PC Forums

General Category => Rant and Vent => Topic started by: iarwain on March 27, 2017, 11:45:47 PM

Title: Record of Futility
Post by: iarwain on March 27, 2017, 11:45:47 PM
I was a little surprised to hear this the other day, and as far as I can tell it is true, although perhaps someone here can refute it.  I'm posting this in "Rant and Vent" just because it might rub some people the wrong way:

The Packers have made the playoffs six consecutive years now without a Super Bowl appearance, which is the longest such streak ever in the NFL.  True or false?  Actually the Packers have made the playoffs eight consecutive years, with the Super Bowl win in 2010, but that does not void the previous statement.  Has anyone else made the playoffs six years in a row or longer without getting to the Super Bowl?
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: OneTwoSixFive on March 28, 2017, 01:02:54 AM
It's all about perception. I'd say making the playoffs in 6 consecutive years is a fine achievement. If you are unable to gain any pleasure from a team if they fail to win a superbowl, you are in for a lifetime filled with almost universal disappointment.

Here is a similar comparison. Marv Levy led the Bills to four superbowls. they lost all four. I see Marv as a hugely successful coach and making four SBs as an incredible feat.

If a superbowl win is the only measure of success, then you must prepare to be disappointed for periods of (on average) 30+ years (32 teams in the league) between wins. That means maybe two superbowls in a lifetime, three if you live to 90 odd. Don't talk to me about HOF QBs either. They may up the odds of a team going further, but a team needs more than a good QB to win a superbowl (How many superbowl did Marino win in 17 seasons.............zero). Also while a team may have periods where they have a top QB; over a person's lifetime, 70, 80, or more years (if lucky), they will also have times where they have terrible ones.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: iarwain on March 28, 2017, 01:11:53 AM
Here is a similar comparison. Marv Levy led the Bills to four superbowls. they lost all four.
Yeah, when I first heard this it reminded me of the Bills.

I've followed this team since the 60s, so I don't require a Super Bowl win to enjoy the team.  A lot has to do with expectations, and where the team is going.  Is it on the decline or on the rise?  Are there competent people involved and competent decisions being made?  The Super Bowl wins are more fun though   thumbsup)

I'm sure some would disagree here, but I thought 2011 was one of the funnest seasons I can remember.  But that was also connected to a great deal of success.  They were the defending champs, they won something like 19 in a row, they finished 15-1, they scored points like crazy.  The loss in the playoffs was a big disappointment, but a lot of people saw it coming with that leaky defense.  Still, they were the best team in the league for around a year there, the team got a lot of national attention, and it was a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: Pugger on March 28, 2017, 02:41:57 PM
I was a little surprised to hear this the other day, and as far as I can tell it is true, although perhaps someone here can refute it.  I'm posting this in "Rant and Vent" just because it might rub some people the wrong way:

The Packers have made the playoffs six consecutive years now without a Super Bowl appearance, which is the longest such streak ever in the NFL.  True or false?  Actually the Packers have made the playoffs eight consecutive years, with the Super Bowl win in 2010, but that does not void the previous statement.  Has anyone else made the playoffs six years in a row or longer without getting to the Super Bowl?

Don't you have to get INTO the playoffs first before you can win anything?  It is very disappointing to not make it to the SB but to dismiss what this team is doing - 8 straight playoff appearances in a row tying only NE for consistency - is sad.  I remember the 70s and 80s when folks celebrated if the team went 8-8.   :-\
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: iarwain on March 29, 2017, 02:00:00 AM
No one has disputed the accuracy of this, so apparently it must be true.  Certainly making the playoffs this many years in a row in an admirable feat.  Obviously a lot of this has to do with the fact that we have the best quarterback in the division.  I also think McCarthy deserves a lot of the credit, because I think he is a good offensive minded coach.

