The Future NFC North Quarterbacks

Except against GB in 2015 to win the division, or again in the playoffs in 2015 against Seattle, or again against NO in the playoffs in 2017, or in the playoffs against the Saints in 2019.  

I know there are counter examples to that of Philly in 2017, Bears in the final game of 2018, and the 9ers in 2019, but it isn't as consistent as some want to believe.   I also wonder if the D would have looked as bad in that Philly, Bears, and 9ers game if the offense had been somewhat competent?

I will say this... I think if the Vikings' offense had a decent game against the 49ers, the defense probably plays better. Statistically they weren't as bad as you'd think, they gave up 4.3 YPC on running plays and just got gassed by being on the field so long. Garoppolo had a few bad throws, and if the Vikings forced them to pass more, I think there's a decent chance it's a close game.

As for the Philly game, no, neither side showed up to that game. Foles & Co. would have still run circles around our defense with how little pressure was put on him and all the crazy throws he made. Plus he did it the next week against the Patriots' normally strong defense, even after Belichick had two weeks to prepare for them.

That's obviously not true, considering they have a top 5 O line, WR, and RB. Any good QB would do pretty well in that O, I imagine.

Stafford put up #s in De-toilet with Megatron but it didn't lead to much team success now did it. That top offense put up 20 garbage time points in the 2019 NFCC game after being down 27-0 at the half and in the 2020 NFCC game that top 5 Oline and top 5 RB managed 27 yards. GB was a decent team that beat up on bad defense's and looked better because of it. They played 4 games vs horrible defense's in Minnesota and Detroit and got beat in one of them. Actually besides TB who they lost to twice what top defense did they play? That offense is overrated and will be exposed when or if Rodgers leaves and Love will have to take over.

www.espn.com/nfl/team/schedule/_/name/gb


Not every team was a bottom feeder but alot were.

I wouldn’t agree with that at all. They still have a great wr and rb and good oline. Their defense needs some work but if they had an average instead of Rodgers at qb, they are probably around a .500 team not good not terrible. Rodgers is an elite qb still top 3 and those guys are so hard to get. The chances love develops into an elite qb are very small. Could it happen? Possibly, but the probability is low and the Packers know that. Hell he couldn’t even suit up as a back up for a majority of their games last year. That’s not good for them and speaks about his lack of progress. I do think Rodgers is done in gb as all this stuff constantly coming out the last week speaks volumes about his relationship with the front office. The question is he going to dig in and retire if he doesn’t get traded and are the packers going to dig in and refuse to trade him like they are trying to indicate? If they do trade him what is the compensation? The thing is if Rodgers is gone, the packers know their shadow over the division is over with as he is such a huge part of their success and without him they are going to struggle even with an average qb assuming they can get one. Btw I put Kirk in that average qb range maybe a bit better than that but you get the point.

Didn't they have that when Erin broke his collar bone too? Some of that is Rodger's ability to elevate the players around him I suspect.

The Packers don't really need Love to be elite just okay.  They take the picks and cap saved from trading Rodgers and paying a rookie QB, and make the rest of the team around Love so good it he only has to be competent for the Packers to succeed. 


Similar to how the Eagles won with Wentz/Foles and the Rams went to the SB with Goff.