Packers Huddle

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2022 17:06

I would assume he is just talking about Super Bowls only since the quote he used mentioned Super Bowls. That would make the tally Packers - 2, Rest of NFCN - 1.

If we want to talk about World Championships, then that tally is Packers - 13, Rest of NFCN - 14.

Packers have 4 SBs. Though 2 came before it was called that.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2022 22:22

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2022 17:06

I would assume he is just talking about Super Bowls only since the quote he used mentioned Super Bowls. That would make the tally Packers - 2, Rest of NFCN - 1.

If we want to talk about World Championships, then that tally is Packers - 13, Rest of NFCN - 14.

Packers have 4 SBs. Though 2 came before it was called that.

Very True.

1999, 2000, 2005, 2008, 2013, 2017, 2018

The seasons with 10 wins or less.

I've added tier lines

The NFL had made illegal contact fouls an emphasis this season, and I'm not a big fan.

Can lead to a lot of ticky-tacky calls in coverage, especially early in the season. And we know this will only benefit the O...

I hate it when a CB sneezes in a WRs direction and the receiver takes a swan dive and instantly start flailing their arms for a penalty... Or a WR runs straight into a CB and then acts all victim-like.

Also, illegal contact has very little to do with player safety.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022 19:03

The NFL had made illegal contact fouls an emphasis this season, and I'm not a big fan.

Can lead to a lot of ticky-tacky calls in coverage, especially early in the season. And we know this will only benefit the O...

I hate it when a CB sneezes in a WRs direction and the receiver takes a swan dive and instantly start flailing their arms for a penalty... Or a WR runs straight into a CB and then acts all victim-like.

Also, illegal contact has very little to do with player safety.

Agreed. That's the sort of small thing that could totally change Rasul's game. He's a handsy defender, for sure.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022 20:56

salmar80 wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022 19:03

The NFL had made illegal contact fouls an emphasis this season, and I'm not a big fan.

Can lead to a lot of ticky-tacky calls in coverage, especially early in the season. And we know this will only benefit the O...

I hate it when a CB sneezes in a WRs direction and the receiver takes a swan dive and instantly start flailing their arms for a penalty... Or a WR runs straight into a CB and then acts all victim-like.

Also, illegal contact has very little to do with player safety.

Agreed. That's the sort of small thing that could totally change Rasul's game. He's a handsy defender, for sure.

I think given we still have elite defenders back there, and less than ideal WR's, this probably helps us this year a lot. Our D will still be great, our WR's could use some assistance.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022 19:03

The NFL had made illegal contact fouls an emphasis this season, and I'm not a big fan.

Can lead to a lot of ticky-tacky calls in coverage, especially early in the season. And we know this will only benefit the O...

I hate it when a CB sneezes in a WRs direction and the receiver takes a swan dive and instantly start flailing their arms for a penalty... Or a WR runs straight into a CB and then acts all victim-like.

Also, illegal contact has very little to do with player safety.

A coach should be able to challenge two to four of these subjective type calls per game.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022 22:03

salmar80 wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022 19:03

The NFL had made illegal contact fouls an emphasis this season, and I'm not a big fan.

Can lead to a lot of ticky-tacky calls in coverage, especially early in the season. And we know this will only benefit the O...

I hate it when a CB sneezes in a WRs direction and the receiver takes a swan dive and instantly start flailing their arms for a penalty... Or a WR runs straight into a CB and then acts all victim-like.

Also, illegal contact has very little to do with player safety.

A coach should be able to challenge two to four of these subjective type calls per game.

That would make the games utterly unbearable to watch.

Every between-play conversation would revolve around an in-progress challenge, should have challenged, or too bad they used all their challenges.

Ugh, I really don't like the look of negotiating through the media like this.

NCF wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2022 07:59

Ugh, I really don't like the look of negotiating through the media like this.

I do love da Bears being in disarray (what are they thinking!? ), but fear they'll trade him to a contender ...

salmar80 wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2022 09:00

NCF wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2022 07:59

Ugh, I really don't like the look of negotiating through the media like this.

I do love da Bears being in disarray (what are they thinking!? ), but fear they'll trade him to a contender ...

Packer fans think where tight wallet honcho's, Margaret McCaskey has her first penny of baby sitting money she ever earned framed and hanging next to Papa Bear Daddy George's Picture in the study

the price for ILB's is on the rise, good ones change the complexion of a defense, as good as we where last year with Campbell, we will see even more improvement adding Quay next to him.

