ATL: Week 4

[El Duderino]

Without thinking about it all that much,I really do think he's the worst (or, most harmful) player I can ever remember having played for the Packers. His negative impact was huge, and he was worse at his job (even ignoring the negatives) than the guy he replaced in Cobb.

Ross was terrible, but that's a massive exaggeration. He might not even make the top 20 worst Packer players. For some examples off the the top of my head, as crazy as it is to believe, this guy actually started 32 games at QB for the Packers



His record in those games was 7-25. He had a 31/57 touchdown/interception ratio. That's not a misprint.

Tony Mandarich started 31 games as a Packer getting rag dolled after being picked ahead of Deion Sanders, Derrick Thomas, and Barry Sanders, all of whom made the HOF.

Jamal Reynolds was the 10h player picked in his draft class and was horrific from day one.

Terrell Buckley was not just a bust as the 5th overall pick, he got eaten alive in two playoff losses.

Ahmad Carroll. Just his name is enough to recall all of the stench he brought the team over two horrible seasons.

David Whitehurst would give Wright a run for one of the worst ever. He somehow managed to start 37 games with a 28/51 TD/INT ratio.

[Ayt]

Without thinking about it all that much,I really do think he's the worst (or, most harmful) player I can ever remember having played for the Packers. His negative impact was huge, and he was worse at his job (even ignoring the negatives) than the guy he replaced in Cobb.

Ross was terrible, but that's a massive exaggeration. He might not even make the top 20 worst Packer players. For some examples off the the top of my head, as crazy as it is to believe, this guy actually started 32 games at QB for the Packers



His record in those games was 7-25. He had a 31/57 touchdown/interception ratio. That's not a misprint.

Tony Mandarich started 31 games as a Packer getting rag dolled after being picked ahead of Deion Sanders, Derrick Thomas, and Barry Sanders, all of whom made the HOF.

Jamal Reynolds was the 10h player picked in his draft class and was horrific from day one.

Terrell Buckley was not just a bust as the 5th overall pick, he got eaten alive in two playoff losses.

Ahmad Carroll. Just his name is enough to recall all of the stench he brought the team over two horrible seasons.

David Whitehurst would give Wright a run for one of the worst ever. He somehow managed to start 37 games with a 28/51 TD/INT ratio.

Think of my argument in terms of the negative impact compared to snaps played. The damage Ross did in the very limited PT he got was unbelievably negative.

Believe me, I thought of all kinds of different players before I made my post. Still, if you just think about it in terms of win probability, the fumble against the 49ers was hugely damaging and the fumble against the Bengals was hugely damaging to the win probability in that game.

I can't think of a single player who has had a larger negative impact on the games in which he played than Jeremy Ross given the extremely limited amount of snaps that he got. On a per snap basis, he is by far the most negative player we've had in an extremely long time. I can't even think of anyone who compares.

[whatthe_buck!?]

Without thinking about it all that much,I really do think he's the worst (or, most harmful) player I can ever remember having played for the Packers. His negative impact was huge, and he was worse at his job (even ignoring the negatives) than the guy he replaced in Cobb.

Ross was terrible, but that's a massive exaggeration. He might not even make the top 20 worst Packer players. For some examples off the the top of my head, as crazy as it is to believe, this guy actually started 32 games at QB for the Packers



His record in those games was 7-25. He had a 31/57 touchdown/interception ratio. That's not a misprint.

Tony Mandarich started 31 games as a Packer getting rag dolled after being picked ahead of Deion Sanders, Derrick Thomas, and Barry Sanders, all of whom made the HOF.

Jamal Reynolds was the 10h player picked in his draft class and was horrific from day one.

Terrell Buckley was not just a bust as the 5th overall pick, he got eaten alive in two playoff losses.

Ahmad Carroll. Just his name is enough to recall all of the stench he brought the team over two horrible seasons.

David Whitehurst would give Wright a run for one of the worst ever. He somehow managed to start 37 games with a 28/51 TD/INT ratio.

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is the brief time we had him he may have cost us a Super Bowl ring (I still think if he doesn't fumble that punt in SF we go on to win that game and then the owl, no way we lose to Atlanta) and possibly a playoff bye this season (if like last season one game is the difference between a playoff bye and not getting one). In terms of spoiled championship team success potential Ayt may have a VERY strong case that Ross is the most negatively impactful player the packers have ever employed, especially so if u look at it relative to snaps played as he points out...

[Bucksfans1and2]

Beason to the Giants for late round pick(s).

This is weird.

Giants have a horrendous linebacking corps, Panthers want to get rid of an expensive and underperforming player. Same deal as the Levi Brown trade.

[raysbookclub]

In terms of spoiled championship team success potential Ayt may have a VERY strong case that Ross is the most negatively impactful player the packers have ever employed, especially so if u look at it relative to snaps played as he points out...

Another guy that comes to mind for me is TJ Rubley, if we're talking about negative impact AND small number of snaps. I think he had like 10 plays (less?) from scrimmage, and in those plays fumbled a snap and then did the famous audible-interception, before he was cut the next day.

