2021 Draft and Offseason - Rodgers Wants Out of GB?

[RRyder823]

The 2004 Packers went 10-6, beating up on a crappy division, and subsequently mooned out of the Wild Card round by the 8-8 Vikings, where Favre threw 4 interceptions, and hinted at retirement right after. So drafting a QB then was not that risky, because the Packers weren't even close, and Favre was wishy-washy.

In 2019, the Packers went to the NFCCG, and just needed a boost to get over the hump. To use an extremely important player acquisition avenue (a FRP) on someone not providing said boost is far riskier then than in 2005. Apples and oranges comparison.

At some point, it's time to look at the here and now. The Packers tried the long term future route, and we got a 10 year Super Bowl drought out of it.

Thank you for proving my point

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

That...doesn't make any sense.

Unless you were like the one or two posters advocating for a CB in round 1 then guess what? You ain't getting that boost you wanted anyways.

Kinda hard to improve on the 3rd most efficient offense in history so there's going to be diminishing returns even if you want to go back in time and select Claypool.... And let's be honest it would've probably been Higgins

"Well the Oline against TB though"..... And considering the Oline had been pretty stout all year and had vets in both Turner and Wagner who played well up to that point you ain't getting that instant boost from a OT either cause he wasn't going to be on the field.

"Yeah but Queen wouldve helped the D and we all wanted him" Barnes was better then Queen last year so nope still no instant boost. I love Queen and still think he can be a stud in the future but we're talking about an instant boost here.

So yeah continuing to bitch n moan about them being proactive about the future at the games most important position in last years draft when all of your (admittedly I'm assuming here because I don't remember who was on your wish list last year) selections wouldn't have given the instant boost you wanted is something only Packers fans would do and you did just that so.... Thanks for proving my point



Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[th87]

Thank you for proving my point

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

That...doesn't make any sense.

Unless you were like the one or two posters advocating for a CB in round 1 then guess what? You ain't getting that boost you wanted anyways.

Kinda hard to improve on the 3rd most efficient offense in history so there's going to be diminishing returns even if you want to go back in time and select Claypool.... And let's be honest it would've probably been Higgins

"Well the Oline against TB though"..... And considering the Oline had been pretty stout all year and had vets in both Turner and Wagner who played well up to that point you ain't getting that instant boost from a OT either cause he wasn't going to be on the field.

"Yeah but Queen wouldve helped the D and we all wanted him" Barnes was better then Queen last year so nope still no instant boost. I love Queen and still think he can be a stud in the future but we're talking about an instant boost here.

So yeah continuing to bitch n moan about them being proactive about the future at the games most important position in last years draft when all of your (admittedly I'm assuming here because I don't remember who was on your wish list last year) selections wouldn't have given the instant boost you wanted is something only Packers fans would do and you did just that so.... Thanks for proving my point

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

The problem with "macro" stats like "third most efficient offense in NFL history" or "highest net rating in NBA history" is that it becomes largely irrelevant in "micro" situations. On a third and 8 with one play to make, your opponent doesn't care that the offense has been historic up to that point. You need to win that key play. And if you have the horses on hand to do it, you probably win.

Maybe with more WR talent, we don't get bogged down after the Brady interceptions. Maybe we get the last TD. Maybe we win in a blowout. In any situation we fall just short with no contribution from the FRP, the question has to be asked if going in a different direction would've helped. It's not enough to be historically good despite that. We didn't win. Period. That's all that matters.

[RRyder823]

That...doesn't make any sense.

Unless you were like the one or two posters advocating for a CB in round 1 then guess what? You ain't getting that boost you wanted anyways.

Kinda hard to improve on the 3rd most efficient offense in history so there's going to be diminishing returns even if you want to go back in time and select Claypool.... And let's be honest it would've probably been Higgins

"Well the Oline against TB though"..... And considering the Oline had been pretty stout all year and had vets in both Turner and Wagner who played well up to that point you ain't getting that instant boost from a OT either cause he wasn't going to be on the field.

"Yeah but Queen wouldve helped the D and we all wanted him" Barnes was better then Queen last year so nope still no instant boost. I love Queen and still think he can be a stud in the future but we're talking about an instant boost here.

