Packers Huddle

APB wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:09

I'd argue the 45-60 year old population is every bit as adept at navigating digital media. The internet came into widespread business and household use in 2000-2010 decade. That was right in our professional age wheelhouse for integrating and adapting to the technology. Sure, kids nowadays learn it earlier but I think it's over generalizing to group all of 45+ in with the Yoopers of the world.

Searching the internet for quality information isn't/wasn't a part of many of their professional lives or requirements. There just wasn't a need for most of them to learn how to identify quality information online.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:19

APB wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:09

I'd argue the 45-60 year old population is every bit as adept at navigating digital media. The internet came into widespread business and household use in 2000-2010 decade. That was right in our professional age wheelhouse for integrating and adapting to the technology. Sure, kids nowadays learn it earlier but I think it's over generalizing to group all of 45+ in with the Yoopers of the world.

Searching the internet for quality information isn't/wasn't a part of many of their professional lives or requirements. There just wasn't a need for most of them to learn how to identify quality information online.

Again, as one of 'em and colleague to many, I think you're way over generalizing.

I will say the younger generations have wholly embraced the idea of the information superhighway. They appear more willing to dive into the depths of the interweb to satisfy whatever...urges...need fulfilling but I wouldn't equate their curiosity fulfillment to being better judges of factual (or not) content.

APB wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:27

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:19

APB wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:09

I'd argue the 45-60 year old population is every bit as adept at navigating digital media. The internet came into widespread business and household use in 2000-2010 decade. That was right in our professional age wheelhouse for integrating and adapting to the technology. Sure, kids nowadays learn it earlier but I think it's over generalizing to group all of 45+ in with the Yoopers of the world.

Searching the internet for quality information isn't/wasn't a part of many of their professional lives or requirements. There just wasn't a need for most of them to learn how to identify quality information online.

Again, as one of 'em and colleague to many, I think you're way over generalizing.

I will say the younger generations have wholly embraced the idea of the information superhighway. They appear more willing to dive into the depths of the interweb to satisfy whatever...urges...need fulfilling but I wouldn't equate their curiosity fulfillment to being better judges of factual (or not) content.

I have said I am generalizing since the get go. There are definitely portions of those I am referring to, especially 45 to 55, who are exceptions. It's doesn't mean what I am saying is wrong. It was in response to the statement that today's information lacks in quality. I contend it doesn't, just that the older generations struggle to find the quality, generally.

APB wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:09

I'd argue the 45-60 year old population is every bit as adept at navigating digital media. The internet came into widespread business and household use in 2000-2010 decade. That was right in our professional age wheelhouse for integrating and adapting to the technology. Sure, kids nowadays learn it earlier but I think it's over generalizing to group all of 45+ in with the Yoopers of the world.

One thing about today's youth (under 25). They are NOT apt at technology. They can click buttons on a social media app, but when it comes to using utility software to actually do real work they are clueless. Don't even try to get them to understand hardware.

APB wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:09

I'd argue the 45-60 year old population is every bit as adept at navigating digital media. The internet came into widespread business and household use in 2000-2010 decade. That was right in our professional age wheelhouse for integrating and adapting to the technology. Sure, kids nowadays learn it earlier but I think it's over generalizing to group all of 45+ in with the Yoopers of the world.

And that's not meant as an insult to @Yoop, just an acknowledgment of his/their being past their professional prime for integrating digital media into professional/personal lifestyle.

Oh, and you can apply the same patronizing label to anyone who views any network news as a reliable and trustworthy source, not just Fox.

no offense taken, it's true, I grew up in a era long before the dot com. age, and my career didn't require being able to access gobs of information, so obviously my age group would be at a disadvantage against younger people who where trained for those capabilities, it's true, often I just don't know where to look to find what I'am looking for.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:30

APB wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:27

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:19

Searching the internet for quality information isn't/wasn't a part of many of their professional lives or requirements. There just wasn't a need for most of them to learn how to identify quality information online.

Again, as one of 'em and colleague to many, I think you're way over generalizing.

