Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 14:21

the real laugher will come when Rodgers goes to another team next year and goes to the play offs as we try and figure who our next QB will be, seriously, obviously, I hope thats not the case, but it stands just as much a chance to be right as LOve does being our savior at QB

Funny how you say "goes to the [playoffs]" rather than win a championship.

"Going to the playoffs" stopped being the goal with Rodgers since 2009. The goal with him was this .


I guess according to you Favre got the last laugh when we moved on because he gave the Jets playoff hopes and Rodgers didn't. Then he got farther in the playoffs than Rodgers in 2009. Idiot FO showing our HOF QB out the door, what were they thinking, coulda won 3 SuperBowls if they drafted a WR in 2005.

dragging along PFF and Hermies grades to make points

Honestly, what points do you think people are making?

Labrev wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 14:33

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 14:21

the real laugher will come when Rodgers goes to another team next year and goes to the play offs as we try and figure who our next QB will be, seriously, obviously, I hope thats not the case, but it stands just as much a chance to be right as LOve does being our savior at QB

Funny how you say "goes to the [playoffs]" rather than win a championship.

"Going to the playoffs" stopped being the goal with Rodgers since 2009. The goal with him was this .


I guess according to you Favre got the last laugh when we moved on because he gave the Jets playoff hopes and Rodgers didn't. Then he got farther in the playoffs than Rodgers in 2009. Idiot FO showing our HOF QB out the door, what were they thinking, coulda won 3 SuperBowls if they drafted a WR in 2005.

what about winning a Lombardi excludes first getting to the PO's that you don't get? and we didn't move on from Favre, see this is what I don't understand from you and others here, you twist any thing to suit whatever point your trying to make, Favre literally locked those Hudson center doors his own self, the FO was willing to take him back right up to a week prior.

and this FO might do the same thing with Rodgers, why? because they know without a doubt that the QB we saw last year is not near as bad as you and others here have spouted that he was.

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 14:53

what about winning a Lombardi excludes first getting to the PO's that you don't get?

A Lombardi implies playoffs, but playoffs do not imply Lombardi. And you said the "laugh" will be Rodgers going to the playoffs, not him winning a Lombardi.

Sorry, but nobody's impressed with Rodgers making another playoffs. We all know he's a great QB... in the REGULAR Season.

and we didn't move on from Favre, see this is what I don't understand from you and others here, you twist any thing to suit whatever point your trying to make, Favre literally locked those Hudson center doors his own self, the FO was willing to take him back right up to a week prior.

I used to think that too, but it's actually not true.

Favre retired in March 2008, then wanted to return to the Packers, but Thompson declared that Aaron Rodgers was the team's quarterback. When Favre asked for his unconditional release, Thompson refused,

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... e/2602577/

Favre asked for his release only after it became clear that Green Bay was moving on without him, but before he asked for release, he wanted to return to Green Bay.

Mark Murphy literally went to Mississippi and threw $100 million at Brett Favre to stay retired.

"Brett...we're moving on with Aaron"

--Mike McCarthy

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 12:40

I thought the reason he brought the grades was to talk about them, I guess not, what where suppose to do is just accept them and go on our way.

I would love to discuss them. Who’s grade surprised you? Who’s confirmed what you thought?

Just seems like you are only interested in everyone taking nothing away from the article. Because as you’ve shown, you haven’t taken the time to understand what it’s trying to articulate. And also what it isn’t trying to say.

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 12:40

BF004 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 12:30

You’ve spent like 3 hours collectively arguing this now.

It takes 5 minutes to read the article, I might suggest spending 10 and reading it twice.

There is nothing confusing about it.

I thought the reason he brought the grades was to talk about them, I guess not, what where suppose to do is just accept them and go on our way.

for the 2nd time I understand Hermans convoluted bull &%$@ grades.

ya know what baffles me is that YOU don't think dragging cartoons to vent your opinion on any thing is not Hijacking posts.

Yoop, you’re allowed to discuss the grades as long as your opinions matchup with everyone else’s

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 16:16

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 12:40

BF004 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 12:30

You’ve spent like 3 hours collectively arguing this now.

It takes 5 minutes to read the article, I might suggest spending 10 and reading it twice.

There is nothing confusing about it.

I thought the reason he brought the grades was to talk about them, I guess not, what where suppose to do is just accept them and go on our way.

for the 2nd time I understand Hermans convoluted bull &%$@ grades.

ya know what baffles me is that YOU don't think dragging cartoons to vent your opinion on any thing is not Hijacking posts.

Yoop, you’re allowed to discuss the grades as long as your opinions matchup with everyone else’s

Or, would be amazing and shocking, if either of you two could comment on the grades with thoughts and context and contribute to constructive conversation. Instead of just ‘I don’t cares about blogger’. Super insightful.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 13:45

Love - 78.7 - +.55
Rodgers - 77.5 (14th/39) - +.20
Lazard - 69.0 (53rd/121) - +2.70
Dillon - 81.4 (10th/60) - +1.85
Lewis - 65.6 (24th/74) - +4.25
Deguara - 57.2 (52nd/74) - +.90
Tonyan - 57.5 (51st/74) - -2.25
Myers - 60.4 (27th/38) - -4.15
Runyan - 62.6 (38th/78) - -2.15
Jenkins - 72.3 (13th/78) - -.45
Nijman - 63.1 (57th/83) - -2.40


Alexander - 80.3 (7th/118) - +.80
Douglas - 71.7 (31st/118) - -1.00
Ford - 77.7 (10th/88) - +.45
Campbell - 74.2 (18th/81) - -1.70
Clark - 66.4 (42nd/125) - +4.40
Smith - 66.4 (56th/120) - -2.45

Players with some significant grade discrepancies between the systems.

