Packers Huddle

NCF wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2021 13:30

Interesting... this is actual cash, not cap dollars.

Quite interesting!

Over the long haul, cash and cap will pretty much even out, so seeing a ten-year chart like this does have some relevance, though it can be skewed a little by teams that spent a lot in recent year bonuses that are spread out in the cap.

And there certainly isn't NO correlation there. It's weak and it has some major outliers, but maybe even a little stronger of a correlation than I anticipated.

Also, it is crazy how far ahead the Pats are than the rest in team wins, and also how clear the next tier of 6 teams is on that axis.

Seven teams just crushed this decade. 25 teams did not. And 2 of those 25 were REALLY horrible

Interesting how no team from the NFC East or AFC South really ever took advantage of their weak divisions.

Every other division had a clear winner this decade except the AFC South and NFC East.

A good point I came across about people bitching about tanking games.

What is wrong with what the Eagles did compared to what the Chiefs did. They didn’t play their starters. They didn’t try to win. What’s the difference? Why is no one up in arms for the Chiefs. Hypocrisy at its finest.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 06:43

A good point I came across about people bitching about tanking games.

What is wrong with what the Eagles did compared to what the Chiefs did. They didn’t play their starters. They didn’t try to win. What’s the difference? Why is no one up in arms for the Chiefs. Hypocrisy at its finest.

There is some validity to this argument however I think the counterpoint is that the Chiefs-Chargers match-up had absolutely no impact on the current standing of either team nor did it impact any other teams playoff standing. Aside from Anthony Lynn attempting to hold onto his job, the only thing on the line for that game was draft position for the Chargers.

IOW an argument could be made the competitive integrity of the current year was not impacted.

Now, I don’t necessarily subscribe to that argument but I do think it holds some merit. I do think it’s somewhat hypocritical to condemn one tanking scenario while allowing for the other. But, personally, I think the advantage gained in either scenario is overblown, especially when the Chiefs have another week off anyway.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 06:43

A good point I came across about people bitching about tanking games.

What is wrong with what the Eagles did compared to what the Chiefs did. They didn’t play their starters. They didn’t try to win. What’s the difference? Why is no one up in arms for the Chiefs. Hypocrisy at its finest.

they didn't try to lose though, yanking key starters does not translate to purposely losing games.

sure I'd hate paying for a ticket to watch Rodgers riding the bench or our other star players, however it's the knowledge that I can come back in a week or two and see him healthy, and ready to play in a more important game that makes it acceptable.

that you fail to see how tanking will ruin the NFL, do you think a lottery for draft slotting is better then the way it's set up now? almost 50% of top 10 picks fail to secure a 2nd contract from the teams that draft them, so tanking for draft picks can hardly be a worth the uncertanty of the draft pick, sure we all think slot 5 is better then slot 10, usually it is, but about 45% (guessing) neither slot pans out, why would you take a chance on allianating the 50 players already on the team to take a chance like that?

The Eagles decision had playoff implications, the Chiefs did not.

The Chiefs were getting players healthy for the playoffs, the Eagles were not

That's why fans are talking about the Eagles and not the Chiefs.

Personally, I couldn't care less. I think teams should always do what they believe to be in their own best interest.

Yoop wrote:they didn't try to lose though, yanking key starters does not translate to purposely losing games.

This is rich...

APB wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 07:31

Yoop wrote:they didn't try to lose though, yanking key starters does not translate to purposely losing games.

This is rich...

Why? I agree with yoop. I question the motive. Sitting guys to keep them healthy for a playoff run is one thing, but still, you don't think the guys on the field were trying to win?

NCF wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 07:54

APB wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 07:31

Yoop wrote:they didn't try to lose though, yanking key starters does not translate to purposely losing games.

This is rich...

Why? I agree with yoop. I question the motive. Sitting guys to keep them healthy for a playoff run is one thing, but still, you don't think the guys on the field were trying to win?

You don't think Nate Sudfeld was trying to win?

I mean, if we're gonna debate this then it's reasonable to say Hurts wasn't having much success against the Washington defense. QBs get pulled all the time in hopes their backup will provide a spark. It's exactly why Hurts was playing in the first place. Who's to say Pederson didn't believe Sudfeld would provide a spark to pull them out of their offensive funk?

APB wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 08:34

NCF wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 07:54

APB wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 07:31

This is rich...

Why? I agree with yoop. I question the motive. Sitting guys to keep them healthy for a playoff run is one thing, but still, you don't think the guys on the field were trying to win?

You don't think Nate Sudfeld was trying to win?

I mean, if we're gonna debate this then it's reasonable to say Hurts wasn't having much success against the Washington defense. QBs get pulled all the time in hopes their backup will provide a spark. It's exactly why Hurts was playing in the first place. Who's to say Pederson didn't believe Sudfeld would provide a spark to pull them out of their offensive funk?

get serious, Sudfeld was a huge decline from Hurts, for christ sakes half the damn team wanted to strangle Pederson, some had to be physically restrained from doing it, how would you feel being one of them? I get that you will contradict every comment I make, carry on.

more importantly, I get my covid vaccine shot on the 12th

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2021 11:15

Home team won 127 games this season.
Away team won 128 games this season.

