Packers Huddle

NCF wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 14:38

Christo wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 14:29

I've said before, gambling is what drives the NFL. People start messing with that and things will change.

How is it any different than a garbage time TD that changes a betting outcome? You can scream it as loud as you want, it doesn't make you right.

Not sure why you assume I'm screaming. I'm making a point to say that if people believe a game is fixed, they won't bet on it.
As for garbage time points, that's always been part of gambling. Now if somebody in the know has money on a game and knows ahead of time certain players are going to be held out because an owner want's a better draft position, I would say that is fixing a game.
If a NFL player took money to miss a tackle or throw a ball badly at crunch time, he would be suspended for life. Even if his team won the game.
But an owner or GM tells coach to lose a game on purpose, and were being told it's what's best for the team and that makes it OK, I'm not buying that.

I mentioned before, how about the fans who pay full price for a ticket only to find out at game time a bunch of starters are being held out because draft position is more important? Are they being refunded money? Is there some really small print on the back that says, the owner reserves the right to screw you?

It shouldn't matter if it's the last game of the year for a crappy team or the super bowl. People are still being charged full price, they should get the best effort from the team.

I don't understand why you are acting like this is a new thing that must be fixed. It happens every year and it's fine

paco wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 11:51

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 11:39

I don't even understand what the payoff would be of trading away our two best players for one who is maybe also going to be as good as Rodgers but who is younger.

Like, he's not cheaper? He has the second biggest contract in football. Rodgers isn't retiring this year or next, so we don't have an immediate need.

This entire deal would be for, what, to replace 2023/4 Love with 2023/4 Watson at the cost of replacing 2021 and 2022 Rodgers with Watson?

AND throw in the league's best WR?

Like, that is a very stupid, awful, terrible deal for us. It's attempting to solve a problem 2-3 years out that we don't even know if it's a problem yet, and it comes at the cost of the next two years when we could easily just draft another QB next year to also develop alongside Love to reduce the odds of a problem.

Honestly, I didn't even notice who brought this up and so I don't want to be too mean, but its genuinely the worst football post I've seen this year. But take heart, it's still very early in the year.

It's a hypothetical that could and would never happen. Relax.

urrrr

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?

That’s two downgrades. They would have to give up their entire draft for the next 100 years for me to even consider trading Rodgers let alone Adams. You don’t trade Gods.

I came here to talk about Deshaun Watson so I am glad yall are already talking about him. It is my opinion that he is overrated, possibly greatly so. Yeah he had that nice comeback against Buffalo but he is largely a product of DeAndre Hopkins and Will Fuller (and being on Clemson for college). I think he is a low-to-mid tier franchise QB but I would definitely not trade him for Rodgers, and I would probably honestly rather roll the dice with Jordan Love for the future. To be clear, I think the most likely outcome is that Jordan Love is worse than Watson, but Love is an unknown whereas Watson is a more of a known (and that known is worse than I generally want out of my franchise QB). I would like to see how Watson continues to do without Hopkins. People talk about him being top 5 and he's nowhere close to that.

I would probably support the Bears trading for him because I think that adds another 5+ years to the Bears not figuring out their QB situation. While I think Watson is good enough to win a Super Bowl in general, Chicago is a QB graveyard and I think Watson on the Bears would not be good enough to win a Super Bowl.

I would much rather have Carson Wentz if we are talking about bolstering our QB room. And probably Derek Carr because I know Gruden's always talking about moving on from him, although Carr has a bad habit of choking or getting injured when it counts (whereas Watson has a history of rising to the occasion when it counts).

Not sure I agree that Watson to CHI would work out well for GB fans. He's maybe a little overrated, but IMO it's only a little. I'd need a clearer picture of what CHI would be losing in the process. CHI going back in time and drafting Watson over Trub would not be ideal.

