From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
What's real insane about Bakh's thing is the sheer amount of rotten luck involved.
When he signed his extension in November 2020, it was the first time since TT came to power that the team gave someone else the kind of contract only previously preserved for the QB: A contract with over 65% guaranteed.
The high-guarantee franchise player contract structure was something TT always avoided (except for QB), exactly because if it all went to hell early in the contract, the team was screwed due to the pending cap hits. Usually we gave under 35% guaranteed, because that enables the team to get outta it after 2 years.
Now we broke that mold ONCE with Bakh, a player with no prior serious injury history, and a player at a position where top guys can often play at the top til 35. We did it for an all-in push to have the best protect AR in his last seasons, and lo and behold, Bakh blows his knee just over a month later.
Then, in an age of ACL repairs feeling like routine, fully recoverable operations, with ever faster return to action times, Bakh just happens to have something go very wrong with it. I can't remember another case with a failure as bad as his.
He rehabs as best as he can, in a loop of painful and frustrating recovery and setback that would've driven me insane, and finally in 2022, god forbid, he dares to have some fun with his best friend. Let's just say I wouldn't dare criticize him of that to his face.
no one here would complain about that to his face either
you seem to think that players should have the same loyalty to the team as fans have or a owner would have
Bakhtiari doesn't owe this team a dang thing, neither did Rodgers,
So they played here for free?
Yeah, they owe the team nothing, so I suppose they should also be free to gamble, maybe even place bets against their own team, too!
What an absolutely, preposterously ridiculous comment, even for you. Yet this is what it takes to defend Bakh's comments, tbh.
If the players need not be loyal to their team, why should fans, or owners?
you have no argument, neither does Dr. J, baffling why your spending so much energy trying to convince others that you do.
No, but one more argument about WRs after 5000 failures will finally convince everyone, right?
big difference is your making a mountain out of a mole hill, and there is evidence galore of our GM's basically avoiding using a high pick on a WR for 8 stinking years.
player are loyal to themselves first and fore most, just like almost all working Americans, and if you think life revolves around what a co worker says then you've got a lot to learn, his team mates let what Bakhtiari said go in one ear and right out the other, seriously people that complain about Bakhtiari need some tlc
LOL!! Yoop believes players should place bets against their own team!
“Most other nations don't allow a terrorist to be their leader.”
“... Yet so many allow their leaders to be terrorists.”—Magneto
Yeah, they owe the team nothing, so I suppose they should also be free to gamble, maybe even place bets against their own team, too!
What an absolutely, preposterously ridiculous comment, even for you. Yet this is what it takes to defend Bakh's comments, tbh.
If the players need not be loyal to their team, why should fans, or owners?
No, but one more argument about WRs after 5000 failures will finally convince everyone, right?
big difference is your making a mountain out of a mole hill, and there is evidence galore of our GM's basically avoiding using a high pick on a WR for 8 stinking years.
player are loyal to themselves first and fore most, just like almost all working Americans, and if you think life revolves around what a co worker says then you've got a lot to learn, his team mates let what Bakhtiari said go in one ear and right out the other, seriously people that complain about Bakhtiari need some tlc
LOL!! Yoop believes players should place bets against their own team!
The truth is a rare thing and very valuable. Never never never demand spin and rah rah over the truth or you will never be happy with the end result.
If Bakh never plays another snap, they should hire him as a trainee Oline coach. He already has the most important qualification, he sees what IS rather than some rose colored glasses interpretation. The worst thing a man or a player or a team can do is to believe they are better than they really are.
The truth is a rare thing and very valuable. Never never never demand spin and rah rah over the truth or you will never be happy with the end result.
If Bakh never plays another snap, they should hire him as a trainee Oline coach. He already has the most important qualification, he sees what IS rather than some rose colored glasses interpretation. The worst thing a man or a player or a team can do is to believe they are better than they really are.
I listened to that Bak interview before it went viral and I had no issue with it. I was adamant back then and now. I found it refreshing and honest. If you listen to the whole answer and not just the one sentence, I was 100% okay with it. Frankly I found it refreshing and genuine and worth listening to.
I like his comments 100x more than Kenny Clark lying to us about our defense being different this year. And if he wasn’t lying, more concerning he believed it.
The truth is a rare thing and very valuable. Never never never demand spin and rah rah over the truth or you will never be happy with the end result.