On the other hand, if no other team has been in the playoffs six straight years without making it to the Super Bowl, it suggests they aren't making the most of their opportunities.  For whatever reason that may be.  Right now, they look a lot like the Atlanta Braves from the 90s.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: Leader on March 29, 2017, 07:30:24 AM
No one has disputed the accuracy of this, so apparently it must be true.  Certainly making the playoffs this many years in a row in an admirable feat.  Obviously a lot of this has to do with the fact that we have the best quarterback in the division.  I also think McCarthy deserves a lot of the credit, because I think he is a good offensive minded coach.

On the other hand, if no other team has been in the playoffs six straight years without making it to the Super Bowl, it suggests they aren't making the most of their opportunities.  For whatever reason that may be.  Right now, they look a lot like the Atlanta Braves from the 90s.

Feel like this has been chronicled more than War & Peace III.

We've come about as close as a team/organization can to being in MULTIPLE Super Bowls - recently - not back in the day - that to search for "systemic" reasoning is a bit of a stretch. I've written more times than I care to count how many INT's that very well could have been - that if the world is viewed harshly.....that should have been - that would have put us past the NFCCG level into the SB - multiple times.

Last years debacle in ATL was a marked departure from how often and close we've come in years past.

Just make that play....and we'd have been in.

Oh well.

It didnt happen.

We dont (and cant) play the game. 
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: ricky on March 29, 2017, 10:43:14 AM
Futility was the Packers of the '70's and '80's. And, a record of futility would mean not making the playoffs for eight seasons in a row. The fact the Packers lost several of their final playoff games in OT is ignored. And that meltdown in Seattle? Still stings- the modern day echo of "4th and 26". Ouch. Even typing that hurt.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: Twain on March 31, 2017, 06:31:07 PM
No one has disputed the accuracy of this, so apparently it must be true.  Certainly making the playoffs this many years in a row in an admirable feat.  Obviously a lot of this has to do with the fact that we have the best quarterback in the division.  I also think McCarthy deserves a lot of the credit, because I think he is a good offensive minded coach.

On the other hand, if no other team has been in the playoffs six straight years without making it to the Super Bowl, it suggests they aren't making the most of their opportunities.  For whatever reason that may be.  Right now, they look a lot like the Atlanta Braves from the 90s.

The Los Angeles Rams went to the playoffs 6 times from 1973 to 1978 without a super bowl.

They then lost the super bowl in 1979, lost in the playoffs in 1980, and then the 8 year streak ended.

So, it has been done before.

It appears that the Houston Oilers went 7 times without an AFC championship from 1987 to 1993.  So the Packers are not even tied for the record.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: iarwain on March 31, 2017, 07:43:42 PM
Well doneSo, it has been done before.

It appears that the Houston Oilers went 7 times without an AFC championship from 1987 to 1993.  So the Packers are not even tied for the record.
Well done!  I was thinking that if it weren't true, someone here could refute it.
One more year to tie the record then lol.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: iarwain on April 01, 2017, 08:49:14 PM
That was quite an impressive streak the Rams went on back then.   Funny thing, I remember the Rams in the Super Bowl (against the Steelers), but I don't remember them as being powerhouses of the day.  I'm surprised to hear they made the playoffs eight years in a row.  I guess the fact that the Western Division stunk in those days was part of it.  I also remember that the AFC won most of the Super Bowls in that era.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: Twain on April 02, 2017, 10:57:12 AM
Since this is "rant and vent", I am going to go on a bit of a rant here.... so here goes....

I find this kind of analysis odd.  It seems to me stretching to find and focus on negative in the midst of so much positive.  It seems to me that the accurate way to describe the Packers situation is that they have made the playoffs 8 years in a row, 9 of the last 10 years, and have won one championship.  Since the goal is to win the championship, it seems to me championships won is the measure of success or failure of interest.

So where does that stand in the history of the NFL?

The Cowboys and the Colts both have had 9 year streaks, and each won only one championship.  Those are the two longest streaks of the modern NFL. 

The Steelers, Rams, 49ers, Patriots, and Packers have all have had 8 game streaks.  Of those, The steelers won 4, the 49ers won 3, the Patriots won 2, the Packers 1, and the Rams 0.

The Oilers, as mentioned had a streak of 7 and won zero championships.