I might have to revise my opinion of Watson after reading his reaction to the hiring of the new Texans GM. Sounding like a bit of a diva, and since when did teams start consulting their QB's for input on GM hires?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/306 ... ources-say

Christo wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 16:08

NCF wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 14:38

Christo wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 14:29

I've said before, gambling is what drives the NFL. People start messing with that and things will change.

How is it any different than a garbage time TD that changes a betting outcome? You can scream it as loud as you want, it doesn't make you right.

Not sure why you assume I'm screaming. I'm making a point to say that if people believe a game is fixed, they won't bet on it.
As for garbage time points, that's always been part of gambling. Now if somebody in the know has money on a game and knows ahead of time certain players are going to be held out because an owner want's a better draft position, I would say that is fixing a game.
If a NFL player took money to miss a tackle or throw a ball badly at crunch time, he would be suspended for life. Even if his team won the game.
But an owner or GM tells coach to lose a game on purpose, and were being told it's what's best for the team and that makes it OK, I'm not buying that.

I mentioned before, how about the fans who pay full price for a ticket only to find out at game time a bunch of starters are being held out because draft position is more important? Are they being refunded money? Is there some really small print on the back that says, the owner reserves the right to screw you?

It shouldn't matter if it's the last game of the year for a crappy team or the super bowl. People are still being charged full price, they should get the best effort from the team.

If people thought the game was fixed of course they'd bet on it. Thinking they are on the correct side of the fix.

Mazrimiv wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 20:01

I might have to revise my opinion of Watson after reading his reaction to the hiring of the new Texans GM. Sounding like a bit of a diva, and since when did teams start consulting their QB's for input on GM hires?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/306 ... ources-say

Yeah I just saw that and came back to comment. No way would I want this guy. Wins one playoff game and thinks he deserves to have say over the next HC and GM. Overrated.

texas wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 20:24

Mazrimiv wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 20:01

I might have to revise my opinion of Watson after reading his reaction to the hiring of the new Texans GM. Sounding like a bit of a diva, and since when did teams start consulting their QB's for input on GM hires?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/306 ... ources-say

Yeah I just saw that and came back to comment. No way would I want this guy. Wins one playoff game and thinks he deserves to have say over the next HC and GM. Overrated.

As a 24 year old player, he has not earned that right. Heck, no player should, but some have had a little say in things. He has not become that guy yet IMO.

Mazrimiv wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 20:01

I might have to revise my opinion of Watson

Perhaps.
But don't let BSPN lead you around by the nose. When things were going south with the idiot coach Bill O'Brien- Cal McNair told Watson to hang in there, they'd be getting him a new coach and that he could participate in the interview process. They didn't say he had a vote or anything but they did tell him he could be a part of it.

And then they didn't follow through - leaving him feeling mislead. BSPN always has an axe to grind and are click bait ratings whores. There are an infinite number of better sources for sports info and this hatchet job on Watson is just another example.
He didn't demand anything. He is just disappointed that they didn't live up to their promises - and the source of all of this trouble is a snake in the grass named Jack Easterby.

Christo wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 16:08

NCF wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 14:38

Christo wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 14:29

I've said before, gambling is what drives the NFL. People start messing with that and things will change.

How is it any different than a garbage time TD that changes a betting outcome? You can scream it as loud as you want, it doesn't make you right.

Not sure why you assume I'm screaming. I'm making a point to say that if people believe a game is fixed, they won't bet on it.
As for garbage time points, that's always been part of gambling. Now if somebody in the know has money on a game and knows ahead of time certain players are going to be held out because an owner want's a better draft position, I would say that is fixing a game.
If a NFL player took money to miss a tackle or throw a ball badly at crunch time, he would be suspended for life. Even if his team won the game.
But an owner or GM tells coach to lose a game on purpose, and were being told it's what's best for the team and that makes it OK, I'm not buying that.

I mentioned before, how about the fans who pay full price for a ticket only to find out at game time a bunch of starters are being held out because draft position is more important? Are they being refunded money? Is there some really small print on the back that says, the owner reserves the right to screw you?