BF004 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 16:45

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 16:16

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 12:40

I thought the reason he brought the grades was to talk about them, I guess not, what where suppose to do is just accept them and go on our way.

for the 2nd time I understand Hermans convoluted bull &%$@ grades.

ya know what baffles me is that YOU don't think dragging cartoons to vent your opinion on any thing is not Hijacking posts.

Yoop, you’re allowed to discuss the grades as long as your opinions matchup with everyone else’s

Or, would be amazing and shocking, if either of you two could comment on the grades with thoughts and context and contribute to constructive conversation. Instead of just ‘I don’t cares about blogger’. Super insightful.

Stating you don’t care about the opinion of a blogger is actually a valid opinion to state once, like I did.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 16:51

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 13:45

Love - 78.7 - +.55
Rodgers - 77.5 (14th/39) - +.20
Lazard - 69.0 (53rd/121) - +2.70
Dillon - 81.4 (10th/60) - +1.85
Lewis - 65.6 (24th/74) - +4.25
Deguara - 57.2 (52nd/74) - +.90
Tonyan - 57.5 (51st/74) - -2.25
Myers - 60.4 (27th/38) - -4.15
Runyan - 62.6 (38th/78) - -2.15
Jenkins - 72.3 (13th/78) - -.45
Nijman - 63.1 (57th/83) - -2.40


Alexander - 80.3 (7th/118) - +.80
Douglas - 71.7 (31st/118) - -1.00
Ford - 77.7 (10th/88) - +.45
Campbell - 74.2 (18th/81) - -1.70
Clark - 66.4 (42nd/125) - +4.40
Smith - 66.4 (56th/120) - -2.45

Players with some significant grade discrepancies between the systems.

Are you saying those are players with discrepancies or just there are some? Just looking at the first few, Lazard, Dillon, etc, seems sync of ok.

BF004 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 16:56

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 16:51

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 13:45

Love - 78.7 - +.55
Rodgers - 77.5 (14th/39) - +.20
Lazard - 69.0 (53rd/121) - +2.70
Dillon - 81.4 (10th/60) - +1.85
Lewis - 65.6 (24th/74) - +4.25
Deguara - 57.2 (52nd/74) - +.90
Tonyan - 57.5 (51st/74) - -2.25
Myers - 60.4 (27th/38) - -4.15
Runyan - 62.6 (38th/78) - -2.15
Jenkins - 72.3 (13th/78) - -.45
Nijman - 63.1 (57th/83) - -2.40


Alexander - 80.3 (7th/118) - +.80
Douglas - 71.7 (31st/118) - -1.00
Ford - 77.7 (10th/88) - +.45
Campbell - 74.2 (18th/81) - -1.70
Clark - 66.4 (42nd/125) - +4.40
Smith - 66.4 (56th/120) - -2.45

Players with some significant grade discrepancies between the systems.

Are you saying those are players with discrepancies or just there are some? Just looking at the first few, Lazard, Dillon, etc, seems sync of ok.

Those are the players.
Lazard - Herman likes a deal more than PFF
Dillon - PFF likes him a deal more than Herman.

I guess my expectation of lining the grades up is anything above 1 for Herman should be above 70ish for PFF or below -1 for Herman should be below 60ish.

Maybe I’ll toss them in a table tomorrow and graph them. Ideally everyone will land on y=x, but will help visualize any discrepancies.

BF004 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023 17:28

Maybe I’ll toss them in a table tomorrow and graph them. Ideally everyone will land on y=x, but will help visualize any discrepancies.

ahhh hell, take a run up to camp and toss them in the out house along with the Sears and Roebuck

BF004 wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2023 16:09

So, are you saying the Packers CAN absolutely go FA shopping?
;-)

I trust in Guty.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2023 17:15

BF004 wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2023 16:09

So, are you saying the Packers CAN absolutely go FA shopping?
;-)

I trust in Guty.

That is obviously the extreme and not advisable. But still worth knowing the ranges and each moves impacts.

BF004 wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2023 20:23

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2023 17:15

BF004 wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2023 16:09

So, are you saying the Packers CAN absolutely go FA shopping?
;-)

I trust in Guty.

That is obviously the extreme and not advisable. But still worth knowing the ranges and each moves impacts.

I would hate a lot of it with a passion equal to the sun of Arrakis.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2023 20:56

BF004 wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2023 20:23

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2023 17:15

So, are you saying the Packers CAN absolutely go FA shopping?
;-)

I trust in Guty.

That is obviously the extreme and not advisable. But still worth knowing the ranges and each moves impacts.

I would hate a lot of it with a passion equal to the sun of Arrakis.

Yeah, kinda makes you miss the boring ol' days of TT and his pay-as-you-go extension/FA signing philosophy.