Packers Huddle

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 09:34

You ain't seen nothing yet. Google Packers kicking woes 1968-1971. 4 years of doggie do horse poop. Then alas, the great Chester Marcol burst onto the scene.

It's not 1970 anymore. That was more than 50 years ago. This is probably more embarrassing than it was back then.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 10:08

Trade a 2nd rounder for Tucker or Buckner.

FYI

Narveson has a better FG% completion rate than Tucker this year.

I think I'd be ok with bringing in McManus as a tie-over. He's known for a strong leg and has definitely got experience kicking in the elements. He's another streaky kicker, though. Just hope you catch him while he's going through a good streak.

NCF wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 10:46

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 09:34

You ain't seen nothing yet. Google Packers kicking woes 1968-1971. 4 years of doggie do horse poop. Then alas, the great Chester Marcol burst onto the scene.

It's not 1970 anymore. That was more than 50 years ago. This is probably more embarrassing than it was back then.

so then I can assume they don't do lines on the bench prior to running out to kick game winning Field Goal any longer, ahhhh maybe Narverson should give that a try

Drj820 wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2024 23:17

Joseph very well may have been the answer. We win todays game if Joseph is our kicker. He made 5 fgs on Thursday.

But didn't he also go 0 for 1 the game before that (the one being a 40-ish yarder)?

I don't know about Joseph. He wasn't good here, and his career average is only around 82%. He's basically Missin' Crosby 2.0.

Yoop wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 11:56

NCF wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 10:46

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 09:34

You ain't seen nothing yet. Google Packers kicking woes 1968-1971. 4 years of doggie do horse poop. Then alas, the great Chester Marcol burst onto the scene.

It's not 1970 anymore. That was more than 50 years ago. This is probably more embarrassing than it was back then.

so then I can assume they don't do lines on the bench prior to running out to kick game winning Field Goal any longer, ahhhh maybe Narverson should give that a try

Couldn't hurt!

Nothing until the end of the season. It's doing great.

I have concluded that the issue is endemic to the org, not the players.

I mean, Anders Carlson was probably doomed to fail in any situation, but Greg Joseph was decent before he got here. Then he came in and finished worse than Carlson, and Carlson's own performance was not acceptable.

Then they take Narveson, who on-paper is clearly a major upgrade over how these two performed. Then he gets here and he is missing kicks he was making in preseason, and even his makes are not dead-center. Meanwhile, Joseph leaves and looks *a lot better* than Narveson, although that was clearly not the case during preseason.

We had a similar thing happen at P. JK Scott and Corey Bojorquez went elsewhere and became good starters. We later determined out ST Coords, Mennenga and Drayton, had to go. That was probably the issue.

Similarly, something in the building seems to be the problem, and the elephant in the room is the coach. I can't really come up with any explanation other than Bisaccia sucks at coaching kickers, and frankly every other aspect of ST apart from Punting. But he does not have a history of this, quite the opposite: he took Daniel Carlson in Oakland, who sucked up to that point, and made him good!

The only other explanation, maybe kicking requires more time/attention than LaFleur is allowing it to get in practice? If not, I'm all out of ideas.

Simple - Narveson just needs to turn 2 degrees counterclockwise prior to kicking. That way all his kicks he's missing to the right will go through perfectly.

Another option for consideration. A career 81% FG completion rate, which ain’t great but it’s better than the 60something Narveson is hitting.

APB wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 18:20

Another option for consideration. A career 81% FG completion rate, which ain’t great but it’s better than the 60something Narveson is hitting.

Apparently NFL hasn't yet met with the flight attendants whom McManus allegedly harassed, so I'd hold on for a bit...

salmar80 wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 19:39

APB wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 18:20

Another option for consideration. A career 81% FG completion rate, which ain’t great but it’s better than the 60something Narveson is hitting.

Apparently NFL hasn't yet met with the flight attendants whom McManus allegedly harassed, so I'd hold on for a bit...

They closed their investigation concluding there was not enough evidence.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 20:08

salmar80 wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 19:39

APB wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 18:20

Another option for consideration. A career 81% FG completion rate, which ain’t great but it’s better than the 60something Narveson is hitting.

Apparently NFL hasn't yet met with the flight attendants whom McManus allegedly harassed, so I'd hold on for a bit...

They closed their investigation concluding there was not enough evidence.