But that was just regular season, and we ended up beating the 49ers in SF that year in the playoffs--the game where the Packers became legit in the NFC--before losing to Dal. So, all in all, a spectacularly terrible handful of snaps, but it seems like it didn't really hurt the Packers in terms of championship.

Ross, on the other hand, had some good returns in a few games late last year. But that fumbled PR was the big play of the playoff loss to SF, and maybe we win that game and go to the Super Bowl last year. So, I think I'll go with Ross for most negative impact.

[raysbookclub]

Also, here's a question related to Ross and sort of Rubley. If Ross fumbled in January while on Holmgren's team, is he on the roster to start the next season?

[El Duderino]

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is the brief time we had him he may have cost us a Super Bowl ring (I still think if he doesn't fumble that punt in SF we go on to win that game and then the owl, no way we lose to Atlanta) and possibly a playoff bye this season (if like last season one game is the difference between a playoff bye and not getting one). In terms of spoiled championship team success potential Ayt may have a VERY strong case that Ross is the most negatively impactful player the packers have ever employed, especially so if u look at it relative to snaps played as he points out...

That's a massive stretch to say Ross cost us a championship last year. His fumble vs the 49ers was a kick in the teeth at the time, but i think the odds are still pretty high that the Packers would have lost that game even if he doesn't fumble when he did. If he catches it instead, we have the ball around the 10 yard line and besides that, his fumble played zero factor in the defense getting torched for nearly 600 yards. You don't see an NFL team put up 600 yards on a defense that often, especially in the playoffs, that's more like something you see in college football where say Wisconsin is playing UMass or some other completely overmatched team.

As for the fumble vs Cinci, i have a hard time pinning much of that loss on Ross given we later lead 30-14 late in the 3rd quarter and then proceeded to turn the ball over three times in a row, including twice inside the Cinci 35 yard line. We also had the ball with a 1st and 10 at the Bengals 25 yard line and 1:40 left, but the drive again died there.

Early mistakes in games obviously hurt and can end up having some impact on who eventually wins, but good teams overcome them. Hell, after the Ross fumble, Cinci turned it over four straight times, yet they managed to overcome the Packers scoring 30 straight points on them. In the game vs SF, our defense constantly had them in 3rd and long situations, but couldn't get off the field and in turn lead to 49er touchdowns.

[MickeyDavis]

Hard to play the what-if game but turnovers are huge, absolutely huge.

[whatthe_buck!?]

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is the brief time we had him he may have cost us a Super Bowl ring (I still think if he doesn't fumble that punt in SF we go on to win that game and then the owl, no way we lose to Atlanta) and possibly a playoff bye this season (if like last season one game is the difference between a playoff bye and not getting one). In terms of spoiled championship team success potential Ayt may have a VERY strong case that Ross is the most negatively impactful player the packers have ever employed, especially so if u look at it relative to snaps played as he points out...

That's a massive stretch to say Ross cost us a championship last year. His fumble vs the 49ers was a kick in the teeth at the time, but i think the odds are still pretty high that the Packers would have lost that game even if he doesn't fumble when he did. If he catches it instead, we have the ball around the 10 yard line and besides that, his fumble played zero factor in the defense getting torched for nearly 600 yards. You don't see an NFL team put up 600 yards on a defense that often, especially in the playoffs, that's more like something you see in college football where say Wisconsin is playing UMass or some other completely overmatched team.

As for the fumble vs Cinci, i have a hard time pinning much of that loss on Ross given we later lead 30-14 late in the 3rd quarter and then proceeded to turn the ball over three times in a row, including twice inside the Cinci 35 yard line. We also had the ball with a 1st and 10 at the Bengals 25 yard line and 1:40 left, but the drive again died there.

Early mistakes in games obviously hurt and can end up having some impact on who eventually wins, but good teams overcome them. Hell, after the Ross fumble, Cinci turned it over four straight times, yet they managed to overcome the Packers scoring 30 straight points on them. In the game vs SF, our defense constantly had them in 3rd and long situations, but couldn't get off the field and in turn lead to 49er touchdowns.

How is it a massive stretch to say that when that one particular play was as big as they come in that game and if we had won that game nobody was better than us the rest of the way besides the Seahawks and maybe the Broncos, neither of whom would we have had to face the rest of the way. And as for the bengals game yeah we had a TON of missed opportunities in that game but it was still so close that if even just one of our mistakes doesn't happen it's pretty hard to argue we wouldn't have won, the Ross fumble included. Lets just say I agree to disagree.

[whatthe_buck!?]

Hard to play the what-if game but turnovers are huge, absolutely huge.

It's easy for people to forget with the drubbing we endured in the second half that we only lost by 2 touchdowns and that the Ross fumble was possibly the difference between us going into halftime with a 7-14 point lead and us going in down 3 points. That Ross fumble was IMO the 7-14 point swing that turned the game from a tossup at the finish to a 14 point comfortable lead for the niners.