I will say the younger generations have wholly embraced the idea of the information superhighway. They appear more willing to dive into the depths of the interweb to satisfy whatever...urges...need fulfilling but I wouldn't equate their curiosity fulfillment to being better judges of factual (or not) content.

I have said I am generalizing since the get go. There are definitely portions of those I am referring to, especially 45 to 55, who are exceptions. It's doesn't mean what I am saying is wrong. It was in response to the statement that today's information lacks in quality. I contend it doesn't, just that the older generations struggle to find the quality, generally.

most of it does, most of it is unreliable garbage, full of half truth and unsubstantiated jargon just to attract people, % wise it doesn't come close to the reliability of news sources years ago.

Yoop wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:59

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:30

APB wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:27

Again, as one of 'em and colleague to many, I think you're way over generalizing.

I will say the younger generations have wholly embraced the idea of the information superhighway. They appear more willing to dive into the depths of the interweb to satisfy whatever...urges...need fulfilling but I wouldn't equate their curiosity fulfillment to being better judges of factual (or not) content.

I have said I am generalizing since the get go. There are definitely portions of those I am referring to, especially 45 to 55, who are exceptions. It's doesn't mean what I am saying is wrong. It was in response to the statement that today's information lacks in quality. I contend it doesn't, just that the older generations struggle to find the quality, generally.

most of it does, most of it is unreliable garbage, full of half truth and unsubstantiated jargon just to attract people, % wise it doesn't come close to the reliability of news sources years ago.

You are not wrong. There is a ton of that. Many many more people have the ability to reach others compared to 30 years ago. The amount of garbage has grown exponentially, but the quality can still be found and it just as good or better than 30 years ago. That's what makes sorting through it so important.

So does anyone have league news to report?

lake shark wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 13:19

So does anyone have league news to report?

Apparently Ben Johnson is staying with Detroit

lake shark wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 13:19

So does anyone have league news to report?

I'm sure nobody cares, but Luke Getsy will interview with the Patriots and have a second interview with the Saints.

I'm a bit surprised he got any interest, honestly.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 12:28

Yoop wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:59

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 11:30

I have said I am generalizing since the get go. There are definitely portions of those I am referring to, especially 45 to 55, who are exceptions. It's doesn't mean what I am saying is wrong. It was in response to the statement that today's information lacks in quality. I contend it doesn't, just that the older generations struggle to find the quality, generally.

most of it does, most of it is unreliable garbage, full of half truth and unsubstantiated jargon just to attract people, % wise it doesn't come close to the reliability of news sources years ago.

You are not wrong. There is a ton of that. Many many more people have the ability to reach others compared to 30 years ago. The amount of garbage has grown exponentially, but the quality can still be found and it just as good or better than 30 years ago. That's what makes sorting through it so important.

true, just a for instance, 2 decades or so ago we would have never heard of half these coaching prospects, heck no one from GB ever even heard the name Vince Lombardi till the presser announcing his hire.

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 15:07

I'm sure nobody cares, but Luke Getsy will interview with the Patriots and have a second interview with the Saints.
I'm a bit surprised he got any interest, honestly.

He's a pretty good coach, we can't hold the &%$@ of the bears against him.
Getsy was a fantastic WR coach for the Packers, he came up with some rather innovative ways of training with those guys. He's also had success as QB coach and passing game coordinator. He'll find work

texas wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 13:29

lake shark wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 13:19

So does anyone have league news to report?

Apparently Ben Johnson is staying with Detroit

That’s huge for the Lions. Campbell seems to be the rah-rah motivator type moreso than a nuts and bolts guy.

BSA wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 17:30

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 15:07

I'm sure nobody cares, but Luke Getsy will interview with the Patriots and have a second interview with the Saints.
I'm a bit surprised he got any interest, honestly.

He's a pretty good coach, we can't hold the &%$@ of the bears against him.
Getsy was a fantastic WR coach for the Packers, he came up with some rather innovative ways of training with those guys. He's also had success as QB coach and passing game coordinator. He'll find work

I was not very impressed with his work as a QB coach, and certainly not his work as an OC. I hope the Pats and Saints like WR screens!