It shouldn't matter if it's the last game of the year for a crappy team or the super bowl. People are still being charged full price, they should get the best effort from the team.

Yeah, sorry for jumping on you. Didn't mean to. I still think you are overreacting to the situation. If I am an Eagles fan and I buy a Week 17 ticket before the season, I know there is a possibility that it's going to be a meaningless game. If I buy a ticket in the first week of December, I know there is a possibility it still is going to be a meaningless game. In today's game if you buy a ticket to that game the week of you should understand that there is the possibility of being underwhelmed. While this Philly example may be one of the more extreme cases, I still say this is nothing new. It's like paying full price for a preseason game or like watching a 14-1 team rest all of it's starters. You know the possibility exists that you are not going to see a super competitive football game.

I don't agree with people like [mention]lupedafiasco[/mention] that you should intentionally lose games, but I do obviously see how losing benefits a franchise in the near term with draft picks. I understand that an impatient owner could prefer to lose games in a lost year, but as long as the guys on the field are trying to win then I have to look past the motivations of the coaching staff and front office. Again, I use the example of sitting in prevent defense in the 4th-quarter to give up a garbage time TD. That oftentimes changes the outcome on betting lines. It's understood and accepted. I just don't see how this "tanking" scenario is any different or how you would even begin to police it.

NCF wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2021 08:11

Christo wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 16:08

NCF wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2021 14:38

How is it any different than a garbage time TD that changes a betting outcome? You can scream it as loud as you want, it doesn't make you right.

Not sure why you assume I'm screaming. I'm making a point to say that if people believe a game is fixed, they won't bet on it.
As for garbage time points, that's always been part of gambling. Now if somebody in the know has money on a game and knows ahead of time certain players are going to be held out because an owner want's a better draft position, I would say that is fixing a game.
If a NFL player took money to miss a tackle or throw a ball badly at crunch time, he would be suspended for life. Even if his team won the game.
But an owner or GM tells coach to lose a game on purpose, and were being told it's what's best for the team and that makes it OK, I'm not buying that.

I mentioned before, how about the fans who pay full price for a ticket only to find out at game time a bunch of starters are being held out because draft position is more important? Are they being refunded money? Is there some really small print on the back that says, the owner reserves the right to screw you?

It shouldn't matter if it's the last game of the year for a crappy team or the super bowl. People are still being charged full price, they should get the best effort from the team.

Yeah, sorry for jumping on you. Didn't mean to. I still think you are overreacting to the situation. If I am an Eagles fan and I buy a Week 17 ticket before the season, I know there is a possibility that it's going to be a meaningless game. If I buy a ticket in the first week of December, I know there is a possibility it still is going to be a meaningless game. In today's game if you buy a ticket to that game the week of you should understand that there is the possibility of being underwhelmed. While this Philly example may be one of the more extreme cases, I still say this is nothing new. It's like paying full price for a preseason game or like watching a 14-1 team rest all of it's starters. You know the possibility exists that you are not going to see a super competitive football game.

I don't agree with people like @lupedafiasco that you should intentionally lose games, but I do obviously see how losing benefits a franchise in the near term with draft picks. I understand that an impatient owner could prefer to lose games in a lost year, but as long as the guys on the field are trying to win then I have to look past the motivations of the coaching staff and front office. Again, I use the example of sitting in prevent defense in the 4th-quarter to give up a garbage time TD. That oftentimes changes the outcome on betting lines. It's understood and accepted. I just don't see how this "tanking" scenario is any different or how you would even begin to police it.

Yeah I don't think teams should ever intentionally lose. I just as a fan hope they find a way to lose close. Like I hope we play well, but get screwed by a ref call or a missed FG. We had that a lot in 2008 which was very satisfying as a fan because I knew full well we were likely a 10-6 team. But missed FGs, poor ref calls, etc. dropped us to 6-10 which allowed us to draft 9th and draft the players to put our team over the top. That's what I hope for.