So, of the 8 longest playoff streaks in the NFL, only 3 have won multiple championships.

It is true that there are shorter streaks that have multiple championships.  But this data clearly points out that it is not an unprecedented failure to be in the position that the Packersy are.  It is simply not true that long streaks are usually associated with multiple championships.  This streak won't go down in history as one of the all time legendary runs if it ends here, but its final outcome has yet to be determined.

I am not certain that reaching the super bowl and losing is really any better.

The Bills were already mentioned, but how about the Vikings, who reached the playoffs 12 out of 15 years and walked away with 4 super bowl losses?    The Vikings still carry the pain of that streak.  We have been to the playoffs 9 of the 10 years and at least have a championship, and we are not done yet as Aaron Rodgers likely has at least another five years in him.

Reminds me of when I asked Aldon Roche if he would stop bitching if the Packers went on a deep run, and he said it was unlikely to happen.  We have been the the NFC championship game twice since then.  You see, the old complaint was we never went on a deep run.  We have been to the NFC championship game 4 times in 10 years, winning 1, going to over time twice, and admittedly getting butchered the 4th time.  But we have gotten there 40% of the time in the last 10 years.  That, is actually quite an accomplishment.  Not history making, but pretty darn good.

Most teams have never put together a long streak for consecutive years in the playoffs.  We have had 20 years of significant success.

Enjoy it while it lasts.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: iarwain on April 03, 2017, 04:07:40 AM
I find this kind of analysis odd.  It seems to me stretching to find and focus on negative in the midst of so much positive
It was never my intent to say "Wow, look how badly the Packers suck" or anything like that.  I simply heard this, thought it was interesting, and was wondering if it was true (apparently it wasn't, although it comes pretty close).

Winning the Super Bowl is extremely difficult, no question about that.  Look at the '85 Bears, most people call that the greatest team of all time, yet they only won it once.  Speaking of the Bears, one of my best friends is a Bear fan, and there is no way I would trade places with their team's performance over the past 20 years or so.  I have no doubt he is envious of our success.

It IS frustrating to have so many chances and not deliver more though.  From my perspective, it's most frustrating that they haven't been able to solve their defensive problems.  Especially since the offense has generally been successful.  A successful offense should take the pressure off a defense and help it.  I find that more frustrating than not having more Super Bowl wins.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: Leader on April 03, 2017, 05:20:20 AM
It's a glass half full or half empty thing.
I've always thought it was better NOT to get to the SB than it was to get there and lose it.
Because - its such a bitch to get there - and losing SB's can come to define a team/organization more so than the getting there.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: iarwain on April 03, 2017, 11:07:05 AM
It's a glass half full or half empty thing.
I've always thought it was better NOT to get to the SB than it was to get there and lose it.
Because - its such a bitch to get there - and losing SB's can come to define a team/organization more so than the getting there.
I see your point.  The Bills and Vikings are both 0-4 in Super Bowls and they definitely have that "loser" tag attached to them.  Probably because they don't have any wins to go along with those losses though.  The Broncos were 0-4 at one time and kind of had that stigma until they won a few (we won't discuss that). 

I think it's an accomplishment to get to a Super Bowl, just like it's an accomplishment to win your division, or get to the playoffs.  But it sure hurts more to get to the Super Bowl and lose.  I bet the Falcon fans are still sick over this last one.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: Twain on April 03, 2017, 11:13:45 AM
  From my perspective, it's most frustrating that they haven't been able to solve their defensive problems.  ...  I find that more frustrating than not having more Super Bowl wins.

I agree with this.  The defensive struggles, no matter what one attributes them to, have been very frustrating.

I keep hoping that Ted can catch lightning in a bottle, so to speak, and he acquires the personnel to have a top 3 defense again.  A couple of super bowl wins in the next few years would really re-define the tenure of MM, TT, and Aaron Rodgers.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: iarwain on April 04, 2017, 08:55:18 AM
A couple of super bowl wins in the next few years would really re-define the tenure of MM, TT, and Aaron Rodgers.
No doubt about that.  Back in the 70s and 80s, when the Packers were probably the worst team in the league during that stretch, they had won those first two Super Bowls, but it seemed like that was back in a different age.  I didn't think they would ever win another one.  Then the '96 Packers won one, although it really felt like that team should have gotten at least two. 