If Bakh never plays another snap, they should hire him as a trainee Oline coach. He already has the most important qualification, he sees what IS rather than some rose colored glasses interpretation. The worst thing a man or a player or a team can do is to believe they are better than they really are.
Hopefully he will be assistant OL coach the rest of the year. Would be nice for him to earn his paycheck in some capacity.
The truth is a rare thing and very valuable. Never never never demand spin and rah rah over the truth or you will never be happy with the end result.
If Bakh never plays another snap, they should hire him as a trainee Oline coach. He already has the most important qualification, he sees what IS rather than some rose colored glasses interpretation. The worst thing a man or a player or a team can do is to believe they are better than they really are.
the worst thing a person can think is they are not up to the challenge, true honest evaluation is important, but when you tell someone they can't do something you've instilled doubt in that person, and doubt is the corner stone of defeat.
But thats not exactly what Bakhtiari said, he did give a honest appraisal, to me though it wasn't meant to be a negative, I think this topic has been beaten to death.
lastly why would Bakhtiari be interested in coaching? to my knowledge he's not spoken of a desire to do that.
The truth is a rare thing and very valuable. Never never never demand spin and rah rah over the truth or you will never be happy with the end result.
If Bakh never plays another snap, they should hire him as a trainee Oline coach. He already has the most important qualification, he sees what IS rather than some rose colored glasses interpretation. The worst thing a man or a player or a team can do is to believe they are better than they really are.
the worst thing a person can think is they are not up to the challenge, true honest evaluation is important, but when you tell someone they can't do something you've instilled doubt in that person, and doubt is the corner stone of defeat.
But thats not exactly what Bakhtiari said, he did give a honest appraisal, to me though it wasn't meant to be a negative, I think this topic has been beaten to death.
lastly why would Bakhtiari be interested in coaching? to my knowledge he's not spoken of a desire to do that.
Because the Oline needs help. It is the only way to help the team now, and it is what a teammate should want to do. Of course there is also whether Bakh has the personality to coach, and it is possible the does not.
The center has the athletic ability to be all pro but he is not playing that way.
Ryhan clearly needs coaching.
Not sure what Newman needs but a lot more coaching might help, along with acquiring the heart of a winner.
Even JRJ could use intensive coaching.
So let Bakh take the 3 OT's and let the regular Oline coach handle the rest ( which is probably a full time job for 2 coaches)
The truth is a rare thing and very valuable. Never never never demand spin and rah rah over the truth or you will never be happy with the end result.
If Bakh never plays another snap, they should hire him as a trainee Oline coach. He already has the most important qualification, he sees what IS rather than some rose colored glasses interpretation. The worst thing a man or a player or a team can do is to believe they are better than they really are.
the worst thing a person can think is they are not up to the challenge, true honest evaluation is important, but when you tell someone they can't do something you've instilled doubt in that person, and doubt is the corner stone of defeat.
But thats not exactly what Bakhtiari said, he did give a honest appraisal, to me though it wasn't meant to be a negative, I think this topic has been beaten to death.
lastly why would Bakhtiari be interested in coaching? to my knowledge he's not spoken of a desire to do that.
Because the Oline needs help. It is the only way to help the team now, and it is what a teammate should want to do. Of course there is also whether Bakh has the personality to coach, and it is possible the does not.
The center has the athletic ability to be all pro but he is not playing that way.
Ryhan clearly needs coaching.
Not sure what Newman needs but a lot more coaching might help, along with acquiring the heart of a winner.
Even JRJ could use intensive coaching.
So let Bakh take the 3 OT's and let the regular Oline coach handle the rest ( which is probably a full time job for 2 coaches)
to many chiefs confuse the Indians, all Bakhtiari needs to do is encourage the players, what this OL needs is to get healthy, obviously he'll lend some advice, most players do that anyway.
Newman needs to be replaced, we need to get Jenkins back and move Runyan back to RG, Toms was hurt but still played last week.
I believe between Stanavich and Butkus they've done a pretty good job, the inconsistencies that we've seen are not picking up stunts and blitzes, growing pains from young players, which will improve when players stay healthy and play more.
He didn't speak "Troof," he had no way of knowing the outcome.
He has not even been proven right thus far. This team is wildly inconsistent, but they are not "bad" as he said they "probably" would be. Bad are teams like CHI, DEN, CAR, or OAK. We are better than that. Hell, we are better than the next tier of teams. We are somewhere in the middle.
