- Thread starter
- #1,081
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 27,130
- Reaction score
- 1,228
Ah, a nice snoozer to cap the triple header to help lull everyone into their trytophan coma.
If they have such solid pieces around Rodgers then why are they dogshit w/o him?Teagz said:They have the best QB in the league and solid pieces around him. That's enough to get to the Super Bowl every year, but come playoff time they always find a way to lose.
They lose playoff games that they should have won, and they get blown out in games that were predicted to be close. That's coaching. They should have beat the Giants in 2011 and the should have finished the NFCCG against the Seahawks. They looked completely unprepared against the Niners when Kaepernick ran all over them, and in last year's game against the Falcons.BwareDWare94 said:No, they've been beaten by better teams the years they haven't gone. It wasn't good enough those years.
Football is the team sport of all sports. A great QB does not definitively make you better than every other team.
Because McCarthy's offenses are completely dependent on the QB to be successful?AE. said:If they have such solid pieces around Rodgers then why are they dogshit w/o him?
Teagz said:Because McCarthy's offenses are completely dependent on the QB to be successful?
But didnt Matt flynn help keep them afloat one year? They definitely have good receivers. No NFL team is flawless and losing Rodgers has shown a light on a lot more than just a lack of a backup QBAE. said:
Most offenses are, but its hard to argue Green Bay has such a strong supporting cast when they've been awful without Rodgers. Most teams aren't as good w/e their franchise QB but not all are as putrid as the Pack has been. Leads me to believe the Pack is a one man show, period.
Did you contradict yourself here?CameronCrazy06 said:But didnt Matt flynn help keep them afloat one year? They definitely have good receivers. No NFL team is flawless and losing Rodgers has shown a light on a lot more than just a lack of a backup QB