Packers Huddle

go pak go wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2023 12:53

Yoop wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2023 12:41

go pak go wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2023 12:01

It's an odd year. Take advantage of his odd year. Draft somebody this year and the swallow the dead cap in 2024.

I was 50/50 on Preston. On one hand I am very much "clean house" but on the other I want to still keep a winning culture. Our Edge room would be completely empty if we had to rely on Enegbare and a rookie until November. So I don't hate bringing back the veteran leadership.

But I am starting to no liking this cap deferral with no results to show for it.

for goodness sakes, the league just went through hell with covid, almost every team is carrying dead cap money in part as a result of that, and all you ever do is complain about checks and balances, and dumping any player not on a rookie contract, I'am sure glad your not our GM.

The only player I can think that I complained about dumping not on a rookie contract was Z'darius Smith. I knew it was coming. But I felt like it could have been avoided had both parties planned and played together better.

Other than that I don't think I have complained about any player dumping not on a rookie contract. But would am open to be enlightened.

And trust me. I'm glad I'm not the GM either. I don't have the football knowledge to be one.

I think it’s odd, given the current state of our team, that the Packers wouldn’t take this as an opportunity to correct from the COVID years. Instead, they are seemingly just trying to blend the hits over several years. Kind of a unique strategy. I would prefer to rip the band aid so we can be competitive on the open market again, but outside of that, this will work just fine. It’s just going to take more time. What we need to see is borrowing less and less from the future over time.

One commentator mentioned a legit motive for pushing monies into future, even void, years. INFLATION. Let’s face it. Inflation is more real and significant now than it has been in probably most of our lifetimes (unless we lived back in the late 70s). That said, cap increases in the next few years are more likely (they hope) to be bigger increases than they have been in the past. Pushing more money into future years would mean those monies have a smaller percentage impact than they would now.

Yeah, I know that isn’t the entire story. But it is a valid point.

$10M in 2023, in relation to the cap, is not the same as $10M in 2025, etc.

NCF wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2023 13:24

go pak go wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2023 12:53

Yoop wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2023 12:41

for goodness sakes, the league just went through hell with covid, almost every team is carrying dead cap money in part as a result of that, and all you ever do is complain about checks and balances, and dumping any player not on a rookie contract, I'am sure glad your not our GM.

The only player I can think that I complained about dumping not on a rookie contract was Z'darius Smith. I knew it was coming. But I felt like it could have been avoided had both parties planned and played together better.

Other than that I don't think I have complained about any player dumping not on a rookie contract. But would am open to be enlightened.

And trust me. I'm glad I'm not the GM either. I don't have the football knowledge to be one.

I think it’s odd, given the current state of our team, that the Packers wouldn’t take this as an opportunity to correct from the COVID years. Instead, they are seemingly just trying to blend the hits over several years. Kind of a unique strategy. I would prefer to rip the band aid so we can be competitive on the open market again, but outside of that, this will work just fine. It’s just going to take more time. What we need to see is borrowing less and less from the future over time.

I’m terms of the Packers it’s best they take the hit now and be ready when either Love gets some experience under his belt or when they go with the next young QB to make sure he’s not playing with a disadvantage.

It also makes sense for LaFleur and Gutenbumst because they are both on the hot seat so keep the best talent available and the future be damned. We’ve become the Bears before they fired Pace.

NCF wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2023 13:24

go pak go wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2023 12:53

Yoop wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2023 12:41

for goodness sakes, the league just went through hell with covid, almost every team is carrying dead cap money in part as a result of that, and all you ever do is complain about checks and balances, and dumping any player not on a rookie contract, I'am sure glad your not our GM.

The only player I can think that I complained about dumping not on a rookie contract was Z'darius Smith. I knew it was coming. But I felt like it could have been avoided had both parties planned and played together better.

Other than that I don't think I have complained about any player dumping not on a rookie contract. But would am open to be enlightened.

And trust me. I'm glad I'm not the GM either. I don't have the football knowledge to be one.