Yeah, my understanding is the investigation has concluded. Flight attendant testimony or not.

APB wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 21:53

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 20:08

salmar80 wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 19:39

Apparently NFL hasn't yet met with the flight attendants whom McManus allegedly harassed, so I'd hold on for a bit...

They closed their investigation concluding there was not enough evidence.

Yeah, my understanding is the investigation has concluded. Flight attendant testimony or not.

It's closed, for now, but may be be re-opened if new evidence comes in. All I'm saying going after McManus may depend on the details we are not privy to. I'm sure if we do sign him that Guty has the team's lawyers' OK.

PFT (https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootba ... t-with-nfl):

"The attorney for the flight attendants, though, said they have yet to meet with NFL investigators.

“We are still working to schedule a meeting between the NFL’s investigators and our clients,” Houston-based attorney Tony Buzbee said in a statement to Pro Football Talk. “The NFL hasn’t yet spoken with our clients, so I’m a bit confused as to why anyone could make any conclusions at this point.”

The NFL declined comment on whether the accusers cooperated.

In its statement, the league did say that it would take into consideration any new evidence."

salmar80 wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 22:08

APB wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 21:53

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 20:08

They closed their investigation concluding there was not enough evidence.

Yeah, my understanding is the investigation has concluded. Flight attendant testimony or not.

It's closed, for now, but may be be re-opened if new evidence comes in. All I'm saying going after McManus may depend on the details we are not privy to. I'm sure if we do sign him that Guty has the team's lawyers' OK.

PFT (https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootba ... t-with-nfl):

"The attorney for the flight attendants, though, said they have yet to meet with NFL investigators.

“We are still working to schedule a meeting between the NFL’s investigators and our clients,” Houston-based attorney Tony Buzbee said in a statement to Pro Football Talk. “The NFL hasn’t yet spoken with our clients, so I’m a bit confused as to why anyone could make any conclusions at this point.”

The NFL declined comment on whether the accusers cooperated.

In its statement, the league did say that it would take into consideration any new evidence."

just sign the guy contingent on the outcome of investigations, and contract void if guilty, we need a kicker, if he goes to jail, we'll still need a kicker, in the mean time we might win a game on a made FG, versus Never son missing them seems like a no lose to me.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 22:08

APB wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 21:53

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024 20:08

They closed their investigation concluding there was not enough evidence.

Yeah, my understanding is the investigation has concluded. Flight attendant testimony or not.

It's closed, for now, but may be be re-opened if new evidence comes in. All I'm saying going after McManus may depend on the details we are not privy to. I'm sure if we do sign him that Guty has the team's lawyers' OK.

PFT (https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootba ... t-with-nfl):

"The attorney for the flight attendants, though, said they have yet to meet with NFL investigators.

“We are still working to schedule a meeting between the NFL’s investigators and our clients,” Houston-based attorney Tony Buzbee said in a statement to Pro Football Talk. “The NFL hasn’t yet spoken with our clients, so I’m a bit confused as to why anyone could make any conclusions at this point.”

The NFL declined comment on whether the accusers cooperated.

In its statement, the league did say that it would take into consideration any new evidence."

Based upon league actions, it doesn’t sound like they’re motivated to pursue this any further.

McManus’s lawyers contend this is an attempt at extortion of their client. Based on what I read here, that doesn’t seem far-fetched.

Attorney Tony Buzbee, who represents the two flight attendants, said in a statement on social media that the women and their legal team tried to “resolve this matter without the need for litigation” prior to filing the lawsuit.

“Our efforts at resolution were met with arrogance, ignorance and stupidity,” the lawyer said.

The women say they have and will continue to have psychological and emotional distress as a result of McManus’ alleged actions. They are seeking more than $1 million in damages against the NFL player and the Jaguars, and have demanded a jury trial.

APB wrote: ↑

01 Oct 2024 06:44

Based upon league actions, it doesn’t sound like they’re motivated to pursue this any further.

McManus’s lawyers contend this is an attempt at extortion of their client. Based on what I read here, that doesn’t seem far-fetched.

Again, I don't know the details, but I tend to presume both the accused AND the alleged victims innocent until the end of proceedings.