So yeah continuing to bitch n moan about them being proactive about the future at the games most important position in last years draft when all of your (admittedly I'm assuming here because I don't remember who was on your wish list last year) selections wouldn't have given the instant boost you wanted is something only Packers fans would do and you did just that so.... Thanks for proving my point

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

The problem with "macro" stats like "third most efficient offense in NFL history" or "highest net rating in NBA history" is that it becomes largely irrelevant in "micro" situations. On a third and 8 with one play to make, your opponent doesn't care that the offense has been historic up to that point. You need to win that key play. And if you have the horses on hand to do it, you probably win.

Maybe with more WR talent, we don't get bogged down after the Brady interceptions. Maybe we get the last TD. Maybe we win in a blowout. In any situation we fall just short with no contribution from the FRP, the question has to be asked if going in a different direction would've helped. It's not enough to be historically good despite that. We didn't win. Period. That's all that matters.

So you were going to drive yourself crazy and complain about who was drafted 1st no matter what if they didn't win the SB because "ya never know"....... Like I said..... Only Packers fans

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[th87]

Unless you were like the one or two posters advocating for a CB in round 1 then guess what? You ain't getting that boost you wanted anyways.

Kinda hard to improve on the 3rd most efficient offense in history so there's going to be diminishing returns even if you want to go back in time and select Claypool.... And let's be honest it would've probably been Higgins

"Well the Oline against TB though"..... And considering the Oline had been pretty stout all year and had vets in both Turner and Wagner who played well up to that point you ain't getting that instant boost from a OT either cause he wasn't going to be on the field.

"Yeah but Queen wouldve helped the D and we all wanted him" Barnes was better then Queen last year so nope still no instant boost. I love Queen and still think he can be a stud in the future but we're talking about an instant boost here.

So yeah continuing to bitch n moan about them being proactive about the future at the games most important position in last years draft when all of your (admittedly I'm assuming here because I don't remember who was on your wish list last year) selections wouldn't have given the instant boost you wanted is something only Packers fans would do and you did just that so.... Thanks for proving my point

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

The problem with "macro" stats like "third most efficient offense in NFL history" or "highest net rating in NBA history" is that it becomes largely irrelevant in "micro" situations. On a third and 8 with one play to make, your opponent doesn't care that the offense has been historic up to that point. You need to win that key play. And if you have the horses on hand to do it, you probably win.

Maybe with more WR talent, we don't get bogged down after the Brady interceptions. Maybe we get the last TD. Maybe we win in a blowout. In any situation we fall just short with no contribution from the FRP, the question has to be asked if going in a different direction would've helped. It's not enough to be historically good despite that. We didn't win. Period. That's all that matters.

So you were going to drive yourself crazy and complain about who was drafted 1st no matter what if they didn't win the SB because "ya never know"....... Like I said..... Only Packers fans

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

If they used every avenue possible to get a SB victory last year, then I'd be okay with losing. They didn't do this.

And spare me the homer shtick please. For years now, you've been an apologist for TT while dancing on the Patriots' graves (while we've been highlighting the FO's shortcomings during that time). All that happened since then is that TT got fired and the Patriots won two more Super Bowls. I would think a little more humility would be in order given the Ls you've been taking.

[RRyder823]

The problem with "macro" stats like "third most efficient offense in NFL history" or "highest net rating in NBA history" is that it becomes largely irrelevant in "micro" situations. On a third and 8 with one play to make, your opponent doesn't care that the offense has been historic up to that point. You need to win that key play. And if you have the horses on hand to do it, you probably win.

Maybe with more WR talent, we don't get bogged down after the Brady interceptions. Maybe we get the last TD. Maybe we win in a blowout. In any situation we fall just short with no contribution from the FRP, the question has to be asked if going in a different direction would've helped. It's not enough to be historically good despite that. We didn't win. Period. That's all that matters.

So you were going to drive yourself crazy and complain about who was drafted 1st no matter what if they didn't win the SB because "ya never know"....... Like I said..... Only Packers fans

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

If they used every avenue possible to get a SB victory last year, then I'd be okay with losing. They didn't do this.

And spare me the homer shtick please. For years now, you've been an apologist for TT while dancing on the Patriots' graves (while we've been highlighting the FO's shortcomings during that time). All that happened since then is that TT got fired and the Patriots won two more Super Bowls. I would think a little more humility would be in order given the Ls you've been taking.