I think it’s odd, given the current state of our team, that the Packers wouldn’t take this as an opportunity to correct from the COVID years. Instead, they are seemingly just trying to blend the hits over several years. Kind of a unique strategy. I would prefer to rip the band aid so we can be competitive on the open market again, but outside of that, this will work just fine. It’s just going to take more time. What we need to see is borrowing less and less from the future over time.

All of this stuff is fine. Opening this cap space is fine.

It's what they decide to do with the opened up cap space that we need to be concerned about. If they use it to resign some players or roll it forward into the next year or use it to absorb current year dead cap...we will be okay.

If we use it to sign other players to try and pry this window for as long as possible...the pain will get worse.

It's not even really about that. These are pretty much the only 2 cap saving moves that can be done with our higher priced players without cutting guys.

Aaron Rodgers - Already restructured and cut counts $68M against the cap
David Bakhtiari - Could restructure, cut saves $5.6M
Kenny Clark - Already restructured, cut saves $3M
Rashan Gary - Need to resign, on 5th year option
Jaire Alexander - Just did restructure to save, cut counts $25M against cap
Aaron Jones - Took pay cut and restructure, cut counts $9.8M against cap
De'Vondre Campbell - Could restructure, cut counts $3.8M against cap
Darnell Savage - 5th year option fully guaranteed
Rasul Douglas - Could restructure or resign, cut saves $4.2M
Elgton Jenkins - Could restructure, cut counts $12M against cap
Preston Smith - Just did restructure to save, cut counts $11M against cap, certain cutting him before this restructure would have cost the same

That is EVERY contract in 2023 that has a hit over $4 million.

Should we have push Bakhtiari's contract out more or cut him?
Should we have cut Kenny Clark?
We do need to resign Gary.
Should we have restructure Campbell and pushed that one out?
Should we have restructure, resigned, or cut Douglas?
Should we have restructured Jenkins after just resigning him?

Smith's restructure puts ONE void year in 2027 for $1,667,000 and 2024 hit is $16.5M, 2025 hit is $17.5M, and 2026 hit is $18.2M.

With those 2 moves we are now $2,897,520 under the cap.

I don't like dead cap just as much as the next guy, but this is the ramifications of 2020-2022.

BSA wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2023 12:11

go pak go wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2023 12:01

But I am starting to no liking this cap deferral with no results to show for it.

cap deferral guarantees nothing. Cap conservatism guarantees nothing.
Its merely the price of admission.

As far as no results ?

47-16 is not nothing; if you actually think it's nothing- I can't help you, you'll need professionals.

Try this exercise:
How many of the 31 other NFL franchises won 47 games over the last 4 seasons ? I'll hang up and await your answer.

As always, if one is happy with winning a bunch of games, an exercise that qualifies the team to compete for THE prize, then this sarcasm is entirely on point. If one, however, enters the season, backing a team that is in the top few given a chance for THE prize, and that team gets their butt handed to them over and over, well before THE prize is contested, then, maybe not.

Half Empty wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 08:01

BSA wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2023 12:11

go pak go wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2023 12:01

But I am starting to no liking this cap deferral with no results to show for it.

cap deferral guarantees nothing. Cap conservatism guarantees nothing.
Its merely the price of admission.

As far as no results ?

47-16 is not nothing; if you actually think it's nothing- I can't help you, you'll need professionals.

Try this exercise:
How many of the 31 other NFL franchises won 47 games over the last 4 seasons ? I'll hang up and await your answer.

As always, if one is happy with winning a bunch of games, an exercise that qualifies the team to compete for THE prize, then this sarcasm is entirely on point. If one, however, enters the season, backing a team that is in the top few given a chance for THE prize, and that team gets their butt handed to them over and over, well before THE prize is contested, then, maybe not.

thing is there is always a team who losses after having a great season, either it's do to injury's, lack of talent, or lack of coaching and having a balanced budget doesn't change that, in 2019 we spent a 150 mil, to bye success and we lost in the first round because our stars failed.

Yoop wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 08:25

Half Empty wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 08:01

BSA wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2023 12:11

cap deferral guarantees nothing. Cap conservatism guarantees nothing.
Its merely the price of admission.

As far as no results ?

47-16 is not nothing; if you actually think it's nothing- I can't help you, you'll need professionals.

