without that engine, though, it's a piece of shit.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 

I don't even think that engine would bolt up in the Escort so the car wouldn't be a great car regardless. Maybe if you put on a big spoiler you can have a large heavy stroller.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Barry Sanders had a lot of games where he had many carries under a few yards and even negative yards and then would bust one for a long score. Hell, look at his season he rushed for 2,053 yards where he had something like ~20 carries for ~50 yards. I ain't hearing anyone saying he's a pile of shit RB so your RB deal doesn't hold up there either. In fact, Barry lost more rushing yards than any other RB during his career, yet many consider him one of the best ever. No asterisk either. I'm sure you'll come back an say he's the exception to the rule.

Did I say 10 wins = good team? I think if we're going to slap a number of wins to determine a good team I would probably aim more like 12 wins or more. Always felt 8 - 0 at home and split the road games. I think that's more a good season than a good team though.

I liked McCarthy saying the defense needs to be better than the offense. He's right. You have Aaron Rodgers on the team, (even though some want to remove him and then rate the team [weird]) and with him you're damn near always in every game.

A 12 win team can be a non-complete team. Maybe that carries the load better. To test that completeness, rating it without Rodgers is a lot easier. Like we saw this year.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 

Yeah... I pretty much put my complete knowledge of cars in that one sentence, so I really don't know. But I think the analogy was clear.



I'm not quite sure how this relates to anything, as I mentioned a lack of sample size. I don't think you can say Sanders had a lack of sample size when you look at his career or season stats. Barry Sanders is the best RB ever. Looking at it from a team perspective, though, he could've been even better, but you have to take look at, objectively, how good the rest of that team was.

Now it is true that a running back doesn't skew your view of skill as much as a great QB, but you could make a claim that Barry would pull every safety and linebacker closer to the box and LoS just so someone could get a hand on him. That'd make an Erik Kramer or Rodney Peete look better than they might be, because the deep game completely opens up.



No, but I figured I'd throw this one in just for you. The Zero2 way of discussing by assumption. All kidding aside, the exact figure doesn't matter. Maybe this whole discussion is more about semantics than anything. A 12 win team can be a non-complete team. Maybe that carries the load better. To test that completeness, rating it without Rodgers is a lot easier. Like we saw this year.



We certainly agree on that. Rodgers keeps you in just about every ball game. We weren't that great a team in 2015, but Rodgers kept us in just about every game.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 

Actually, thinking about this a second longer I just realized I have an example disproving my 12 win = good team speculation because the Packers went 15 - 1 and I don't think that was a good time. I think that was an insanely prolific offense with a horrifying defense. My head hurts.


Eh, I'm gonna just chalk this up to another thing I just can't get my two brain cells wrapped around and stop making things difficult for those who do get it.

Pertaining to the topic title here, yes, Vikings and Eagles built teams that aren't predicated on an elite QB to attain success. I don't think that comes as a surprise to anyone. I don't believe any Packers fan is running saying they ONLY want an elite QB for a Super Bowl win. I would bet the fan base would rather have a TEAM that can win with a Brett Hundley instead of NEEDING an Aaron Rodgers to be competitive.

I don't think the Packers are top quarter in the NFL, but they aren't bottom quarter either. I would say their draft position is pretty close to their ranking in the NFL although I'd probably put them closer to bottom 10 to top 12.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Yeah, I thought about that 15-1 season as well.
Not only did we learn how poorly prepared to compete the defense was, we learned how poorly coached the team was when it came to playing the Giants in the playoffs.
During pre-game warm ups the Packers looked flat and unprepared.
I told my son at the time that we were going to lose that game.
If Rodgers hadn't been behind center that day we probably would have been shut out.

I sat through a lot of sad games during the 70's and 80's but I don't think I ever left Lambeau field as pissed off as I was at the end of that game.

Originally Posted by: yooperfan