Funny you talk about taking Ls when the complaint stems from "They should've taken someone that could help this year on offense or at LB" and you've yet to take the L that they didn't need help at those positions. They gambled that they had enough talent on the roster allready that could go the the SB. They were right. They had the talent. Execution is a bitch though. The better team doesn't always win.

As for the bolded that's more because I support a more conservative approach to a what a GM should do. It's not being an "apologist" for TT. When he made a move I didn't like I said as much. I simply don't agree with the crowd that if they got all the moves they've wanted our cap would look like the Saints with the Texans draft picks. But hey they went for it

Not sure why me hating the Patriots is even relevant unless your talking about how when many people always tried to use them as the go to as to why the Packers sucked I would point out that was a stupid argument

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[Ron Swanson]

It's fine to simply prefer that we picked a WR in the 1st round for the long term over investing in Love if you're just not a fan of him as a prospect, but this continuing notion that a single rookie was gonna shift the balance in the NFC title game is just ridiculous. You guys need to let it go.

[ReasonablySober]

It's fine to simply prefer that we picked a WR in the 1st round for the long term over investing in Love if you're just not a fan of him as a prospect, but this continuing notion that a single rookie was gonna shift the balance in the NFC title game is just ridiculous. You guys need to let it go.

They punted twice and settled for an absurd field goal in the 4th quarter. Not absurd to think that an upgrade at WR could have helped maintain at least one of those drives. I say this as someone who was fine with the Love pick.

[Ron Swanson]

It's fine to simply prefer that we picked a WR in the 1st round for the long term over investing in Love if you're just not a fan of him as a prospect, but this continuing notion that a single rookie was gonna shift the balance in the NFC title game is just ridiculous. You guys need to let it go.

They punted twice and settled for an absurd field goal in the 4th quarter. Not absurd to think that an upgrade at WR could have helped maintain at least one of those drives. I say this as someone who was fine with the Love pick.

7 receptions for 177 yards and a TD between the #2 and #3 WR's (MVS and Lazard) for the game. Yeah sorry man, it's pretty absurd to suggest that the WR talent was an issue in that loss. It's telling that people have to go back and harp on that one dropped 2PT conversion by EQ way before any of the 4th quarter stuff transpired to look for any reason to grind their "we should have drafted a wideout" axe they've been holding all year. Blame Rodgers for getting tunnel vision and/or not running towards the goal line on 3rd down, I guess (I won't, but it would at least be a more warranted criticism than the WR stuff).

[crkone]

It's fine to simply prefer that we picked a WR in the 1st round for the long term over investing in Love if you're just not a fan of him as a prospect, but this continuing notion that a single rookie was gonna shift the balance in the NFC title game is just ridiculous. You guys need to let it go.

They punted twice and settled for an absurd field goal in the 4th quarter. Not absurd to think that an upgrade at WR could have helped maintain at least one of those drives. I say this as someone who was fine with the Love pick.

7 receptions for 177 yards and a TD between the #2 and #3 WR's (MVS and Lazard) for the game. Yeah sorry man, it's pretty absurd to suggest that the WR talent was an issue in that loss. It's telling that people have to go back and harp on that one dropped 2PT conversion by EQ way before any of the 4th quarter stuff transpired to look for any reason to grind their "we should have drafted a wideout" axe they've been holding all year. Blame Rodgers for getting tunnel vision and/or not running towards the goal line on 3rd down, I guess (I won't, but it would at least be a more warranted criticism than the WR stuff).

Probably could also blame that whole torn ACL of the best LT in the league too.

[ReasonablySober]

It's fine to simply prefer that we picked a WR in the 1st round for the long term over investing in Love if you're just not a fan of him as a prospect, but this continuing notion that a single rookie was gonna shift the balance in the NFC title game is just ridiculous. You guys need to let it go.

They punted twice and settled for an absurd field goal in the 4th quarter. Not absurd to think that an upgrade at WR could have helped maintain at least one of those drives. I say this as someone who was fine with the Love pick.

7 receptions for 177 yards and a TD between the #2 and #3 WR's (MVS and Lazard) for the game. Yeah sorry man, it's pretty absurd to suggest that the WR talent was an issue in that loss. It's telling that people have to go back and harp on that one dropped 2PT conversion by EQ way before any of the 4th quarter stuff transpired to look for any reason to grind their "we should have drafted a wideout" axe they've been holding all year. Blame Rodgers for getting tunnel vision and/or not running towards the goal line on 3rd down, I guess (I won't, but it would at least be a more warranted criticism than the WR stuff).