Try this exercise:
How many of the 31 other NFL franchises won 47 games over the last 4 seasons ? I'll hang up and await your answer.

As always, if one is happy with winning a bunch of games, an exercise that qualifies the team to compete for THE prize, then this sarcasm is entirely on point. If one, however, enters the season, backing a team that is in the top few given a chance for THE prize, and that team gets their butt handed to them over and over, well before THE prize is contested, then, maybe not.

thing is there is always a team who losses after having a great season, either it's do to injury's, lack of talent, or lack of coaching and having a balanced budget doesn't change that, in 2019 we spent a 150 mil, to bye success and we lost in the first round because our stars failed.

I am of the belief that the GM is most responsible for building a team that is good enough to go the playoffs and the players are most responsible for winning in the playoffs. Frequently the best team going into the playoff doesn't win it all, either due to injuries, bad luck, or simply not playing their best football. I'll take a playoff berth and my chances from there anytime.

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:02

Yoop wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 08:25

Half Empty wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 08:01

As always, if one is happy with winning a bunch of games, an exercise that qualifies the team to compete for THE prize, then this sarcasm is entirely on point. If one, however, enters the season, backing a team that is in the top few given a chance for THE prize, and that team gets their butt handed to them over and over, well before THE prize is contested, then, maybe not.

thing is there is always a team who losses after having a great season, either it's do to injury's, lack of talent, or lack of coaching and having a balanced budget doesn't change that, in 2019 we spent a 150 mil, to bye success and we lost in the first round because our stars failed.

I am of the belief that the GM is most responsible for building a team that is good enough to go the playoffs and the players are most responsible for winning in the playoffs. Frequently the best team going into the playoff doesn't win it all, either due to injuries, bad luck, or simply not playing their best football. I'll take a playoff berth and my chances from there anytime.

I strongly disagree. In my opinion we haven’t once been the best team in the NFC under Gutenbumst. The 49ers were light years better than the 19 team. The Buccs were light years better than the 20 team. The 49ers again were better than the 21 team because the STs was the worst in pro or college football of all time despite having spent draft capital on STs. The 22 team had no business even having a shot at the playoffs.

I’ve said this before but it should not come as a surprise that we aren’t the best when you got a single player in the 2018 draft and absolutely nothing in the 2020 draft.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:10

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:02

Yoop wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 08:25

thing is there is always a team who losses after having a great season, either it's do to injury's, lack of talent, or lack of coaching and having a balanced budget doesn't change that, in 2019 we spent a 150 mil, to bye success and we lost in the first round because our stars failed.

I am of the belief that the GM is most responsible for building a team that is good enough to go the playoffs and the players are most responsible for winning in the playoffs. Frequently the best team going into the playoff doesn't win it all, either due to injuries, bad luck, or simply not playing their best football. I'll take a playoff berth and my chances from there anytime.

I strongly disagree. In my opinion we haven’t once been the best team in the NFC under Gutenbumst. The 49ers were light years better than the 19 team. The Buccs were light years better than the 20 team. The 49ers again were better than the 21 team because the STs was the worst in pro or college football of all time despite having spent draft capital on STs. The 22 team had no business even having a shot at the playoffs.

I’ve said this before but it should not come as a surprise that we aren’t the best when you got a single player in the 2018 draft and absolutely nothing in the 2020 draft.

Matt is right, the best teams on paper rarely win the SB, and we where certainly good enough on paper to win it all in both 2020 and 21, probably 014 and 011 to boot, to me it does come down to players and of course coaching, how well your players match up, and how well the coaches can take advantage of personal match ups is imho what makes the difference.

last season is a good example, the Eagles according to just about everyone had the best talent in that game, what they weren't able to do is stop the KC passing attack, KC had 1/3rd the top in the first half, yet adjusted at half time and flipped that script in the 2nd half

Point is if a offense can take advantage of a weakness or a personal matchup, you can have the very best defense in the league on paper, but it wont matter.

not defending our GM here, just that talent level is only one component for success.