As I understand, it's common legal practice to first send a demand letter and try to settle out of court (and to high ball the initial "offer"), even if it's easy for the defense to paint it as an extortion attempt, since courts vastly prefer not having to hear cases at all to avoid the workload. IF this goes to court, the accusers better have some evidence, or it will get real expensive for them real fast. Not to mention the implications on the future careers of the flight attendants in question. Of course, an extortion attempt is a plausible scenario, but in civil suits I personally tend to take both sides' initial stances with a big pile of salt.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure LaFleur doesn't want to face an inevitable barrage of questions about team flights and other distracting crap, nor to have eyes and cameras of the media and the public turning to their flights (depending on what goes on there), on account of a streaky 81.4% kicker. That's mostly why I'd expect us to first go through other options and only going for McManus if those fail.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

01 Oct 2024 09:45

APB wrote: ↑

01 Oct 2024 06:44

Based upon league actions, it doesn’t sound like they’re motivated to pursue this any further.

McManus’s lawyers contend this is an attempt at extortion of their client. Based on what I read here, that doesn’t seem far-fetched.

Again, I don't know the details, but I tend to presume both the accused AND the alleged victims innocent until the end of proceedings.

As I understand, it's common legal practice to first send a demand letter and try to settle out of court (and to high ball the initial "offer"), even if it's easy for the defense to paint it as an extortion attempt, since courts vastly prefer not having to hear cases at all to avoid the workload. IF this goes to court, the accusers better have some evidence, or it will get real expensive for them real fast. Not to mention the implications on the future careers of the flight attendants in question. Of course, an extortion attempt is a plausible scenario, but in civil suits I personally tend to take both sides' initial stances with a big pile of salt.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure LaFleur doesn't want to face an inevitable barrage of questions about team flights and other distracting crap, nor to have eyes and cameras of the media and the public turning to their flights (depending on what goes on there), on account of a streaky 81.4% kicker. That's mostly why I'd expect us to first go through other options and only going for McManus if those fail.

It's not a civil or legal action. It's an NFL investigation. They have concluded it.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

01 Oct 2024 09:46

salmar80 wrote: ↑

01 Oct 2024 09:45

APB wrote: ↑

01 Oct 2024 06:44

Based upon league actions, it doesn’t sound like they’re motivated to pursue this any further.

McManus’s lawyers contend this is an attempt at extortion of their client. Based on what I read here, that doesn’t seem far-fetched.

Again, I don't know the details, but I tend to presume both the accused AND the alleged victims innocent until the end of proceedings.

As I understand, it's common legal practice to first send a demand letter and try to settle out of court (and to high ball the initial "offer"), even if it's easy for the defense to paint it as an extortion attempt, since courts vastly prefer not having to hear cases at all to avoid the workload. IF this goes to court, the accusers better have some evidence, or it will get real expensive for them real fast. Not to mention the implications on the future careers of the flight attendants in question. Of course, an extortion attempt is a plausible scenario, but in civil suits I personally tend to take both sides' initial stances with a big pile of salt.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure LaFleur doesn't want to face an inevitable barrage of questions about team flights and other distracting crap, nor to have eyes and cameras of the media and the public turning to their flights (depending on what goes on there), on account of a streaky 81.4% kicker. That's mostly why I'd expect us to first go through other options and only going for McManus if those fail.

It's not a civil or legal action. It's an NFL investigation. They have concluded it.

There is, apparently, a civil case that has been filed.

APB wrote: ↑

01 Oct 2024 09:53

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

01 Oct 2024 09:46

It's not a civil or legal action. It's an NFL investigation. They have concluded it.

There is, apparently, a civil case that has been filed.

Indeed, and that's why I can't dismiss this as a fully concluded thing. Eyes will be on it as long as it's ongoing.

As a personal bias, I don't trust NFL investigations all that much. It's in the league's (and NFLPA's) interest to sweep things under the rug fast and quiet. Pretty sure the league, the owners and the teams don't want increased scrutiny on what groups of young men do on their flights.

Of course, whether this is an extortion attempt or a legitimate case, you kinda have to threaten to take it to court to pressure the other side to the table. I dunno what the deadlines are for dropping the case for the accusers, but my understanding is that the real costs for them, should they ultimately lose, start accumulating once the judge's gavel sounds it's first beats. If it gets that far, it may be a looooong time 'til it's over and done with.

Again, it just sounds a lot of hoopla for an organization that paints itself all class and all away games as just business trips. If they had to go through it for a core player, I could see them doing it. Not for a one-year rental kicker.