Packers Huddle

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2023 15:41

Y’all we’re all rooting for the Packers here

Raptor?

APB wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2023 21:29

I have no clue what you're even talking about, @RingoCStarrQB.

Somebody on this list? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... &number=45

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2023 15:32

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2023 13:33

not going back to whenever I made the comments Labrev feels the need to respond to months later, and this blogger took a short sample of 3 seasons, zipo TE, zipo slot receiver, I'am sure Jones and Dillon make up a good portion of inside passing.

My point is when he had Finley, Bennett, Cooks, the young Cobb, I think he threw inside more,

So you attack the "blogger's" sample size of 3 seasons and retaliate with the same small sample size of 6 games with Jared Cook and 2 seasons of Finley/Cobb.

I don't think Martellus Bennett can even count. His time with us was so insignificant.

WTF

the point was that when he had Cooks, Bennett, he threw over the middle, same with Tonyan, and Lazard, that he does it less the last 3 years doesn't even make sense, but this blogger has the stats, duh, Rodgers isn't afraid to throw in the middle, it's just safer not to, and we all know that.

you guys attack me for sticking up for the best QB this teams had in your LIFETIMES, and very possibly the best one the team will ever have again, your fools.

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2023 20:27

Has anyone admitted or figured out who on Packers Huddle most resembles 45? And no we're not talking about Emlen Tunnell (1959-61, Doyle Nix (1955), Dave Hathcock (1966), John Rowser (1967-69), Ervin Hunt (1970), Perry Smith (1973-76), Mike Prior (1993), Keith Crawford (1995, 1999), Kerry Cooks (1998), Derek Coombs (2003), LaVale Thomas (1987, 1988), Dexter McNabb (1992-93), Quinn Johnson (2009-10), Vince Biegel (2017) or Vai Sikahema (1991).

Oh my goodness. It's yoop. They are a spitting image of each other. Transactional arguers at its finest - data or facts be damned. I have never brought it up for obvious reasons because of the tangent it would go, but if you are just talking about personality....it's a spitting image.

And that's not a bash. 45 has tremendous followers, traffic and passion. yoop also brings tremendous followers, traffic and passion on this board.

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 09:02

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2023 20:27

Has anyone admitted or figured out who on Packers Huddle most resembles 45? And no we're not talking about Emlen Tunnell (1959-61, Doyle Nix (1955), Dave Hathcock (1966), John Rowser (1967-69), Ervin Hunt (1970), Perry Smith (1973-76), Mike Prior (1993), Keith Crawford (1995, 1999), Kerry Cooks (1998), Derek Coombs (2003), LaVale Thomas (1987, 1988), Dexter McNabb (1992-93), Quinn Johnson (2009-10), Vince Biegel (2017) or Vai Sikahema (1991).

Oh my goodness. It's yoop. They are a spitting image of each other. Transactional arguers at its finest - data or facts be damned. I have never brought it up for obvious reasons because of the tangent it would go, but if you are just talking about personality....it's a spitting image.

And that's not a bash. 45 has tremendous followers, traffic and passion. yoop also brings tremendous followers, traffic and passion on this board.

snip

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 08:25

that he does it less the last 3 years doesn't even make sense, but this blogger has the stats, duh, Rodgers isn't afraid to throw in the middle, it's just safer not to, and we all know that.

"Yes he did throw over the middle, saying he didn't doesn't make sense... but of course he didn't throw over the middle it's just smart not to!"

you guys attack me for sticking up for

Wrong, we counter-attack you for making &%$@ up, denying plain reality, and attacking people for not subscribing to your religious dogma around 12.

The original discussion occurred solely because when someone pointed out (without any agenda) that Rodgers doesn't throw over the middle much, you got pissy over it. So you deserved to have this thrown in your face.

You're entitled to your own opinion about Rodgers. Others are entitled to theirs, including ones you don't
like or agree with. And you're not entitled to your own facts.

the best QB this teams had in your LIFETIMES, and very possibly the best one the team will ever have again, your fools.

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 08:25

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2023 15:32

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2023 13:33

not going back to whenever I made the comments Labrev feels the need to respond to months later, and this blogger took a short sample of 3 seasons, zipo TE, zipo slot receiver, I'am sure Jones and Dillon make up a good portion of inside passing.

My point is when he had Finley, Bennett, Cooks, the young Cobb, I think he threw inside more,

So you attack the "blogger's" sample size of 3 seasons and retaliate with the same small sample size of 6 games with Jared Cook and 2 seasons of Finley/Cobb.

I don't think Martellus Bennett can even count. His time with us was so insignificant.

WTF

the point was that when he had Cooks, Bennett, he threw over the middle, same with Tonyan, and Lazard, that he does it less the last 3 years doesn't even make sense, but this blogger has the stats, duh, Rodgers isn't afraid to throw in the middle, it's just safer not to, and we all know that.

you guys attack me for sticking up for the best QB this teams had in your LIFETIMES, and very possibly the best one the team will ever have again, your fools.

I am sorry, but Bart Starr was the best QB the Packers had in my lifetime. Brett could have played then, no way Rodgers would make it through a single season if sliding was a good way to get speared and QB's got the same punishment as a RB. Bart also put the team first, Rodgers put it last in his priority

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 10:35

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 08:25

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2023 15:32

So you attack the "blogger's" sample size of 3 seasons and retaliate with the same small sample size of 6 games with Jared Cook and 2 seasons of Finley/Cobb.