But then 2010, and suddenly the team had four Super Bowl wins, and that made a huge difference.  Four Super Bowl wins doesn't sound bad at all, it was only behind the Steelers, Cowboys, and 49ers.  Tied with the Giants, and (at the time) ahead of the Patriots.  Four Super Bowl wins was quite respectable.  Yeah, if they can get one, maybe even two more wins with Rodgers and McCarthy (maybe TT), that would totally redefine things with regard to this team and those careers.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: Pugger on April 04, 2017, 09:41:27 AM
  From my perspective, it's most frustrating that they haven't been able to solve their defensive problems.  ...  I find that more frustrating than not having more Super Bowl wins.

I agree with this.  The defensive struggles, no matter what one attributes them to, have been very frustrating.

I keep hoping that Ted can catch lightning in a bottle, so to speak, and he acquires the personnel to have a top 3 defense again.  A couple of super bowl wins in the next few years would really re-define the tenure of MM, TT, and Aaron Rodgers.

With our offense do we really need a top 3 defense to win it all?  All we might need is an average defense.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: iarwain on April 04, 2017, 11:01:02 AM
With our offense do we really need a top 3 defense to win it all?  All we might need is an average defense.
People say that, but few average defenses have won Super Bowls.
Regardless, you wouldn't think that putting together an average defense would be that big of a feat. 
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: Pugger on April 05, 2017, 12:28:10 PM
With our offense do we really need a top 3 defense to win it all?  All we might need is an average defense.
People say that, but few average defenses have won Super Bowls.
Regardless, you wouldn't think that putting together an average defense would be that big of a feat.

The reason I say all we might need is an average defense is we got into the NFCC game with that mess of defense just last season. 
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: The GM on May 02, 2017, 08:24:00 PM
Lets not get enthralled with ourselves.  The Packers play in a division of doormats.  How many contenders has it  produced  in the last 20 years?  The Randy Moss-Cris Carter era Vikings?  We beat the doormats and get smoked by playoff teams.  We are good enough to win our division annually, then reality sets in for the playoffs.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: Pugger on May 04, 2017, 06:21:18 AM
Lets not get enthralled with ourselves.  The Packers play in a division of doormats. How many contenders has it  produced  in the last 20 years?  The Randy Moss-Cris Carter era Vikings?  We beat the doormats and get smoked by playoff teams.  We are good enough to win our division annually, then reality sets in for the playoffs.

So does NE.  The only difference is they won more SBs than us.  They lost a couple of them too.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: Leader on May 04, 2017, 07:17:34 AM
Lets not get enthralled with ourselves.  The Packers play in a division of doormats. How many contenders has it  produced  in the last 20 years?  The Randy Moss-Cris Carter era Vikings?  We beat the doormats and get smoked by playoff teams.  We are good enough to win our division annually, then reality sets in for the playoffs.

So does NE.  The only difference is they won more SBs than us.  They lost a couple of them too.

Glad you mentioned this. I was thinking of making a similar reference in the discussion about ATL's 2017 prospects. ATL plays the NFC North and AFC Least as well as their own Division: NFC South.

The AFC Least is populated by three organizations that cant get out of their own way and figure how to give NE a run for the money. Kudos to NE for their successes - but it would be nice if somebody proved semi-capable to challenge them instead of filling their schedule with W's.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: iarwain on June 07, 2017, 11:23:19 PM
The Patriots have an easy road of it in their division, but they've made the most of their opportunities.  The Belichick/Brady version has five rings, and they've made it to the Super Bowl two other times.  It's not like they're getting into the playoffs and getting their butts handed to them.  They haven't won every game, but during this stretch of time, no other team has matched their success.
Title: Re: Record of Futility
Post by: Bignutz on June 27, 2017, 02:27:48 AM
Hey, at least we're not the Cleveland Browns!