Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Jay Z wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 2:48 pm Honestly I think it comes more down to defensive failures.

From 1992 to 2024 the Packers have the best overall winning percentage in the regular season, .630. Second is Steelers at .627, who have a similar post season record verging on mediocrity.

In the post-season since 1992, the Packers points scored average of 25.8 points per game is the best in the NFL. However, they've given up 24.6 points per game, which is below average.

In the regular season, the quarterback rating of 93.2 over those years is the best in football. That dips a bit in the post season to 92.0 which is fourth.

However, on the defensive side, during the regular season the opponents' QBs had a quarterback rating of 79.7 which is fourth best. But in the post season, that goes up to 82.2 which is only 12th best. That's twice the fall off of the offense.

Other that the two SB wins I think that's the tale. The defenses are often pretty good in the regular season, but don't take a step forward in the playoffs; in fact, some holes are exposed and mistakes are made.

Good post.

And all the more reason why the Packers needed their HOF QBs to perform at their best.

I do think some onus has to be put on the quarterbacks. Maybe it's something about the small market of Green Bay and the hero worship that our MVP quarterbacks receive, but by the time Ron Wolf had left and Mike Sherman became Head Coach/General Manager I think Brett Favre was feeling pretty invincible within the organization. Matt Hasselbeck had been traded away and Favre received what was essentially a lifetime contract. I don't know that he respected Sherman the way he respected Mike Holmgren. Sherman certainly didn't help deflate Favre's ego, as I remember press conferences after big victories where Sherman would comment on Brett's performance "adding to the legend of Brett Favre." I don't think he could hold Brett to account, which led to Favre playing more the way he wanted to play, which was to take chances. In his five playoff elimination games after Holmgren left Favre threw a total of 15 interceptions.

As for Rodgers, it kind of cut the other way. He won his Super Bowl in his 3rd year starting, and in his 4th year he won league MVP with 45 passing touchdowns. After all the drama that Favre's unretirement had brought, fans were elated with what Rodgers had become and soon gave him the same hero treatment that Favre enjoyed. Rodgers' problem was that he always felt he was one of, if not THE, smartest person in the room, and after his quick success and the ensuing hero worship he got more assertive in expressing that belief. He questioned personnel, he questioned his head coach. He tried to show up McCarthy when play-calls didn't work. If his receivers weren't precise with routes or if they missed a signal Rodgers would throw his hands up and stare them down. He stopped questioning whether there was anything he could change or improve upon with his approach, it was always his teammates and coaches that failed when things went wrong.

So yes, there are many reasons why the Packers underachieved during their run of back-to-back HOF QBs (subpar defenses, overreliance on younger players, and so on) but Favre and Rodgers were just as culpable.

Oszuscik wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 9:46 am I do think some onus has to be put on the quarterbacks. Maybe it's something about the small market of Green Bay and the hero worship that our MVP quarterbacks receive, but by the time Ron Wolf had left and Mike Sherman became Head Coach/General Manager I think Brett Favre was feeling pretty invincible within the organization. Matt Hasselbeck had been traded away and Favre received what was essentially a lifetime contract. I don't know that he respected Sherman the way he respected Mike Holmgren. Sherman certainly didn't help deflate Favre's ego, as I remember press conferences after big victories where Sherman would comment on Brett's performance "adding to the legend of Brett Favre." I don't think he could hold Brett to account, which led to Favre playing more the way he wanted to play, which was to take chances. In his five playoff elimination games after Holmgren left Favre threw a total of 15 interceptions.

As for Rodgers, it kind of cut the other way. He won his Super Bowl in his 3rd year starting, and in his 4th year he won league MVP with 45 passing touchdowns. After all the drama that Favre's unretirement had brought, fans were elated with what Rodgers had become and soon gave him the same hero treatment that Favre enjoyed. Rodgers' problem was that he always felt he was one of, if not THE, smartest person in the room, and after his quick success and the ensuing hero worship he got more assertive in expressing that belief. He questioned personnel, he questioned his head coach. He tried to show up McCarthy when play-calls didn't work. If his receivers weren't precise with routes or if they missed a signal Rodgers would throw his hands up and stare them down. He stopped questioning whether there was anything he could change or improve upon with his approach, it was always his teammates and coaches that failed when things went wrong.

So yes, there are many reasons why the Packers underachieved during their run of back-to-back HOF QBs (subpar defenses, overreliance on younger players, and so on) but Favre and Rodgers were just as culpable.

I don't disagree about the general assessment of the flaws of Favre and Rodgers. I have presented the overall data of the playoff performance of the teams.