I'm not saying Love is the reason we lost or even a big part of the reason. I'm simply saying there's a chance that another skilled WR could have made an impact on that game. There's no disputing that.

[M-C-G]

I'm not saying Love is the reason we lost or even a big part of the reason. I'm simply saying there's a chance that another skilled WR could have made an impact on that game. There's no disputing that.

Yeah, one could make the case had Rodgers gotten injured for 6 weeks and Love was able to save our chances at the playoffs by going 3-3 over a six week stretch. Both are possible.

I was one of the biggest advocates for a WR among all the Packer friends and family I know and I hate how the board ended up falling, I couldn't justify anyone at that pick, though I suspected we may have interest in Claypool. With that said, who was the last rookie WR that Rodgers even threw the ball to?

[M-C-G]

It's fine to simply prefer that we picked a WR in the 1st round for the long term over investing in Love if you're just not a fan of him as a prospect, but this continuing notion that a single rookie was gonna shift the balance in the NFC title game is just ridiculous. You guys need to let it go.

They punted twice and settled for an absurd field goal in the 4th quarter. Not absurd to think that an upgrade at WR could have helped maintain at least one of those drives. I say this as someone who was fine with the Love pick.

7 receptions for 177 yards and a TD between the #2 and #3 WR's (MVS and Lazard) for the game. .

I am going to have to admit to being wrong about both those guys. I think going into the season, I was skeptical either should be getting snaps, kinda Geronimo Allison / Bret Swain level guys. I think both showed another level this season.

Still crazy to think that MVS probably left 3-4 50+ yard TD out there with horrible drops. I think next year if he can make those plays, he may be a 900 yards, 8 TD kind of guy with a 20+ yards per catch. Kind of cool stat on PFR, MVS averaged 13.6 Yards BEFORE Reception. Only Rashard Higgins and Nelson Agohlor had more.

Davante was 6.8 for comparison

[CWoodfan]

If they used every avenue possible to get a SB victory last year, then I'd be okay with losing. They didn't do this.

And spare me the homer shtick please. For years now, you've been an apologist for TT while dancing on the Patriots' graves (while we've been highlighting the FO's shortcomings during that time). All that happened since then is that TT got fired and the Patriots won two more Super Bowls. I would think a little more humility would be in order given the Ls you've been taking.

The apologists insisted that TT's disdain for free agency, refusal make trades for players, and unparalleled emphasis on always giving his draftees whatever time they needed to develop was the superior method of roster building. They were absolutely certain that TT's approach would result in multiple Super Bowl appearances as long as Aaron Rodgers remained the QB and scoffed and less knowledgeable Packer fans who dared question TT's greatness. Well, 3 Rodgers MVPs and a decade later, there still has not been another trip to the SB.

In contrast, over the past decade, the Patriots won multiple SBs by building their roster in the exact opposite way that Ted did -- always adding both high-profile and numerous cheaper Free Agents and making more trades for players than any other NFL team (and recent SB winners Seattle, Denver, Philly, and now Tampa Bay all followed NE's way not TT's). Thus, for the apologists the narrative shifted to how unlucky the Packers have been and on all those glorious NFC North Titles.

More recently, after Gute undeniably used his 2020 1st and 4th round picks on a player the Organization had no intention of relying upon to help the team win in 2020, even though the Pack went to the 2019 NFC Championship game, the faithful have been preaching that because QB is the most important position in the game Love was absolutely the right pick. And there is no denying the apologists' are correct that in the future Love might, just might, be so good that he leads GB to ONE Super Bowl win just like his predecessors Favre and Rodgers.

All that said, those from the Flat Earth wing of Packer apologist fandom are simply disputing the indisputable when they insist that NO PLAYERS taken in rounds 1 and 4 COULD HAVE POSSIBLY HELPED get the Pack over hump in the 2020 NFC Championship game.

To take but one obvious example, the WR Tampa Bay selected in round 5 (and who would have been available to GB late in round 4) Tyler Johnson had a couple of key plays in the NFCCG (as TB WR #5 he played because Antonio Brown did not play) while Packer WR #4 ESB's key contribution was his drop of the 2-point conversion.