CRAZY! Fans in the stands matters a lot! That means the old $%@# can go suck it when they tell me to sit down!

I would be interested in seeing some deeper analysis on this.

Almost like a variance of SOS, is possible more often that not, really good teams played really bad teams with the bad teams were at home, and then when the teams were closer in record, the slightly better teams were at home. I don't know, maybe that doesnt make sense, or maybe there could be something too that.

People are acting like Hurts was hooping. He was 7/20 with a pick.

The Chiefs and Eagles both did what they get was best for their organization. Not sure what people are talking about. Complaining to complain.

BF004 wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 09:38

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2021 11:15

Home team won 127 games this season.
Away team won 128 games this season.

CRAZY! Fans in the stands matters a lot! That means the old $%@# can go suck it when they tell me to sit down!

I would be interested in seeing some deeper analysis on this.

Almost like a variance of SOS, is possible more often that not, really good teams played really bad teams with the bad teams were at home, and then when the teams were closer in record, the slightly better teams were at home. I don't know, maybe that doesnt make sense, or maybe there could be something too that.

Let's just say, never in the history of the NFL has the away team won more games than the home team. Low hanging fruit would be to say the lack of fans affected that the most. I would like to dig into SOS too to see how that affected it, but I don't know how to "easily" do that.

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 07:22

they didn't try to lose though, yanking key starters does not translate to purposely losing games.

You can maybe make an argument that PHI was not actively trying to lose, but you cannot make an argument that they were trying to win.

They wanted to evaluate their backup QB and probably some other players. I am fine with that. PHI owes the NYG absolutely nothing.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 09:59

People are acting like Hurts was hooping. He was 7/20 with a pick.

The Chiefs and Eagles both did what they get was best for their organization. Not sure what people are talking about. Complaining to complain.

you don't get it, this season it's tanking to move from slot 6 to 9, what will it take for a team to tank next year, or for a half doz teams to follow that in years to come each season, all in the hopes of drafting a 60% hit rate player a few selections earlier in the draft, soon we'll see a snowballing affect of starters giving a half effort late season when they know the FO is purposely trying to lose, in affect the game declines.

will the league do anything about this? not likely any more then a stern scolding behind closed doors, it's a can of worms they will avoid opening unless this escallates, which I expect it will, hopefully it never will with the Packers.

Mazrimiv wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 10:18

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 07:22

they didn't try to lose though, yanking key starters does not translate to purposely losing games.

You can maybe make an argument that PHI was not actively trying to lose, but you cannot make an argument that they were trying to win.

yep
I think Pedersons comments is just him trying to save face, seriously what does he think this kid Sudfeld is that he hasn't seen before? nada, I'am not so sure Pederson isn't covering for this Philly FO, either way, I don't approve

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 10:22

you don't get it, this season it's tanking to move from slot 6 to 9, what will it take for a team to tank next year, or for a half doz teams to follow that in years to come each season, all in the hopes of drafting a 60% hit rate player a few selections earlier in the draft, soon we'll see a snowballing affect of starters giving a half effort late season when they know the FO is purposely trying to lose, in affect the game declines.

will the league do anything about this? not likely any more then a stern scolding behind closed doors, it's a can of worms they will avoid opening unless this escallates, which I expect it will, hopefully it never will with the Packers.

I think you are way, way, way overestimating how much tanking goes on in the NFL. Especially with non-interim coaches. Tanking games in the NFL is an excellent way to find yourself out of a job as HC, and what is in it for the players? The fact that the draft is such a crap shoot (as you point out) is another reason why tanking in the NFL doesn't make a lot of sense unless you are maybe looking at a franchise QB with the #1 overall pick. Even then we saw first hand this season that the Jets clearly were not tanking to end the season. If your primary gripe is what happens every year in week 17 with teams sitting starters, that is never going to change. Teams have perfectly valid reasons for doing it, and there is no valid reason to stop them.

With the rumors of Deshaun Watson possibly asking to be traded, I saw this hypothetical thrown out there.

Would you trade Rodgers and Adams for Watson this offseason? Watson is 25 and already a hell of a QB in a bad situation. Rodgers is 37 and the MVP. Adams is 28 and had an OPOY type year.

Would you do it?

paco wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 10:45

With the rumors of Deshaun Watson possibly asking to be traded, I saw this hypothetical thrown out there.

Would you trade Rodgers and Adams for Watson this offseason? Watson is 25 and already a hell of a QB in a bad situation. Rodgers is 37 and the MVP. Adams is 28 and had an OPOY type year.

Would you do it?

No.