I would still look at what the teams really should achieved and what they could have possibly achieved with supposedly better QB play.

Favre produced even in the losses under Holmgren, including SB 32. 2001-2004 were some bad turnover games. But the only real winnable game there is against the Eagles in 2003. Which they should have won. But Favre is mostly okay there until OT. They blew the game in other places. 2007 against the Giants they got butts kicked in regulation but make it to OT.

For Rodgers the unheralded team is probably 2009. The defense, before the SB year was actually pretty good. But the division championship went to the Vikings and the Packers went on the road to Arizona where the defense did not play well.

In 2014 the Seahawks were the better team, yes the door was open with Seahawks mistakes. Packers defense was not good and couldn't stop Lynch or defend key passes either, they did the one thing they did well and got turnovers. Packers wound up kicking two sub 20 yard FGs early which arguably cost them though that was early in the game. But Rodgers had nothing to do with the ST mistakes, he wasn't on the field, and got the tying FG to send it to OT.

The LaFleur teams honestly likely overachieved in the regular season, were efficient, could rely on Rodgers not turning the ball over but weren't capable of beating other teams up. 2020 Buccaneers were still better. And the Packers were behind that whole game, partially because Rodgers threw a first half INT with 30 seconds left, then a blown coverage gave up a TD. Yes Rodgers had chances late but Brady didn't do much late in that game either.

2021, again the ST gives away 10 points and you can't afford to do that in the playoffs.

Rodgers and Favre with the Packers were combined 1-5 in OT in the playoffs. That hurt. But Rodgers didn't even get the ball twice and got strip sacked the other time. Favre you can blame for the two INTs; they won the other one when the Packers got their own pick six.

So if Favre doesn't throw the INTs the Packers still probably win only one of those games, I am guessing 2003 is the easier one to win. Problem is I don't see them winning the next week against Carolina, who held the Eagles to 3 points. Which is something the Packers didn't do.

I do think that honestly the record is mostly not great for anyone not Favre or Rodgers in any year but 1996 and 2010. In those years other parts of the team stepped up more. Mostly otherwise they didn't. I don't see other championships for the Packers based on what the entire team actually delivered in the playoffs.

Ten Minute Ticker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 5:49 pm

SeahawkFever wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 3:05 pm He won a Super Bowl obviously, and three MVP's that I don't see anyone typically debate, but the way he's talked about, if you didn't know you wouldn't think he ever did any of that.

In my mind, there’s two distinct Favre eras. One with and without Mike Holmgren. Under Holmgren and his staff, he was refined and turned into the best QB in the NFL by 1996. Holmgren also had a bully pulpit Favre seemed to respect that he didn’t from any of his other HCs.

Without Holmgren (and also with a lot of ego-inflating adoration by the late 90s), he was still good, but his flaws began to re-emerge. Forcing the issue on and off the field. He had a 29-interception season mixed in there. He wasn’t the same in the 2000s, even if he was still better than most and occasionally conjured up some magic.

(Also, side note to the 2003 loss to Philly, but the Packers were one 4th down conversion TD by the Cardinals away from not making the playoffs at all that season. It wasn’t a team that blew a sure-fire title shot.)

How were Green Bay's coaches after Holmgren out of curiosity?

Another good call Jay Z ... I do feel though, that had GB gotten the 4th and 26 conversion against Philly, they win and beat Carolina the next week. Yes, Carolina was hot but they injured McNabb as well. I felt the Eagles were overconfident going into that game like the year before against Tampa. Favre and the Packers played well against the Giants in the 2007 Championship but nobody anticipated Eli Manning stepping up like he did in the bitter cold. Favre had the interception but he sometimes had problems with Driver's route running. Eli played well in GB in the 2011 playoffs as well or the Packers might have went back-to-back. Considering Rodgers problems with the 49ers, it would have been interesting seeing how the Packers would have responded against the 49ers in Lambeau had they gotten by the Giants?

We cant forget 1995/96 also, where the Packers had the Cowboys on the ropes in Dallas during the NFC Championship, but like Favre and Driver years later, Favre and Mark Ingram had a route miscommunication that resulted in another critical interception that allowed the Cowboys to put them away. I was sighing relief after that game because Favre-to-Brooks was killing the Cowboys beforehand.

JuggernautJ wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 3:04 am

Brian wolf wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 8:26 pm Rodgers avoided the turnovers, but Favre is still the best pure passer I ever saw...

I know I'm "old skool" but my favorite (and, in my opinion, the best) Packer QB is still Bart Starr.

Amen to that. Not only the best-ever #15 still IMO (though it may change come early February), but just outside my personal QB Rushmore with he always threatening to yank Johnny U out at a moment's notice and place himself in.