I wasn't mad at Aaron Rodgers for going beast mode in New York in December 2018 either. Like I get it. But I was mad it happened because I knew ultimately that day did absolutely nothing for us long term. And I can confidently say to this day that the comeback win at New York in 2018 still did nothing for us long term. I can also say it probably didn't hurt us as long as Rashan Gary turns out to be a stud.

I guess we take our chances when buying tickets to any game, I was pretty sure I'd be driving to witness a loose back in the mid 70's, but that didn't stop me from going cause even though we had a crappy team, I new our players and coaches would give a 100% trying to win, and if they didn't it wasn't obvious, cripes I remember Lynn Dicky limping around, and never left the field, and there where seasons under Farve where the playoff picture was bleak, but no one could have ever gotten him to come out and he played hurt all the time.

I always felt that a season ticket holder made a commitment to financially support the team, what kind of commitment is the franchise making when it takes your money but then gives back a less then 100% effort to give you a winning performance?

sure we all expect a playoff bound team to protect it's super stars in a meaningless game, typically that amounts to the QB, and possibly a couple others, and often they even play a series or two, even then the rest of the team play to win, unless your playing to win, then your playing to lose, imo there is no middle ground concerning this.

I also think this is why the NFL continues to strive for competitive balance at all costs. Scheduling division games in December, salary cap, The Draft, etc. It wants as many teams as possible on equal footing so these situations work themselves out naturally. The big question I have is how so many of these teams have run themselves so far into the ground that they cannot pull themselves out. They have every tool in the book to be able to and yet many don't. Why?

NCF wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2021 08:58

I also think this is why the NFL continues to strive for competitive balance at all costs. Scheduling division games in December, salary cap, The Draft, etc. It wants as many teams as possible on equal footing so these situations work themselves out naturally. The big question I have is how so many of these teams have run themselves so far into the ground that they cannot pull themselves out. They have every tool in the book to be able to and yet many don't. Why?

Short-term incentives and long-term incentives run counter to each other.

Cellar-dwelling teams run through coaches and QBs like revolving doors, and usually GMs almost as quickly. No one is allowed the patience and steadiness to build anything resembling a culture, let alone a winning one. Players on rookie contracts even know that they will outlast the latest hire.

MM is probably too expensive to fire, so:



EDIT: DL coach Jim Tomsula also gone.

Shocked.

Completely shocked I tells ya.

Longtime NFL coach Dom Capers will have to go somewhere else if he wants to keep his coaching career going.

Capers, who had been the Vikings’ senior defensive assistant, will not be back in 2021, the team announced today.

Vikings head coach Mike Zimmer said the 2020 Vikings’ defense was the worst he ever coached, so it’s unsurprising that some of his defensive assistants are losing their jobs.

The 70-year-old Capers spent four years as head coach of the Panthers and four more as head coach of the Texans. He’s also been a defensive coordinator in Pittsburgh and Green Bay among several other stops.

The Vikings also announced that Director of Competition Development Mark Uyeyama’s contract will expire and not be renewed.

BF004 wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2021 17:51

Shocked.

Completely shocked I tells ya.

Longtime NFL coach Dom Capers will have to go somewhere else if he wants to keep his coaching career going.

Capers, who had been the Vikings’ senior defensive assistant, will not be back in 2021, the team announced today.

Vikings head coach Mike Zimmer said the 2020 Vikings’ defense was the worst he ever coached, so it’s unsurprising that some of his defensive assistants are losing their jobs.

The 70-year-old Capers spent four years as head coach of the Panthers and four more as head coach of the Texans. He’s also been a defensive coordinator in Pittsburgh and Green Bay among several other stops.

The Vikings also announced that Director of Competition Development Mark Uyeyama’s contract will expire and not be renewed.

Remember when he was supposed to be able to get his choice of jobs?

Well I mean if the front office in Minnesota would have gotten him and LBer....