I don't know what you mean by great; but to me Great is GB in 60's, Pitts in 70s. Maybe a third of the starters HOFers; another third perennial pro-bowlers; the other third plus 5 or 6 on the bench part time or almost all-pro; many of whom have played together for 8-10 years. Teamwork and talent so cohesive, good and dominant mindset, their play overcomes [as Tex says] much more than the average amount of luck. Loading and reloading is really really hard, that's why dynasties are special, and it is not just about front office talent, they need luck. And luck even prevented the great teams of Pack in 63 and 64 and of Pitts in 76 and 77 from winning.

Today Great is not only unrealistic; IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The closest a team in Cap era has come to Great is NE in early 2000s [aided by luck of getting Brady in rd 6; but once they paid him reloading has been sporadic] and the Seattle example, 3 consecutive drafts chalked full of really good players including a cheap QB, w/ a blend of good vets. With proper cap management and average drafts over the next 3 years, Seattle could have been dominant for 5-6 years, before having to rely more on luck to reload. Instead Schneider's unbridled aggression has limited his team's dominance to one year [2013]. Schneider tired to force a dynasty with aggression and wrecked it!

Harbaalke had a solid core to compete for a few more years; but unbridled on the field and front office aggression dismantled that team 2-3 years before its time.

To sacrifice being good in future years and be super aggressive to achieve unachievable greatness this year is patently idiotic. And you'll find out as most teams do: after being aggressive and being more "talented" the team isn't even as good in the aggressive year as it was the year before. Controlled and steady wins 99% of any race; but it wins 100% of NFL races.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

Sounds like you're giving Aaron Rodgers a pass. The guy is burning up 1/6 to 1/7 of the cap and had a Pass rating of 55 for game and well under that when the Burnett intercepted to seal the game. This team is so good that it was ahead 19-7 at 56 minutes over the defending SB champs on the road with Geno Smith [78 Pass Rating on season] at QB having a bad day. Oh, but if Geno was the QB, Ted Thompson would have had 20M to keep/sign more players.

So do we cut Rodgers? if you're going scorched earth Rodgers must be the second to go [after Bostic Slow-cum]!!!!

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

Are you serious with this garbage? The man was dragging his leg behind and still on the football field playing against a very good defense.

Accountability for a shitfest like the NFC Championship game always, and I mean always goes to the head coach. But for some reason in Green Bay, it doesn't work that way.

I do think Mike McCarthy is a good coach, but he is stubborn to his own detriment.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

"dragging his leg behind, " really? He had a 12 yard run, sacked once for 7 yards, he moved well enough!!!!! This is hyperbole not a scholarly judgment and a degradation of the facts and NOT the reason for his horrible game.

Yes he was injured; but no more injured than he was in Detroit game where he had a 139 passer rating; Dallas game, where he had a 125 passer rating. If were talking chokefest we begin w/ the highest paid guys! A 55 passer rating is 30% worse than the worst QB's season average in the league and Rodgers FAILED to audible out of those "stubborn calls by McCarthy."

I say some players/coaches had bad games or bad moments in games; it happens, ya grow from it; you dont go scorched earth. But if ya do Rodgers is #1 to go...22M per, horrible game and agreed w/ "Stubborn McCarthy's" calls. Ya cant manipulate the facts to cherry-pick who gets scorched.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn