The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
Someone needs to put together a chart/graph that shows the success rate of GMs and their height. Maybe we need a GM combine and grade them. Maybe I'll ask the RAS guy about that.Yoop wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 07:08plus he's shortRingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 06:44That's Gutey for you. The guy can't seem to get out of his own way. Frustrating bloke.
Yeah it's so easy the Chiefs have been doing so well after trading Hill away and making lots of draft picks and signings there.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 10:29Yoop is the only person asking for another 1K receiver. Most of us just knew Lazard was pretty shot and trotting him out there as a WR2 was an embarrassment.
If anything Gutenbumst showed how easy it is to get talent at the position. If you actually make any type of investment in it you get results.
As for Adams he should have gotten paid. Gutenbumst tried to play contractual hardball with him the year prior to his contract year and Adams said shove it, contracts talks are over and I’ll never play for you again.
No, this group was NOT built by the moves you wanted us to make.Yoop wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 11:02your just echoing what I've said for years, ya don't need a Adams, what ya need is 2 or 3 that come close, our situation makes it harder to cover these 3 or 4 then it is to cover just 2, or just a Adams, this offense has the capability to be more explosive then 2019, 2020, or 2021 simple becaise more3 is bette.r then less as long as there not guys like Lazard.Labrev wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 09:52Okay, you have talked a lot of smack, now it's time to humble you guys.
Your thing has always been that we need proven great players, and often used stats and reputation as benchmarks. "Two 1k receivers! A real WR2 gets 1000!" even though 23 brought historical evidence that *very* few teams in league history actually had that.
Our top receiver, Reed, has 100 fewer yards than Lazard did last year.
My point is not that Lazard was better than or close to Reed in talent. My point is that you do not need a murderer's row of unbelievable talents, you do not even need one guy who dominates like Adams did.
We are getting it done right now with unproven raw talent guys with no national reputation in the way of accolades for being great. None are immediate sensations like your precious Jefftain Justinson. None have the career highlights of OBJ.
Our current group is not your model; it is MY model. I said WR should be a diversity-of-skills regime, not a fantasy football lineup. I said that a few weeks ago, and your reply was an incredulous "LABREV HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT??"
you said, one Adams is not enough, that we need MORE of them!Most do there first year, GJ loved AR till GJ wanted more money, just wait till receivers screw up, QB's get upset when receivers screw up or act me, me, me, and thats how I want them to act, accountability matters.
just keep taking what I say out of context,Labrev wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 11:42Yeah it's so easy the Chiefs have been doing so well after trading Hill away and making lots of draft picks and signings there.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 10:29Yoop is the only person asking for another 1K receiver. Most of us just knew Lazard was pretty shot and trotting him out there as a WR2 was an embarrassment.
If anything Gutenbumst showed how easy it is to get talent at the position. If you actually make any type of investment in it you get results.
As for Adams he should have gotten paid. Gutenbumst tried to play contractual hardball with him the year prior to his contract year and Adams said shove it, contracts talks are over and I’ll never play for you again.
(WEREN'T YOU THE GUY who was applauding the Chiefs' WR moves??)
Wait, they're struggling? Huh. Oh well I guess Brett Veach is just a bad GM. All the GMs are just not as good and smart as me (oh wait, I applauded the moves that got them here --whoops!)
No, this group was NOT built by the moves you wanted us to make.Yoop wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 11:02your just echoing what I've said for years, ya don't need a Adams, what ya need is 2 or 3 that come close, our situation makes it harder to cover these 3 or 4 then it is to cover just 2, or just a Adams, this offense has the capability to be more explosive then 2019, 2020, or 2021 simple becaise more3 is bette.r then less as long as there not guys like Lazard.Labrev wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 09:52Okay, you have talked a lot of smack, now it's time to humble you guys.
Your thing has always been that we need proven great players, and often used stats and reputation as benchmarks. "Two 1k receivers! A real WR2 gets 1000!" even though 23 brought historical evidence that *very* few teams in league history actually had that.
Our top receiver, Reed, has 100 fewer yards than Lazard did last year.
My point is not that Lazard was better than or close to Reed in talent. My point is that you do not need a murderer's row of unbelievable talents, you do not even need one guy who dominates like Adams did.
We are getting it done right now with unproven raw talent guys with no national reputation in the way of accolades for being great. None are immediate sensations like your precious Jefftain Justinson. None have the career highlights of OBJ.
Our current group is not your model; it is MY model. I said WR should be a diversity-of-skills regime, not a fantasy football lineup. I said that a few weeks ago, and your reply was an incredulous "LABREV HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT??"
WERENT YOU THE GUY who said, we need two 1k receivers? You said we need two 1k starting receivers.
You said we need to trade up for Jefferson Jefferson, burn multiple Day 2 picks if need be, and then wouldn't shut up about it for years. Okay, well there goes Love, the guy throwing to these WRs to make them look this good in the first place.
You said mid-round/Day 3 picks like "the stooges" do not count. Okay, so Doubs, Wicks, Heath, or Melton do not count.
You similarly would not count picks or signings at TE. Okay, so Musgrave and Kraft do not count.
Now you're backtracking with "ya don't need a Adams!" oh no no yoop
The only moves we made that are in accord with what you wanted, namely to keep drafting WRs high, are Reed and Watson. That's it. Watson didn't even do much this year.
*I* was the one who said, it's fine to have just one elite player at WR if the rest just complement him with different skills. You freaked out at that take. Now you are trying to weasel out of it and say this was what you were advocating. TOH FUNNY!!
they don't have to both be 1K receivers, in fact they don't have to even be 900 yrders, as long as you have 3 or 4 that do 600 yrds.Oh I am absolutely not naive to the fact that dynamics change once the collective sees success.
2012 was the beginning of the era where Rodgers started to become less and less likeable, not only to fans but to players. I think I remember Donald Driver saying to him "Don't forget where you came from" on his way out. It wasn't always accountability. Rodgers is a dick, but was really good at football.
We have 2 WR that surpassed 600 yards. Not 3 - 4.Yoop wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 12:51just keep taking what I say out of context,Labrev wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 11:42Yeah it's so easy the Chiefs have been doing so well after trading Hill away and making lots of draft picks and signings there.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 10:29Yoop is the only person asking for another 1K receiver. Most of us just knew Lazard was pretty shot and trotting him out there as a WR2 was an embarrassment.
If anything Gutenbumst showed how easy it is to get talent at the position. If you actually make any type of investment in it you get results.
As for Adams he should have gotten paid. Gutenbumst tried to play contractual hardball with him the year prior to his contract year and Adams said shove it, contracts talks are over and I’ll never play for you again.
(WEREN'T YOU THE GUY who was applauding the Chiefs' WR moves??)
Wait, they're struggling? Huh. Oh well I guess Brett Veach is just a bad GM. All the GMs are just not as good and smart as me (oh wait, I applauded the moves that got them here --whoops!)
No, this group was NOT built by the moves you wanted us to make.Yoop wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 11:02
your just echoing what I've said for years, ya don't need a Adams, what ya need is 2 or 3 that come close, our situation makes it harder to cover these 3 or 4 then it is to cover just 2, or just a Adams, this offense has the capability to be more explosive then 2019, 2020, or 2021 simple becaise more3 is bette.r then less as long as there not guys like Lazard.
WERENT YOU THE GUY who said, we need two 1k receivers? You said we need two 1k starting receivers.
You said we need to trade up for Jefferson Jefferson, burn multiple Day 2 picks if need be, and then wouldn't shut up about it for years. Okay, well there goes Love, the guy throwing to these WRs to make them look this good in the first place.
You said mid-round/Day 3 picks like "the stooges" do not count. Okay, so Doubs, Wicks, Heath, or Melton do not count.
You similarly would not count picks or signings at TE. Okay, so Musgrave and Kraft do not count.
Now you're backtracking with "ya don't need a Adams!" oh no no yoop
The only moves we made that are in accord with what you wanted, namely to keep drafting WRs high, are Reed and Watson. That's it. Watson didn't even do much this year.
*I* was the one who said, it's fine to have just one elite player at WR if the rest just complement him with different skills. You freaked out at that take. Now you are trying to weasel out of it and say this was what you were advocating. TOH FUNNY!!
and this year being rookies I don't expect that anyway, though we see rookie WR getting 1K every year, Watson healthy would have gotten that from Rodgers last season, same with Reed this year.
Rodgers had to carry this offense for years, whats tooooo funny, is that was acceptable to you
go pak go wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 12:51Oh I am absolutely not naive to the fact that dynamics change once the collective sees success.
There was something oh so special in that 2009 - 2011 offense that became not as special in 2012 and beyond I once the fame, money, ego etc came swooping in.
I'm just excited we are living the fun times again.
so what, we both know the season didn't start well for any of these receivers or for Love either after Chicago.go pak go wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 12:54We have 2 WR that surpassed 600 yards. Not 3 - 4.Yoop wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 12:51just keep taking what I say out of context,Labrev wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 11:42
Yeah it's so easy the Chiefs have been doing so well after trading Hill away and making lots of draft picks and signings there.
(WEREN'T YOU THE GUY who was applauding the Chiefs' WR moves??)
Wait, they're struggling? Huh. Oh well I guess Brett Veach is just a bad GM. All the GMs are just not as good and smart as me (oh wait, I applauded the moves that got them here --whoops!)
No, this group was NOT built by the moves you wanted us to make.
WERENT YOU THE GUY who said, we need two 1k receivers? You said we need two 1k starting receivers.
You said we need to trade up for Jefferson Jefferson, burn multiple Day 2 picks if need be, and then wouldn't shut up about it for years. Okay, well there goes Love, the guy throwing to these WRs to make them look this good in the first place.