Yoop wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:27

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:10

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:02

I am of the belief that the GM is most responsible for building a team that is good enough to go the playoffs and the players are most responsible for winning in the playoffs. Frequently the best team going into the playoff doesn't win it all, either due to injuries, bad luck, or simply not playing their best football. I'll take a playoff berth and my chances from there anytime.

I strongly disagree. In my opinion we haven’t once been the best team in the NFC under Gutenbumst. The 49ers were light years better than the 19 team. The Buccs were light years better than the 20 team. The 49ers again were better than the 21 team because the STs was the worst in pro or college football of all time despite having spent draft capital on STs. The 22 team had no business even having a shot at the playoffs.

I’ve said this before but it should not come as a surprise that we aren’t the best when you got a single player in the 2018 draft and absolutely nothing in the 2020 draft.

Matt is right, the best teams on paper rarely win the SB, and we where certainly good enough on paper to win it all in both 2020 and 21, probably 014 and 011 to boot, to me it does come down to players and of course coaching, how well your players match up, and how well the coaches can take advantage of personal match ups is imho what makes the difference.

last season is a good example, the Eagles according to just about everyone had the best talent in that game, what they weren't able to do is stop the KC passing attack, KC had 1/3rd the top in the first half, yet adjusted at half time and flipped that script in the 2nd half

Point is if a offense can take advantage of a weakness or a personal matchup, you can have the very best defense in the league on paper, but it wont matter.

not defending our GM here, just that talent level is only one component for success.

I remember a day when our passing attack/offense was like that. We could play superior defenses and still score enough points to win virtually every game. Maybe again soonish.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:10

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:02

Yoop wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 08:25

thing is there is always a team who losses after having a great season, either it's do to injury's, lack of talent, or lack of coaching and having a balanced budget doesn't change that, in 2019 we spent a 150 mil, to bye success and we lost in the first round because our stars failed.

I am of the belief that the GM is most responsible for building a team that is good enough to go the playoffs and the players are most responsible for winning in the playoffs. Frequently the best team going into the playoff doesn't win it all, either due to injuries, bad luck, or simply not playing their best football. I'll take a playoff berth and my chances from there anytime.

I strongly disagree. In my opinion we haven’t once been the best team in the NFC under Gutenbumst. The 49ers were light years better than the 19 team. The Buccs were light years better than the 20 team. The 49ers again were better than the 21 team because the STs was the worst in pro or college football of all time despite having spent draft capital on STs. The 22 team had no business even having a shot at the playoffs.

I’ve said this before but it should not come as a surprise that we aren’t the best when you got a single player in the 2018 draft and absolutely nothing in the 2020 draft.

You are of course entitled to your opinions but if your standard of success is being unequivocally the best team in the NFC you are setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment.

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:51

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:10

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:02

I am of the belief that the GM is most responsible for building a team that is good enough to go the playoffs and the players are most responsible for winning in the playoffs. Frequently the best team going into the playoff doesn't win it all, either due to injuries, bad luck, or simply not playing their best football. I'll take a playoff berth and my chances from there anytime.

I strongly disagree. In my opinion we haven’t once been the best team in the NFC under Gutenbumst. The 49ers were light years better than the 19 team. The Buccs were light years better than the 20 team. The 49ers again were better than the 21 team because the STs was the worst in pro or college football of all time despite having spent draft capital on STs. The 22 team had no business even having a shot at the playoffs.

I’ve said this before but it should not come as a surprise that we aren’t the best when you got a single player in the 2018 draft and absolutely nothing in the 2020 draft.

You are of course entitled to your opinions but if your standard of success is being unequivocally the best team in the NFC you are setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment.

Yeah. We were the best team in the league in 2014, 2020 and 2021. But that doesn't mean you win the whole thing in a single elimination format.

The Eagles were the best team in 2022. And they even played great in the SB and still didn't get the ultimate prize. That's just playoffs for you. GMs can put together the pieces. But the pieces ultimately have to perform.

go pak go wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:58

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:51

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:10

I strongly disagree. In my opinion we haven’t once been the best team in the NFC under Gutenbumst. The 49ers were light years better than the 19 team. The Buccs were light years better than the 20 team. The 49ers again were better than the 21 team because the STs was the worst in pro or college football of all time despite having spent draft capital on STs. The 22 team had no business even having a shot at the playoffs.