The only comeback the blindly faithful now offer to the logically unassailable position that by drafting Love the Packers gave up an opportunity to use the team's 1st and 4th round picks to improve the roster in 2020 is to demand that less loyal fans stop bringing up these indisputable facts as it interferes with their ability to rejoice in every move the Packer front office makes.

[M-C-G]

If they used every avenue possible to get a SB victory last year, then I'd be okay with losing. They didn't do this.

And spare me the homer shtick please. For years now, you've been an apologist for TT while dancing on the Patriots' graves (while we've been highlighting the FO's shortcomings during that time). All that happened since then is that TT got fired and the Patriots won two more Super Bowls. I would think a little more humility would be in order given the Ls you've been taking.

The apologists insisted that TT's disdain for free agency, refusal make trades for players, and unparalleled emphasis on always giving his draftees whatever time they needed to develop was the superior method of roster building. They were absolutely certain that TT's approach would result in multiple Super Bowl appearances as long as Aaron Rodgers remained the QB and scoffed and less knowledgeable Packer fans who dared question TT's greatness. Well, 3 Rodgers MVPs and a decade later, there still has not been another trip to the SB.

In contrast, over the past decade, the Patriots won multiple SBs by building their roster in the exact opposite way that Ted did -- always adding both high-profile and numerous cheaper Free Agents and making more trades for players than any other NFL team (and recent SB winners Seattle, Denver, Philly, and now Tampa Bay all followed NE's way not TT's). Thus, for the apologists the narrative shifted to how unlucky the Packers have been and on all those glorious NFC North Titles.

More recently, after Gute undeniably used his 2020 1st and 4th round picks on a player the Organization had no intention of relying upon to help the team win in 2020, even though the Pack went to the 2019 NFC Championship game, the faithful have been preaching that because QB is the most important position in the game Love was absolutely the right pick. And there is no denying the apologists' are correct that in the future Love might, just might, be so good that he leads GB to ONE Super Bowl win just like his predecessors Favre and Rodgers.

All that said, those from the Flat Earth wing of Packer apologist fandom are simply disputing the indisputable when they insist that NO PLAYERS taken in rounds 1 and 4 COULD HAVE POSSIBLY HELPED get the Pack over hump in the 2020 NFC Championship game.

To take but one obvious example, the WR Tampa Bay selected in round 5 (and who would have been available to GB late in round 4) Tyler Johnson had a couple of key plays in the NFCCG (as TB WR #5 he played because Antonio Brown did not play) while Packer WR #4 ESB's key contribution was his drop of the 2-point conversion.

The only comeback the blindly faithful now offer to the logically unassailable position that by drafting Love the Packers gave up an opportunity to use the team's 1st and 4th round picks to improve the roster in 2020 is to demand that less loyal fans stop bringing up these indisputable facts as it interferes with their ability to rejoice in every move the Packer front office makes.

I'm sorry TT apologists did this to you, seems like it has been a major detriment to your quality of life.

I think my buddies that are all in guys are way too loose with opportunity cost. Bitching about unused cap, but then neglecting how we used that to get some great extension done in the following season. Talk about signing X,Y and Z, but then ignoring how we would have to probably lose A, B and C.

This year is going to be interesting because we are literally going to lose guys, likely core guys. Any go for it signing or move will certainly cost us even more of the guys that just went to back to back NFC championship games. I definitely think there is an opportunity to add some meaningful guys if we can open up more cap, but we have to consider who we would be losing as an offset

Fascinating offseason.

[M-C-G]

You and me are on the same page it looks like lol. I love Zaven Collins. He's going to be a huge menace on defense and if we are going with that Vic Fangio style defense, this guy could play that Khalil Mack role of lining up everywhere and just terrorizing people. Can drop in coverage, can line up outside and can even put his hand in the dirt. I'd be so down for this.

Edit: And I also love Darden in the middle rounds. When people talk about twitchy athletes, this dude should be the poster boy. My goodness.

Was driving and caught Mike Clements on the Big Show. He said, Gute said, one of the positions they need to fix is ILB. When I heard that I thought, maybe Zaven isn't just a pipe dream after all.