You said mid-round/Day 3 picks like "the stooges" do not count. Okay, so Doubs, Wicks, Heath, or Melton do not count.
You similarly would not count picks or signings at TE. Okay, so Musgrave and Kraft do not count.
Now you're backtracking with "ya don't need a Adams!" oh no no yoop
The only moves we made that are in accord with what you wanted, namely to keep drafting WRs high, are Reed and Watson. That's it. Watson didn't even do much this year.
*I* was the one who said, it's fine to have just one elite player at WR if the rest just complement him with different skills. You freaked out at that take. Now you are trying to weasel out of it and say this was what you were advocating. TOH FUNNY!!
and this year being rookies I don't expect that anyway, though we see rookie WR getting 1K every year, Watson healthy would have gotten that from Rodgers last season, same with Reed this year.
Rodgers had to carry this offense for years, whats tooooo funny, is that was acceptable to you
Reed has only missed one game. So his sub 700 yard season truly is after 15 of 16 games.
I think a lot of people are oblivious or just ignore context, situations etc to fit their ideals. Last year, different board and so much about AR and his looks and disgust and attitude and we should all look to guys like Mahomes, because he's all team, no excuses, full of positivity etc. Oh, BTW he's over a decade younger, hitting the prime of his career, and coming off a super bowl trophy with a team doing everything right. Vs a guy with a young team needing lots of growth around him making the same mistakes week after week watching what time he has left slip away and couldn't understand the frustration.go pak go wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 12:51
Oh I am absolutely not naive to the fact that dynamics change once the collective sees success.
There was something oh so special in that 2009 - 2011 offense that became not as special in 2012 and beyond I once the fame, money, ego etc came swooping in.
I'm just excited we are living the fun times again.
EAT your words!
No, what's funny is you not knowing that QBs are literally paid the big bucks BECAUSE they carry teams.Rodgers had to carry this offense for years, whats tooooo funny, is that was acceptable to you
So are you now going to claim Brett Veach is a bad GM?Chiefs drafted Rasheed Rice, a year late, but he looks good, and Kelce had a down season.
Offense also declined in 2012 and didn't recover until Week 4 of 2014.Yoop wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 13:07go pak go wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 12:51Oh I am absolutely not naive to the fact that dynamics change once the collective sees success.
There was something oh so special in that 2009 - 2011 offense that became not as special in 2012 and beyond I once the fame, money, ego etc came swooping in.
I'm just excited we are living the fun times again.
nothing changed in 2012 except the defense declined, your opinion that players change once they have success is so ambiguous, some do, most don't, we've always known that some WR's and CB's become prima donna's, nothing at all new about that, you categorize them as though all automatically become that way, they don't.
Alexander had a valid reason to be upset, he didn't have a valid reason to take it to the extremes he did, I have no problem at all for the reason Alexander is upset though, none.
takes more then just any ol QB to produce success, having more skill position talent just makes it easier, they don't just select MVP's based on quality supporting cast, or why would Purdy's name even make the list? cause he's better then I think most give him credit for.Labrev wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 13:28No, what's funny is you not knowing that QBs are literally paid the big bucks BECAUSE they carry teams.
The top QBs are literally paid more money than multiple players on the roster combined. It only makes sense to do that if they carry your team. Otherwise, there is no point. You can instead just make Ryan Fitzpatrick your QB for a fraction of the price and surround him with amazing skill players on O. That will get you a lot of production.
A QB that needs his wideouts to "help" him produce... is a bad QB.
Yup. I believe the boo birds came out at Lambeau when we were down 21 to 3 vs the Jets in 2014. Came back but then laid another egg in Detroit the following week.Acrobat wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 14:00Offense also declined in 2012 and didn't recover until Week 4 of 2014.Yoop wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 13:07go pak go wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 12:51
Oh I am absolutely not naive to the fact that dynamics change once the collective sees success.
There was something oh so special in that 2009 - 2011 offense that became not as special in 2012 and beyond I once the fame, money, ego etc came swooping in.
I'm just excited we are living the fun times again.
nothing changed in 2012 except the defense declined, your opinion that players change once they have success is so ambiguous, some do, most don't, we've always known that some WR's and CB's become prima donna's, nothing at all new about that, you categorize them as though all automatically become that way, they don't.
Alexander had a valid reason to be upset, he didn't have a valid reason to take it to the extremes he did, I have no problem at all for the reason Alexander is upset though, none.
"Jarrod Lov" has shown how bankrupt your opinion is.Yoop wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024 14:11never needed to be 2 1K receivers even though thats what I said, the whole freaking point was to have a #2 more like a #2 versus a bunch of #4's vying for the #3 spot, the drop off from Adams to the next guy was to steep, plus we didn't have a receiving TE.
Give that &%$@ show to Jarrod Lov
you act like this bunch of rookies and 2nd year receivers are at there ceiling, and that how this season and there health didn't rob them of more production to start the season.