For one to say a team ever left a championship on the table, one would have to think that they were, indeed, the very best team. Many feel GB was the 'best' in '97, but TMT in the second post of this thread suggests SBXXXII being "50/50" between they and Denver who, let's face it, were quite better than their 12-4 record. 2007? The Pats, of course, were the best that season with Dallas - who beat GB during the regular season - at #2. Giants knocked Dallas out of the way for the Pack yet they still couldn't capitalize to, at least, a SB berth anyways. As a 13-3 top-seed in 2020, were they better than KC? Were they better than top-seed Baltimore? TB eliminates them in the NFCCG in technically an upset, but the Bucs beat them convincingly that regular season. So it's hard to find anything truly, 100% "left on the table" with me. And 2011, as many here have opined, was so "video gamey". IMO Harbaugh's more-balanced smash-mouth Forty Niners eliminate them at Lambeau had the Pack averted that Giant upset.

Many great QBs or stars on sports-teams in-general who had great long runs but with limited championships considering the many great seasons. Same with coaches and teams in-general. At this very moment, I see Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees as being "equal" historically thus tied for whatever place they're in on the list of All-TIme Greatest QBs. And Favre may very well make it a three-way tie. Or does he get the nod/tie-breaker over both simply for, at least, appearing in another QB (almost winning it)? And if Aaron, Heaven forbid. actually pulls out a second Lombardi before all said and done, does that place him above both??

EDIT - My mistake. Ravens were the AFC top-seed in 2019. I could have also asked for '19 is if they were better than the Saints as well. What I should have asked for 2020 is if they were better than KC and Buffalo.

74_75_78_79_ wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 7:25 pm ...Not only the best-ever #15....

I loves me some Bart Starr but he might be nudged back ever-so-slightly by Steve Van Buren (in my opinion).
Tough call... very tough call... I'd be happy to have either of them on my team!

JuggernautJ wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 8:00 pm

74_75_78_79_ wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 7:25 pm ...Not only the best-ever #15....

I loves me some Bart Starr but he might be nudged back ever-so-slightly by Steve Van Buren (in my opinion).
Tough call... very tough call... I'd be happy to have either of them on my team!

Yes, Van Buren! Should have mentioned him, for sure. I either once knew he wore #15 but since forgot, or maybe never knew before.

Back to "titles left on the table", I guess 2021 is worth a mention, at least, in that 13-4 GB was top-seed over TB who also had the same record - both tied for best record in the league. But of course it was strictly due to a better conference record. Given obvious recent history, I wasn't at all seeing GB as possibly representing the NFC over the very team that I thought was going to repeat from Day 1. Both get eliminated in the divisional round with TB really being the one leaving it on the table, go figure.

74_75_78_79_ wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 12:37 am

JuggernautJ wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 8:00 pm

74_75_78_79_ wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 7:25 pm ...Not only the best-ever #15....

I loves me some Bart Starr but he might be nudged back ever-so-slightly by Steve Van Buren (in my opinion).
Tough call... very tough call... I'd be happy to have either of them on my team!

Yes, Van Buren! Should have mentioned him, for sure. I either once knew he wore #15 but since forgot, or maybe never knew before.

Back to "titles left on the table", I guess 2021 is worth a mention, at least, in that 13-4 GB was top-seed over TB who also had the same record - both tied for best record in the league. But of course it was strictly due to a better conference record. Given obvious recent history, I wasn't at all seeing GB as possibly representing the NFC over the very team that I thought was going to repeat from Day 1. Both get eliminated in the divisional round with TB really being the one leaving it on the table, go figure.

The winner, the Rams, won three straight playoff games by 3 points, and the Packers beat them (in GB) during the regular season so you'd think there is an opportunity there.

Like the Packers, the Rams went to their main receiver, Kupp, a lot. The Rams picked up Beckham and that won them the SB. The Packers lost Valdez-Scantling and Tonyan during the season. Tonyan they just couldn't replace, the performance of the TEs in the 49ers game was dreadful. Another case of other players not stepping up. The Packers did not move the ball that well at all in that game.

Jay Z wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 2:48 pm on the defensive side, during the regular season the opponents' QBs had a quarterback rating of 79.7 which is fourth best. But in the post season, that goes up to 82.2 which is only 12th best. That's twice the fall off of the offense.

Other that the two SB wins I think that's the tale. The defenses are often pretty good in the regular season, but don't take a step forward in the playoffs; in fact, some holes are exposed and mistakes are made.

My question though is why don’t those defensive holes get exposed in the regular season? Like what did they do differently in December compared to January?