I’ve said this before but it should not come as a surprise that we aren’t the best when you got a single player in the 2018 draft and absolutely nothing in the 2020 draft.

You are of course entitled to your opinions but if your standard of success is being unequivocally the best team in the NFC you are setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment.

Yeah. We were the best team in the league in 2014, 2020 and 2021. But that doesn't mean you win the whole thing in a single elimination format.

The Eagles were the best team in 2022. And they even played great in the SB and still didn't get the ultimate prize. That's just playoffs for you. GMs can put together the pieces. But the pieces ultimately have to perform.

NO, we where not the best teams of 014, 2020, or 2021, but we where good enough to win it all, thats the whole point, why you feel the need to defend our GM's when obviously there has been failure on there part to fill the offense with talent versus relying on the QB to make the roster better then it's been is so frustrating to listen to over and over with just about any post you make.

The EAgles, the 49ers, Cinnci, on paper had better rosters then the Chiefs, yet the Chiefs won do to the QB and his receivers, receivers matter, and the more you have of em that a defense can't defend, matters, some day that will sink in for you, my god you call me hard headed, your like granite.

there are definitive reasons why one team wins and the other losses, obviously by the time the PO's roll around every team has a lot of film of the other, so the coaches have a good idea what might or probably wont work.
KC found a way to exploit the Eagle defense, and the Eagles couldn't make the adjustments to stop it.

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:51

if your standard of success is being unequivocally the best team in the NFC you are setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment.

Indeed
I think that's why so many fans are so miserable all the time. They've led a self-induced lifetime of disappointment. By choice.

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:51

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:10

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:02

I am of the belief that the GM is most responsible for building a team that is good enough to go the playoffs and the players are most responsible for winning in the playoffs. Frequently the best team going into the playoff doesn't win it all, either due to injuries, bad luck, or simply not playing their best football. I'll take a playoff berth and my chances from there anytime.

I strongly disagree. In my opinion we haven’t once been the best team in the NFC under Gutenbumst. The 49ers were light years better than the 19 team. The Buccs were light years better than the 20 team. The 49ers again were better than the 21 team because the STs was the worst in pro or college football of all time despite having spent draft capital on STs. The 22 team had no business even having a shot at the playoffs.

I’ve said this before but it should not come as a surprise that we aren’t the best when you got a single player in the 2018 draft and absolutely nothing in the 2020 draft.

You are of course entitled to your opinions but if your standard of success is being unequivocally the best team in the NFC you are setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment.

I don't see anything wrong in trying to be the best team in the NFC. If you are your chances of making noise in the playoffs is excellent. But once you get there a lot of things still have to go your way to win it all. Goofy things can happen. E.g. I don't think anyone would say the Gmen were the best team in 2007 even though they won the SB over the previously unbeaten Patriots.

Pugger wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 13:12

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:51

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:10

I strongly disagree. In my opinion we haven’t once been the best team in the NFC under Gutenbumst. The 49ers were light years better than the 19 team. The Buccs were light years better than the 20 team. The 49ers again were better than the 21 team because the STs was the worst in pro or college football of all time despite having spent draft capital on STs. The 22 team had no business even having a shot at the playoffs.

I’ve said this before but it should not come as a surprise that we aren’t the best when you got a single player in the 2018 draft and absolutely nothing in the 2020 draft.

You are of course entitled to your opinions but if your standard of success is being unequivocally the best team in the NFC you are setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment.

I don't see anything wrong in trying to be the best team in the NFC. If you are your chances of making noise in the playoffs is excellent. But once you get there a lot of things still have to go your way to win it all. Goofy things can happen. E.g. I don't think anyone would say the Gmen were the best team in 2007 even though they won the SB over the previously unbeaten Patriots.

Of course you try to be the best team. I'm just saying if being the best team is the only outcome that equals a success, you have a slight chance of being successful.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 11:10

The Buccs were light years better than the 20 team. The 49ers again were better than the 21 team because the STs was the worst in pro or college football of all time despite having spent draft capital on STs.