[rilamann]

Also, here's a question related to Ross and sort of Rubley. If Ross fumbled in January while on Holmgren's team, is he on the roster to start the next season?

Ross wouldn't have been allowed on the plane back to Green Bay after that game on Holmgren's team.


Crosby would probably be long gone too.

[El Duderino]

How is it a massive stretch to say that when that one particular play was as big as they come in that game and if we had won that game nobody was better than us the rest of the way besides the Seahawks and maybe the Broncos, neither of whom would we have had to face the rest of the way. And as for the bengals game yeah we had a TON of missed opportunities in that game but it was still so close that if even just one of our mistakes doesn't happen it's pretty hard to argue we wouldn't have won, the Ross fumble included. Lets just say I agree to disagree.

SF threw a pick 6 to Shields early in that playoff loss, yet they managed to overcome it just fine. That fumble by Ross hurt and gave the 49ers the 7 points back from the Shields pick, but there was plenty of time left to overcome it and still win the game as SF did instead by absolutely dominating our defense.

Same with the Bengals game. To me, the 2nd Rodgers INT and the fumble by Franklin were more costly given when they happened.

One thing i don't care for is when some fans take one play earlier in a close loss be it say a turnover, missed FG, blown call, etc and then tell it that if not for that play, you could add 3 or 7 points to our score/take those points from the opponent and thus we'd have won by X number of points or it would have went into OT. It doesn't work that way, that's why i put more importance on late mistakes simply because there is much less time to do things to overcome the mistakes.

[El Duderino]

Also, here's a question related to Ross and sort of Rubley. If Ross fumbled in January while on Holmgren's team, is he on the roster to start the next season?

Ross wouldn't have been allowed on the plane back to Green Bay after that game on Holmgren's team.

Crosby would probably be long gone too.

Maybe, maybe not given Ted Thompson wasn't the GM back then. Wolf and Holmgren generally weren't as rigid/forgiving about sticking with young players and non-high draft picks as Ted and McCarthy are.

In the end, both Wolf and Ted had final say on all roster moves, even though it's safe to assume that both talked over decisions with their head coaches.

If Ted wanted Ross gone earlier than he was cut, he'd have been cut sooner or not even make the roster. Same with Crosby. If Ted had wanted Crosby gone during last season, we'd have a different kicker.

One major reason i think Ted and McCarthy get along so well is they share very similar visions for how to put together rosters. McCarthy never makes direct comments or even uses innuendo at all about wanting more veterans brought in. Instead, he constantly brings up that the Packers are a draft and develop organization, and that it will stay that way. A vision Ted clearly brought with him the day he was hired as GM. While that vision certainly has brought much more overall good than bad, that stubbornness of sticking with younger players they believe in has burned them a few times.

[whatthe_buck!?]

How is it a massive stretch to say that when that one particular play was as big as they come in that game and if we had won that game nobody was better than us the rest of the way besides the Seahawks and maybe the Broncos, neither of whom would we have had to face the rest of the way. And as for the bengals game yeah we had a TON of missed opportunities in that game but it was still so close that if even just one of our mistakes doesn't happen it's pretty hard to argue we wouldn't have won, the Ross fumble included. Lets just say I agree to disagree.

SF threw a pick 6 to Shields early in that playoff loss, yet they managed to overcome it just fine. That fumble by Ross hurt and gave the 49ers the 7 points back from the Shields pick, but there was plenty of time left to overcome it and still win the game as SF did instead by absolutely dominating our defense.

Same with the Bengals game. To me, the 2nd Rodgers INT and the fumble by Franklin were more costly given when they happened.

One thing i don't care for is when some fans take one play earlier in a close loss be it say a turnover, missed FG, blown call, etc and then tell it that if not for that play, you could add 3 or 7 points to our score/take those points from the opponent and thus we'd have won by X number of points or it would have went into OT. It doesn't work that way, that's why i put more importance on late mistakes simply because there is much less time to do things to overcome the mistakes.

I agree with ur overall point to a certain extent, but in the case of the SF playoff loss that wasn't just "one play" early in the loss, it was THE play of the game right before the half and it literally represented a 7-14 point swing. U may want to argue that they whooped us otherwise throughout the game but the fact is even with the Ross fumble if Arod doesn't overthrow Jennings late we also would have been within one score in the forth and the game at that point would've very likely been a toss up at the end. Point being they didn't smoke us so badly the rest of the way that the Ross fumble and therefore 7-14 point swing wasn't absolutely gigantic.

Of course it's impossible to say that if the Ross fumble didnt happen we would've won the game, but it's also not at all accurate to say that the Ross fumble wasn't potentially the difference between winning or losing that game (and from that for it to follow that Ross potentially cost us a championship last season). I think what may be at issue here is our differing judgements as to just how thin the margin between victory and defeat were in both games we are discussing. U probably believe that the niners were significantly better than us last season and would have overcome any adversity to beat us in that playoff game. And u may be right about that. i just disagree very strongly. Like I said earlier, we probably have to just agree to disagree.