Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2023 09:22

go pak go wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2023 09:13

Labrev wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2023 09:04

JK Scott starts for LA-C and from the two games I saw, looked just fine.

Scott probably wasn't a bad player, it's just that everything our ST coaches touched during the pre-Bisaccia period turned to &%$@. Drayton was so bad that even our old reliable vet kicker Crosby's play suffered, because the FG operation was so &%$@ that it gave him the yips.

One can only wonder how it affected other players who had the talent but needed coaching.

Which is so frustrating because coaches have no cap. The idea to go cheap on the Menenga hire is absolute malpractice.

Now THAT was a legitimate reason to fire Murphy. I have no problem yelling at the front office, but people yell about the wrong things. The largest error the Packers front office made was not paying for STs coaching talent in the spring of 2019. And that I believe is most likely on Murphy.

how many times have I brought this up, and was told that we pay plenty for our coaches,

To answer your question...never. You may have brought up we don't pay enough for coaches, but certainly nobody will say we "pay plenty for our coaches". From a fan perspective, there is no reason to want any limit on what we would pay our coaches. There is one thing clear however, we do pay competitve prices for HC, OC and DC. Really, the only time not paying top dollar to lure someone became a story was the one specific time we low balled and lost Rizzi. And yes. That was absolutely malpractice.

Yoop wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2023 09:22

we had to make Bisaccia the highest paid ST's coach in the league to lure him here, and I'd bet it's the same with OL coaches and other assistants, I remember we lost a very good WR coach years back because we low balled his contract, he stayed one or two seasons and split, talent cost money with Coaches too

Our OL and assistant coaches have never been a problem. We have been graced with the best of the best in the department honestly my whole life. As for the WR coach you are talking about...you are talking about Luke Getsy who got a promotion in title with OC duties at Mississippi State. Not a whole lot we could have done there for the exception we actually hired a literal idiot to replace him and we made fun of his replacement consistently based on his press videos.

Another point on Getsy...you made fun of him the other day due to Aaron Rodgers doing his "GM'ing" by bringing back Clements (even though Rodgers absolutely loves Getsy)

go pak go wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2023 10:50

Yoop wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2023 09:22

go pak go wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2023 09:13

Now THAT was a legitimate reason to fire Murphy. I have no problem yelling at the front office, but people yell about the wrong things. The largest error the Packers front office made was not paying for STs coaching talent in the spring of 2019. And that I believe is most likely on Murphy.

how many times have I brought this up, and was told that we pay plenty for our coaches,

To answer your question...never. You may have brought up we don't pay enough for coaches, but certainly nobody will say we "pay plenty for our coaches". From a fan perspective, there is no reason to want any limit on what we would pay our coaches. There is one thing clear however, we do pay competitve prices for HC, OC and DC. Really, the only time not paying top dollar to lure someone became a story was the one specific time we low balled and lost Rizzi. And yes. That was absolutely malpractice.

To be fair, I think the disconnect here lies with the concept of linear time. Yoop definitely complained about low-balling coaching contracts and not bringing in higher-quality coaches like the STs coach or WR coaches or MM's penchant for promoting from within. And fans definitely lauded the organization for paying up and bringing in Bisaccia. The fact that time past in between those events only matters if you adhere to a linear concept of time.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2023 11:24

go pak go wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2023 10:50

Yoop wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2023 09:22

how many times have I brought this up, and was told that we pay plenty for our coaches,

To answer your question...never. You may have brought up we don't pay enough for coaches, but certainly nobody will say we "pay plenty for our coaches". From a fan perspective, there is no reason to want any limit on what we would pay our coaches. There is one thing clear however, we do pay competitve prices for HC, OC and DC. Really, the only time not paying top dollar to lure someone became a story was the one specific time we low balled and lost Rizzi. And yes. That was absolutely malpractice.

To be fair, I think the disconnect here lies with the concept of linear time. Yoop definitely complained about low-balling coaching contracts and not bringing in higher-quality coaches like the STs coach or WR coaches or MM's penchant for promoting from within. And fans definitely lauded the organization for paying up and bringing in Bisaccia. The fact that time past in between those events only matters if you adhere to a linear concept of time.