And again, no, he was not just saying that was what he thought the FO thinks about this team in trading Rodgers; he speculated about the FO's state-of-mind *after* saying the odds would say GB will probably be bad.
Never never never demand spin and rah rah over the truth or you will never be happy with the end result.
The end result reflects the actor's state-of-mind through the process; it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the actor has a defeatist attitude, the end result will be defeat. Bakh's comments came across like defeatist. If the actor is unserious and nonchalant, which is the most charitable way I can describe Bakh's comments, it will be a meh end result.
In truth, Bakh's comments really explain why the teams he was part of kept coming up short when the going got tough.
“Most other nations don't allow a terrorist to be their leader.”
“... Yet so many allow their leaders to be terrorists.”—Magneto
He didn't speak "Troof," he had no way of knowing the outcome.
He has not even been proven right thus far. This team is wildly inconsistent, but they are not "bad" as he said they "probably" would be. Bad are teams like CHI, DEN, CAR, or OAK. We are better than that. Hell, we are better than the next tier of teams. We are somewhere in the middle.
And again, no, he was not just saying that was what he thought the FO thinks about this team in trading Rodgers; he speculated about the FO's state-of-mind *after* saying the odds would say GB will probably be bad.
Never never never demand spin and rah rah over the truth or you will never be happy with the end result.
The end result reflects the actor's state-of-mind through the process; it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the actor has a defeatist attitude, the end result will be defeat. Bakh's comments came across like defeatist. If the actor is unserious and nonchalant, which is the most charitable way I can describe Bakh's comments, it will be a meh end result.
In truth, Bakh's comments really explain why the teams he was part of kept coming up short when the going got tough.
thats a pretty damning comment Labrev, and sure not the impression I got from what he said, and then to blame passed defeats on Bakhtiari's disposition or what you think was a loser mind set is really a stretch
also Bakh mimicked what the media said about the team will probably be bad, that thought was not his thought.
also Bakh mimicked what the media said about the team will probably be bad, that thought was not his thought.
and even said as much. I'm paraphrasing, but People outside this building might not have high expectations, but the players are here to compete and win. They believe in themselves even if others don't.
also Bakh mimicked what the media said about the team will probably be bad, that thought was not his thought.
and even said as much. I'm paraphrasing, but People outside this building might not have high expectations, but the players are here to compete and win. They believe in themselves even if others don't.
thanks, thats how I remember it too, just didn't remember the wording.
I swear people are so negative about the team, saying off the wall stuff, we get this OL fixed a little and so much will improve, people need a little patience with these OL injuries.
And again, no, he was not just saying that was what he thought the FO thinks about this team in trading Rodgers; he speculated about the FO's state-of-mind *after* saying the odds would say GB will probably be bad.
And again, you're completely ignoring the context of the conversation.
His answer was in response to the hypothetical scenario of the Packers and Jets not coming to a trade agreement, the impacts from a failed trade, and three possible outcomes derived from the hypothetical scenario.
You continue to focus on the verbiage from the single outcome possibility (of the three he gave) that may have happened had the larger hypothetical actually occurred, which it didn't.
I mean, I get the sense in your frustration with Bakh you simply want to be offended by something and this is the best you could come up with.
I am not referring to his PR Speak back at home base, I am referring to his more revealing comments from before:
“Or, option three, and again I’m not being a homer, the Packers are rebuilding, whether you think so or not. Could they be good? I don’t know. Could they be bad? Probably, if you’re betting, more people are going to think they’re going to be bad than good, right?
So then they’re gonna be like, ‘We’re going to suck anyways, we want what we want and we’re not going to bend [to] anyone, so we’ll just eat it. [Rodgers] can stay un-retired. We’ll pay you.'"
... the part about the FO's thought-process, which is baseless conjecture he has no worthwhile insight into, comes after saying that taking Option Three (i.e. the rebuild) means that the safe bet is the team will "probably" be "bad" and he very noticeably declined to give one reason to believe GB would buck the trend.
If the 2018 Eagles thought the way that Bakh thinks, they would never have won the Super Bowl. And yous would all defend his comments by saying "Well DUH of course we didn't win the Super Bowl, our QB missed the season with injury! What were we supposed to do?? Ohhh you just hate Bakh for speaking Thuh TROOF!"