Now just have to hope he doesn't run a 40 in the 4.5s otherwise can't see him being there for us.

[msiris]

So Queen would not helped at all?

[Matches Malone]

You and me are on the same page it looks like lol. I love Zaven Collins. He's going to be a huge menace on defense and if we are going with that Vic Fangio style defense, this guy could play that Khalil Mack role of lining up everywhere and just terrorizing people. Can drop in coverage, can line up outside and can even put his hand in the dirt. I'd be so down for this.

Edit: And I also love Darden in the middle rounds. When people talk about twitchy athletes, this dude should be the poster boy. My goodness.

Was driving and caught Mike Clements on the Big Show. He said, Gute said, one of the positions they need to fix is ILB. When I heard that I thought, maybe Zaven isn't just a pipe dream after all.

Now just have to hope he doesn't run a 40 in the 4.5s otherwise can't see him being there for us.

I'm surprised he would say ILB. I always assumed he really liked what he had in Barnes and Martin but yeah, I'm all for upgrading it and not putting all the pressure on a 5th rounder and undrafted guy if they can't make the next leap in year 2 or ever, despite having a promising Camp/Season.

[M-C-G]

So Queen would not helped at all?

I don't know, I mean, he wasn't actually very good at playing football this year. Probably was just about as good as the Martin/Barnes/Kirksey trio.

Take what you will of pro football focus grades, but he graded the #82 inside linebacker this season. Kirksey was #61 and Barnes #71

[M-C-G]

You and me are on the same page it looks like lol. I love Zaven Collins. He's going to be a huge menace on defense and if we are going with that Vic Fangio style defense, this guy could play that Khalil Mack role of lining up everywhere and just terrorizing people. Can drop in coverage, can line up outside and can even put his hand in the dirt. I'd be so down for this.

Edit: And I also love Darden in the middle rounds. When people talk about twitchy athletes, this dude should be the poster boy. My goodness.

Was driving and caught Mike Clements on the Big Show. He said, Gute said, one of the positions they need to fix is ILB. When I heard that I thought, maybe Zaven isn't just a pipe dream after all.

Now just have to hope he doesn't run a 40 in the 4.5s otherwise can't see him being there for us.

I'm surprised he would say ILB. I always assumed he really liked what he had in Barnes and Martin but yeah, I'm all for upgrading it and not putting all the pressure on a 5th rounder and undrafted guy if they can't make the next leap in year 2 or ever, despite having a promising Camp/Season.

Yeah, I was surprised too. I think if you are sticking 3-4, having Martin and Zaven would be a really nice tandem. Barnes being your third guy.

[Profound23]

That...doesn't make any sense.

Unless you were like the one or two posters advocating for a CB in round 1 then guess what? You ain't getting that boost you wanted anyways.

Kinda hard to improve on the 3rd most efficient offense in history so there's going to be diminishing returns even if you want to go back in time and select Claypool.... And let's be honest it would've probably been Higgins

"Well the Oline against TB though"..... And considering the Oline had been pretty stout all year and had vets in both Turner and Wagner who played well up to that point you ain't getting that instant boost from a OT either cause he wasn't going to be on the field.

"Yeah but Queen wouldve helped the D and we all wanted him" Barnes was better then Queen last year so nope still no instant boost. I love Queen and still think he can be a stud in the future but we're talking about an instant boost here.

So yeah continuing to bitch n moan about them being proactive about the future at the games most important position in last years draft when all of your (admittedly I'm assuming here because I don't remember who was on your wish list last year) selections wouldn't have given the instant boost you wanted is something only Packers fans would do and you did just that so.... Thanks for proving my point

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

The problem with "macro" stats like "third most efficient offense in NFL history" or "highest net rating in NBA history" is that it becomes largely irrelevant in "micro" situations. On a third and 8 with one play to make, your opponent doesn't care that the offense has been historic up to that point. You need to win that key play. And if you have the horses on hand to do it, you probably win.

Maybe with more WR talent, we don't get bogged down after the Brady interceptions. Maybe we get the last TD. Maybe we win in a blowout. In any situation we fall just short with no contribution from the FRP, the question has to be asked if going in a different direction would've helped. It's not enough to be historically good despite that. We didn't win. Period. That's all that matters.

Sorry but Barnes was not better than Queen. Not debating the rest, but you went a little too far there.