Jamaal Williams being a leader:

Sean McVay on trading for Stafford:

“We can sit here and exist, and be OK winning nine to 11 games, and losing in the f—ing divisional round and feel like, 'Oh, everything's OK.' Or, we could let our motherf—ing nuts hang, and go trade for this f—ing quarterback, and give ourselves a chance to go win a f—ing world championship.”

And I’ve been saying this for a decade now. You can go out and make a move to win a championship or you can sit there are wallow in just being a good team.

Time after time we witness the Packers in on someone just for someone else to offer a little more. OBJ. Marshawn Lynch. Tony G. Randy Moss. Antonio Brown. It’s embarrassing. This org needs to stop saying they want to win but not do the things it takes to win.

Sean McVay just showed what it means to want to win.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2022 21:02

Sean McVay on trading for Stafford:

“We can sit here and exist, and be OK winning nine to 11 games, and losing in the f—ing divisional round and feel like, 'Oh, everything's OK.' Or, we could let our motherf—ing nuts hang, and go trade for this f—ing quarterback, and give ourselves a chance to go win a f—ing world championship.”

And I’ve been saying this for a decade now. You can go out and make a move to win a championship or you can sit there are wallow in just being a good team.

Time after time we witness the Packers in on someone just for someone else to offer a little more. OBJ. Marshawn Lynch. Tony G. Randy Moss. Antonio Brown. It’s embarrassing. This org needs to stop saying they want to win but not do the things it takes to win.

Sean McVay just showed what it means to want to win.

As did the Bucs before them

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2022 21:02

Sean McVay on trading for Stafford:

“We can sit here and exist, and be OK winning nine to 11 games, and losing in the f—ing divisional round and feel like, 'Oh, everything's OK.' Or, we could let our motherf—ing nuts hang, and go trade for this f—ing quarterback, and give ourselves a chance to go win a f—ing world championship.”

And I’ve been saying this for a decade now. You can go out and make a move to win a championship or you can sit there are wallow in just being a good team.

Time after time we witness the Packers in on someone just for someone else to offer a little more. OBJ. Marshawn Lynch. Tony G. Randy Moss. Antonio Brown. It’s embarrassing. This org needs to stop saying they want to win but not do the things it takes to win.

Sean McVay just showed what it means to want to win.

This is a false equivalency.

The QB position means so much more than any other position. A team who has almost everything, but doesn't have the QB needs to find the QB. A team who has the QB in place can add "that one piece" all they want and it may or may not move the needle.

Both the Buccs and Rams felt they needed that one piece on offense, signed a FA WR, and both scored TDs in the Super Bowl to help their team win a SB.

Meanwhile Packers fans rationalize trading up for an awful QB.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2022 21:47

Both the Buccs and Rams felt they needed that one piece on offense, signed a FA WR, and both scored TDs in the Super Bowl to help their team win a SB.

Meanwhile Packers fans rationalize trading up for an awful QB.

Do you think it was the WR additions, or adding Stafford and Brady that put them over the top?

Come on now.

You made a post about going out to get the QB. DrJ followed up to add in the Bucs, who went and got Brady. The rest of their roster composition and roster-building strategy works sometimes and doesn't sometimes. Recency bias has everyone jumping back on that train, but you can't count on your fingers the number of times teams have gone all-in on name free agent additions and still failed.

It also took McVay until his 5th year to win the Super Bowl. Arians got it in his 7th year as a HC. Y'all are comparing the middle of some stories to the beginning of ours. It's like going into 2010 when Rodgers had played 2 years and "couldn't win the big one" because he was 0-1 in the playoffs. Gutey and MLF have somehow failed by not winning yet in years 3 and 4?

We'll talk if Rodgers retires without a second ring. That'll be disappointing--not tragic, but disappointing. Until then, y'all all are just going to cherry pick examples of when your way worked and imply that any other way is doomed. But there is no one way to do it.

The only thing that stands up to scrutiny is that when Hall of Fame QBs play on mid-level or rookie contracts, your SB odds skyrocket. Everything else is just different preferences that all have merit but are not universally successful

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2022 21:47

Both the Buccs and Rams felt they needed that one piece on offense, signed a FA WR, and both scored TDs in the Super Bowl to help their team win a SB.

Meanwhile Packers fans rationalize trading up for an awful QB.

There were some, but not many that liked the Love pick (especially trading up).