Of course, the Eagles did not think like that. They wore huge dog masks, leaning into the "underdog" identity, to establish a mindset of them overcoming the odds.
And guess what? IT WORKED.
“Most other nations don't allow a terrorist to be their leader.”
“... Yet so many allow their leaders to be terrorists.”—Magneto
I am not referring to his PR Speak back at home base, I am referring to his more revealing comments from before:
“Or, option three, and again I’m not being a homer, the Packers are rebuilding, whether you think so or not. Could they be good? I don’t know. Could they be bad? Probably, if you’re betting, more people are going to think they’re going to be bad than good, right?
So then they’re gonna be like, ‘We’re going to suck anyways, we want what we want and we’re not going to bend [to] anyone, so we’ll just eat it. [Rodgers] can stay un-retired. We’ll pay you.'"
... the part about the FO's thought-process, which is baseless conjecture he has no worthwhile insight into, comes after saying that taking Option Three i.e. the rebuild means that the safe bet is the team will "probably" be "bad" (and he very noticeably declined to give one reason to believe GB would buck the trend).
If the 2018 Eagles thought the way that Bakh thinks, they would never have won the Super Bowl. And yous would all defend his comments by saying "Well DUH of course we didn't win the Super Bowl, our QB missed the season with injury! What were we supposed to do?? Ohhh you just hate Bakh for speaking Thuh TROOF!"
Of course, the Eagles did not think like that. They wore huge dog masks, leaning into the "underdog" identity, to establish a mindset of them overcoming the odds.
And guess what? IT WORKED.
impossible to defend such egregious comments from the highest paid player. Its like he had already mailed in his playing career and was auditioning for undisputed with skip bayless
And again, you're completely ignoring the context of the conversation.
His answer was in response to the hypothetical scenario of the Packers and Jets not coming to a trade agreement, the impacts from a failed trade, and three possible outcomes derived from the hypothetical scenario.
I am not ignoring the context. I see it. I am not impressed.
You continue to focus on the verbiage from the single outcome possibility (of the three he gave) that may have happened had the larger hypothetical actually occurred, which it didn't.
First of all, what he says goes beyond hypotheticals. He says stuff like: (1) "I'm not being a homer" which implies that speculating that GB will have success is not plausible but belongs in the realm of homer thought; (2) "if you're betting" which makes it not merely about outsider expectations but about odds/probability... being more likely that the team is bad than good.
Second, ignoring those issues (since him baselessly speculating about Rodgers/Gute is seen as such an exonerating defense)....
Why does he take it as a given that the FO would not think the team will be competitive?
Why does it not seem to occur to him that the FO might actually feel totally differently?
Why does he take it as a given that this team in its rebuild should be looked at (not only from the outside but also from the inside by our FO) as the same as the usual rebuilding team, needing major turnover and likely to suck, not as a team with a good core that would buck the trend of being bad in its rebuild year?
Why does he at no point stop to point out that this team may be an exception, regardless of what others expect, but actually seems to *preempt* that idea by qualifying his statements by saying "I'm not being a homer" -?
It's simple, the guy told on himself. Sorry you folks are not able or too fond of him to see it.
“Most other nations don't allow a terrorist to be their leader.”
“... Yet so many allow their leaders to be terrorists.”—Magneto
And again, you're completely ignoring the context of the conversation.
His answer was in response to the hypothetical scenario of the Packers and Jets not coming to a trade agreement, the impacts from a failed trade, and three possible outcomes derived from the hypothetical scenario.
I am not ignoring the context. I see it. I am not impressed.
You continue to focus on the verbiage from the single outcome possibility (of the three he gave) that may have happened had the larger hypothetical actually occurred, which it didn't.
First of all, what he says goes beyond hypotheticals. He says stuff like: (1) "I'm not being a homer" which implies that speculating that GB will have success is not plausible but belongs in the realm of homer thought; (2) "if you're betting" which makes it not merely about outsider expectations but about odds/probability... being more likely that the team is bad than good.
Second, ignoring those issues (since him baselessly speculating about Rodgers/Gute is seen as such an exonerating defense)....
Why does he take it as a given that the FO would not think the team will be competitive?
Why does it not seem to occur to him that the FO might actually feel totally differently?