Yoho, it wasn't just me, our own beat writers have made those type comments over the years as well as other national sports people.

as we know promoting from with in does amount to saving some bucks compared to open market purchase, there is no making up of anything here, and it's the same with not letting a player get to FA, sometimes it works, others it doesn't, how can anyone be impressed with our DL coach montgomery? or stenavich, or even Barry, I don't know what we pay these people, but the results are not impressive

.
I came across this one at OverTheCap - and I thought some of you might find it interesting

Follow the link below and there are (2) drop down lists, select which 2 teams you want to compare and it will show how each team allocated their cap by position vs the other team. Pretty slick

https://overthecap.com/position-allocation

And here's another one I found at OTC - its a metric called "Contract Utilization Index"

( The Packers were # 2 in the league, sandwiched between the SB participants KC/Philly)

https://overthecap.com/contract-utilization

"Teams with a high CUI generally are healthy and are rewarding their most expensive players with significant playtime. Teams with a low CUI are often faced with significant injuries combined with bad contract decisions that see expensive players riding the bench. While the CUI doesn’t specifically tell us how good or bad a player is (bad players with big contracts often get playtime despite their lack of production) it can help better identify how well a team has been constructed and how they are approaching a season with their playtime allocations."
.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2023 11:24

go pak go wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2023 10:50

Yoop wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2023 09:22

how many times have I brought this up, and was told that we pay plenty for our coaches,

To answer your question...never. You may have brought up we don't pay enough for coaches, but certainly nobody will say we "pay plenty for our coaches". From a fan perspective, there is no reason to want any limit on what we would pay our coaches. There is one thing clear however, we do pay competitve prices for HC, OC and DC. Really, the only time not paying top dollar to lure someone became a story was the one specific time we low balled and lost Rizzi. And yes. That was absolutely malpractice.

To be fair, I think the disconnect here lies with the concept of linear time. Yoop definitely complained about low-balling coaching contracts and not bringing in higher-quality coaches like the STs coach or WR coaches or MM's penchant for promoting from within. And fans definitely lauded the organization for paying up and bringing in Bisaccia. The fact that time past in between those events only matters if you adhere to a linear concept of time.

This explanation made me chuckle...

Fun to read through this thread.

I hope this is true. I really do love Aaron Jones!

BF004 wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2023 07:51

Fun to read through this thread.

You can basically tell the truth about any player not being that good and fans will defend them to no end.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2023 18:47

I hope this is true. I really do love Aaron Jones!

Screenshot_20230324-184657.png

Did that used to be his dad’s car? Seriously.

Aaron jones is the best running back in history with twig legs

Drj820 wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2023 02:34

Aaron jones is the best running back in history with twig legs

I saw that too. Reminds me of my son. When he was younger, he did some body-building to build the “show” muscles. I used to comment about his chicken legs. But he would never work those. Lol.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

27 Mar 2023 12:47

Safety is my biggest concern--the guys we have are promising but untested and more ST experienced than S experienced... and I don't like the Rasul move until proven otherwise. He was an awesome outside CB for us in 2021. We moved him to the nickel spot in 2022 and he was not that good. Stokes got hurt and we moved him outside again and he was very good again. I don't see the need to keep moving him out of what seems to be his best position, especially moving to a lower value position.

YaY! Letting players play their best positions!

Yeah, unless he turns out to be a revelation there, Sul at S is not something I think needs to be more than a situational thing, weak though our back end may be.

CB: Alex
CB: Sul
NB: Nixon (could also be Savage)
FS: Savage (or Moore??)
SS: Ford

Stokes rides pine 'til he's (1) fully healthy (2) shows willingness to put his nose in the run. No I don't care that he was a first rounder, play your best guys.

Labrev wrote: ↑

28 Mar 2023 10:36

Stokes rides pine 'til he's (1) fully healthy (2) shows willingness to put his nose in the run. No I don't care that he was a first rounder, play your best guys.

Yeah, I for one am not at all concerned about "what does this mean for Stokes" because we have a lot of snaps and there are injuries and everyone is going to play. We just need the best guys in their best positions and I am certain Rasul's is outside CB right now (again, you're right that maybe there's some revelation like when Nixon started returning kicks and no one knew he was the best at it). And MLF says safety is Savage's best position which I want to be true, but there is certainly reason for debate about nickel or close to the line.

Everyone is going to get plenty of snaps, though.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

28 Mar 2023 10:15

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

27 Mar 2023 12:47

Safety is my biggest concern--the guys we have are promising but untested and more ST experienced than S experienced... and I don't like the Rasul move until proven otherwise. He was an awesome outside CB for us in 2021. We moved him to the nickel spot in 2022 and he was not that good. Stokes got hurt and we moved him outside again and he was very good again. I don't see the need to keep moving him out of what seems to be his best position, especially moving to a lower value position.

YaY! Letting players play their best positions!

Only problem is we got 3 outside corners.

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 Mar 2023 10:50

Only problem is we got 3 outside corners.

Exactly why it's on my "do not draft until Day Three" list

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 Mar 2023 10:50

Only problem is we got 3 outside corners.

Guess how many of the 31 other NFL franchises would love to have that problem ?

We'll see what happens when Stokes returns to action

MLF says today that they will plan to put Nixon into a few snaps on offense in 2023.

Yes!!!!!
:-)

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

28 Mar 2023 18:37

MLF says today that they will plan to put Nixon into a few snaps on offense in 2023.

Maybe Bisaccia can teach MLF how to create the massive holes Nixon runs through on kickoffs.