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 20:43

I was not very impressed with his work as a QB coach, and certainly not his work as an OC. I hope the Pats and Saints like WR screens!

Same.

He rode the coattails of MLF and Rodgers here in GB and when he left, Love improved much more much faster and the offense he managed was garbage. What, exactly, is his track record? He's employed/coveted through his prior associations more than through earned outcomes.

Getsy left GB when McCarthy was fired. MLF and Rodgers wanted Getsy back in GB after his stint at Mississippi State.
Getsy was the QB coach and passing game coordinator when Rodgers won his MVP in 2020 and had the 2nd best passer rating of his career.
Pretty sure Luke made a contribution to that effort - and now 2 NFL teams are apparently giving him an interview.

BSA wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 22:18

Getsy left GB when McCarthy was fired. MLF and Rodgers wanted Getsy back in GB after his stint at Mississippi State.
Getsy was the QB coach and passing game coordinator when Rodgers won his MVP in 2020 and had the 2nd best passer rating of his career.
Pretty sure Luke made a contribution to that effort - and now 2 NFL teams are apparently giving him an interview.

I guess that’s my/our point. I’m NOT sure how much he contributed to that effort. I think you and some others are giving him credit for MLF’s impact on Rodgers.

Rodgers liked working with Getsy, just like Rodgers liked working with Hackett. Both played their role in organization and preparation in a MLF organization.

Neither Getsy or Hackett have shown that outside of a team run by MLF, their QBs play well and develop or their offenses look well-schemed and consistent. I attribute the success to MLF.

And given the way Love also responded to Clements after Getsy left… and given that Getsy’s time with Rodgers under MM coincided with Rodgers’ diminished stretch of play prior to MLF…. I question if Getsy potentially was actually a negative, not neutral, factor in QB development.

And that’s a perfectly valid interpretation of the available evidence.

As bad as fields was this year, he actually improved quite a bit from the year before. Also it’s really hard to look good with that guy. And we don’t know how he did developing Love…we only really saw Love after he was gone.

Jury still out on Getsy, no doubt.

BSA wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 22:18

Getsy left GB when McCarthy was fired. MLF and Rodgers wanted Getsy back in GB after his stint at Mississippi State.
Getsy was the QB coach and passing game coordinator when Rodgers won his MVP in 2020 and had the 2nd best passer rating of his career.
Pretty sure Luke made a contribution to that effort - and now 2 NFL teams are apparently giving him an interview.

Running the bares O is viewed as paid leave by other franchises.

The jury is in for me: Getsy is a lousy QB coach/OC.

(1) Getsy came back in 2019. Rodgers was in a slump the year before. With Getsy QB coaching him, there was no noticeable improvement.

(2) After a full year of Getsy's coaching the year before, Love looked BAD in Year 2. He was Captain Checkdown, absolutely nothing to hang our hat on with him.

Rodgers then said that he urged us to hire Clements, noticing that Love's fundamentals/mechanics needed to be cleaned up, and Rodgers knowing that Clements is good at coaching that. The next year, Love looks *markedly* better.

Now we must ask, why was Getsy unable to clean up what even Rodgers could clearly see was a problem with Love? Either he did not give it due attention, or he did and cannot coach it well, neither of which bode well for him as a guy to develop QBs.

(3) Justin Fields's development trajectory under Getsy has followed the exact same path as Love's did. I am all for talking about how bad and hopeless Justin Fields is to troll Bears fans. But putting smack talk aside, Fields was a good QB prospect out of college. At Ohio State, he showed the ability to throw all over the field.

Two years of Getsy and he is unable to do what he has proven in the past he can do. He became Captain Checkdown, just like Love in Year 2. Aside from any work ethic issues (and there are no reports of that), if Lamar Jackson can be coached to MVP level while being just a decent (not great) passer, then there is no reason why a QB as talented as Fields should look this pedestrian.

That is more than ample evidence for me to say that Getsy is not the guy to credit for Rodgers's last two MVP years, and that he is not it as an NFL QB coach and OC. He did some nice work with our WRs in 2016-2017 though, maybe that's more his thing.