Why does he take it as a given that this team in its rebuild should be looked at (not only from the outside but also from the inside by our FO) as the same as the usual rebuilding team, needing major turnover and likely to suck, not as a team with a good core that would buck the trend of being bad in its rebuild year?
Why does he at no point stop to point out that this team may be an exception, regardless of what others expect, but actually seems to *preempt* that idea by qualifying his statements by saying "I'm not being a homer" -?
It's simple, the guy told on himself. Sorry you folks are not able or too fond of him to see it.
Some will never be able to objectively see the obvious. It is a common side effect of fandom. We cannot blame them.
And again, you're completely ignoring the context of the conversation.
His answer was in response to the hypothetical scenario of the Packers and Jets not coming to a trade agreement, the impacts from a failed trade, and three possible outcomes derived from the hypothetical scenario.
I am not ignoring the context. I see it. I am not impressed.
You continue to focus on the verbiage from the single outcome possibility (of the three he gave) that may have happened had the larger hypothetical actually occurred, which it didn't.
First of all, what he says goes beyond hypotheticals. He says stuff like: (1) "I'm not being a homer" which implies that speculating that GB will have success is not plausible but belongs in the realm of homer thought; (2) "if you're betting" which makes it not merely about outsider expectations but about odds/probability... being more likely that the team is bad than good.
Second, ignoring those issues (since him baselessly speculating about Rodgers/Gute is seen as such an exonerating defense)....
Why does he take it as a given that the FO would not think the team will be competitive?
Why does it not seem to occur to him that the FO might actually feel totally differently?
Why does he take it as a given that this team in its rebuild should be looked at (not only from the outside but also from the inside by our FO) as the same as the usual rebuilding team, needing major turnover and likely to suck, not as a team with a good core that would buck the trend of being bad in its rebuild year?
Why does he at no point stop to point out that this team may be an exception, regardless of what others expect, but actually seems to *preempt* that idea by qualifying his statements by saying "I'm not being a homer" -?
It's simple, the guy told on himself. Sorry you folks are not able or too fond of him to see it.
wow is about the first thing to come to mind with your rant, your pining Bakhtiari to a off the wall discussion where he was spontaneously responding to pointed questions, those comments affect NO ONE, basically comments that have rifled through the minds of most fans.
and you and others have built this into the BS that it is.
not only has the guy been a devoted player and asset to this team, he's been a draft day steal and consummate pro, hardly his fault for the contract he was given or the injury that he suffered after, just a unfortunate turn of events, yet here you are babbling on as though he's the worst player we've ever had.
I backed Bakhtiari on the comments concerning turf as well, that stuff should never have been allowed in the first place and has caused just as many injuries as the hitting has, I hope teams get rid of it.
And again, you're completely ignoring the context of the conversation.
His answer was in response to the hypothetical scenario of the Packers and Jets not coming to a trade agreement, the impacts from a failed trade, and three possible outcomes derived from the hypothetical scenario.
I am not ignoring the context. I see it. I am not impressed.
You continue to focus on the verbiage from the single outcome possibility (of the three he gave) that may have happened had the larger hypothetical actually occurred, which it didn't.
First of all, what he says goes beyond hypotheticals. He says stuff like: (1) "I'm not being a homer" which implies that speculating that GB will have success is not plausible but belongs in the realm of homer thought; (2) "if you're betting" which makes it not merely about outsider expectations but about odds/probability... being more likely that the team is bad than good.
Second, ignoring those issues (since him baselessly speculating about Rodgers/Gute is seen as such an exonerating defense)....
Why does he take it as a given that the FO would not think the team will be competitive?
Why does it not seem to occur to him that the FO might actually feel totally differently?
Why does he take it as a given that this team in its rebuild should be looked at (not only from the outside but also from the inside by our FO) as the same as the usual rebuilding team, needing major turnover and likely to suck, not as a team with a good core that would buck the trend of being bad in its rebuild year?
Why does he at no point stop to point out that this team may be an exception, regardless of what others expect, but actually seems to *preempt* that idea by qualifying his statements by saying "I'm not being a homer" -?
It's simple, the guy told on himself. Sorry you folks are not able or too fond of him to see it.
Some will never be able to objectively see the obvious. It is a common side effect of fandom. We cannot blame them.
you insult me and every rational fan with those comments, believe me, you and Labrev are in a miniscule minority with your opinions.