Bucs being "light years" better than 2020 Packers is an exaggeration. For most of the year, Green Bay was easily the better team. Bucs were alright in the regular season but finished second in their division, Brady did not have an MVP year despite having way better weapons.

It really wasn't until the divisional round against NO that Tampa really turned it on and played to what they looked like on paper. The week before, a Washington team with Taylor Heinecke at QB kept the game competitive with them. Apart from the last three weeks of the season, Green Bay was clearly better (granted, those final three weeks were more important than any/all the preceding weeks combined).

9ers were better than us but they were not the team that advanced into the SuperBowl, the Rams did, against the Bengals... two teams that we beat earlier that year. If we had faced the Rams, especially in our home, we probably advance to the SB. We own that team the way SF owns us.

Not sure what noteworthy draft capital you are referring to that we invested in the ST, other than a mid-round pick on a Punter and Round 7 flier on a LS. Not significant resources, IMO. I think the way bigger issue with STs was coaching, not talent acquisition, and that's a MLF issue (one that fits a pattern with him). JK Scott is starting for LA-C and does not seem to be a problem there, it's just that everything our ST coaches touched turned to &%$@. Drayton was so bad at his job he gave our Ol' Reliable veteran place-kicker the yips.

Labrev wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 13:41

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 13:23

The Buccs were light years better than the 20 team. The 49ers again were better than the 21 team because the STs was the worst in pro or college football of all time despite having spent draft capital on STs.

Bucs being "light years" better than 2020 Packers is an exaggeration. For most of the year, Green Bay was easily the better team. Bucs were alright in the regular season but finished second in their division, Brady did not have an MVP year despite having way better weapons.

It really wasn't until the divisional round against NO that Tampa really turned it on and played to what they looked like on paper. The week before, a Washington team with Taylor Heinecke at QB kept the game competitive with them. Up to that point, Green Bay was clearly better.

9ers were better than us but they were not the team that advanced into the SuperBowl, the Rams did, against the Bengals... two teams that we beat earlier that year. If we had faced the Rams, especially in our home, we probably advance to the SB. We own that team the way SF owns us.

Not sure what noteworthy draft capital you are referring to that we invested in the ST, other than a mid-round pick on a Punter and Round 7 flier on a LS. Not significant resources, IMO. I think the way bigger issue with STs was coaching, not talent acquisition, and that's a MLF issue (one that fits a pattern with him). JK Scott is starting for LA-C and does not seem to be a problem there, it's just that everything our ST coaches touched turned to &%$@. Drayton was so bad at his job he gave our Ol' Reliable veteran place-kicker the yips.

you're quoting Lupefiasco, not me here.

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 14:02

Labrev wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 13:41

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2023 13:23

The Buccs were light years better than the 20 team. The 49ers again were better than the 21 team because the STs was the worst in pro or college football of all time despite having spent draft capital on STs.

Bucs being "light years" better than 2020 Packers is an exaggeration. For most of the year, Green Bay was easily the better team. Bucs were alright in the regular season but finished second in their division, Brady did not have an MVP year despite having way better weapons.

It really wasn't until the divisional round against NO that Tampa really turned it on and played to what they looked like on paper. The week before, a Washington team with Taylor Heinecke at QB kept the game competitive with them. Up to that point, Green Bay was clearly better.

9ers were better than us but they were not the team that advanced into the SuperBowl, the Rams did, against the Bengals... two teams that we beat earlier that year. If we had faced the Rams, especially in our home, we probably advance to the SB. We own that team the way SF owns us.

Not sure what noteworthy draft capital you are referring to that we invested in the ST, other than a mid-round pick on a Punter and Round 7 flier on a LS. Not significant resources, IMO. I think the way bigger issue with STs was coaching, not talent acquisition, and that's a MLF issue (one that fits a pattern with him). JK Scott is starting for LA-C and does not seem to be a problem there, it's just that everything our ST coaches touched turned to &%$@. Drayton was so bad at his job he gave our Ol' Reliable veteran place-kicker the yips.

you're quoting Lupefiasco, not me here.

I used the highlight text quote shortcut and it mixed things up; fixed.