I don't think Martellus Bennett can even count. His time with us was so insignificant.

WTF

the point was that when he had Cooks, Bennett, he threw over the middle, same with Tonyan, and Lazard, that he does it less the last 3 years doesn't even make sense, but this blogger has the stats, duh, Rodgers isn't afraid to throw in the middle, it's just safer not to, and we all know that.

you guys attack me for sticking up for the best QB this teams had in your LIFETIMES, and very possibly the best one the team will ever have again, your fools.

I am sorry, but Bart Starr was the best QB the Packers had in my lifetime. Brett could have played then, no way Rodgers would make it through a single season if sliding was a good way to get speared and QB's got the same punishment as a RB. Bart also put the team first, Rodgers put it last in his priority

I can only imagine who Rodgers would have become with the talent of the 60's Packers, even Bart Starr himself said Rodgers was the better QB, and I've seen both play plenty to know both where more accurate then Favre, both made wiser decisions then Favre, and with the 60's Packers defenses Rodgers would have more trophys, hell we saw what happened the one season he3 had a great defense.

It's fine to chose Bart, after all your one of the biggest Rodgers haters on this forum, so I expected your comment, duh, how many Packer players will be inducted into the hof that havn't gotten there the last 30 years? Bart had a doz supporting him, Rodgers has himself and possibly Adams, Bak, and both are long shots, Bart is probably my fav player all time.

Labrev wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 10:30

Yes he did throw over the middle, saying he didn't doesn't make sense... but of course he didn't throw over the middle it's just smart not to!"

you and others made it sound as though he wont throw over the middle cause he might be picked and only cares about his stats, more so then even winning, I disagreed with that sentiment and still do, you and others blamed him for just about every loss the last half doz years, I have nothing in common with any Packer fan that just blindly blames the QB which you and a few others have done.

and you blame Rodgers for the GM giving him this last contract, I think your pissed off at the wrong person, course thats been par for the course with you, you defend rag tag receivers who rarely get open, then blame Rodgers for not throwing them the ball when they do, your a joke Labrev, and I'am fed up with you twisting my comments just to get a laugh, fy, if we had a middle finger emoticon you'd get it. don't show me a smiley you jerk

Here's an article on Bak's contract $$ and structure going forward. 2023 is a big year for his future in Titletown

https://zonecoverage.com/2023/packers/b ... green-bay/

The financial component means Bakhtiari will have an important year in 2023. After missing almost the entire 2021 season and parts of 2022 with the knee injury, he proved that he can still produce at a high level by the end of last year. Bakhtiari finished the season with a 79.8 PFF grade and played 84% of the team’s offensive snaps.

“I think we’re hopeful that he’s kind of cleared some of those injury hurdles that he had the last few years,” Brian Gutekunst said. “He got into a really good rhythm of learning what he needed to practice to get to the games, and I’m hopeful as we get beyond this season that rhythm will serve him well as we go forward.”

BSA wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 13:28

Here's an article on Bak's contract $$ and structure going forward. 2023 is a big year for his future in Titletown

https://zonecoverage.com/2023/packers/b ... green-bay/

The financial component means Bakhtiari will have an important year in 2023. After missing almost the entire 2021 season and parts of 2022 with the knee injury, he proved that he can still produce at a high level by the end of last year. Bakhtiari finished the season with a 79.8 PFF grade and played 84% of the team’s offensive snaps.

“I think we’re hopeful that he’s kind of cleared some of those injury hurdles that he had the last few years,” Brian Gutekunst said. “He got into a really good rhythm of learning what he needed to practice to get to the games, and I’m hopeful as we get beyond this season that rhythm will serve him well as we go forward.”

This is EXACTLY why I wanted to move him this year, honestly.

I just don’t see a scenario in which he’s on the roster in 2024. The contract all but guarantees it.

So when you’re looking to move into a new era, you decide who will be a part of the trans future, and cut bait on the big contracts who don’t fit that criteria.

Restructuring one more year just means we get him one more year. Our last year with Nijman on a cost controlled situation. Our second year with Zach Tom.

If the packers truly prefer to move on a year too early than a year too late, as many say (and as the team typically does), Bakhtiari wouldn’t have been restructured this year and would be a HELLUVA sweetener in getting the Rodgers deal done.

I’m just truly baffled by the way they’ve treated his contact given his decision not to add void years (which I’m thankful for to be honest; but it also sores where his head is in regards to his contract and play future)

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 13:48

BSA wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 13:28

Here's an article on Bak's contract $$ and structure going forward. 2023 is a big year for his future in Titletown

https://zonecoverage.com/2023/packers/b ... green-bay/

The financial component means Bakhtiari will have an important year in 2023. After missing almost the entire 2021 season and parts of 2022 with the knee injury, he proved that he can still produce at a high level by the end of last year. Bakhtiari finished the season with a 79.8 PFF grade and played 84% of the team’s offensive snaps.

“I think we’re hopeful that he’s kind of cleared some of those injury hurdles that he had the last few years,” Brian Gutekunst said. “He got into a really good rhythm of learning what he needed to practice to get to the games, and I’m hopeful as we get beyond this season that rhythm will serve him well as we go forward.”

This is EXACTLY why I wanted to move him this year, honestly.

I just don’t see a scenario in which he’s on the roster in 2024. The contract all but guarantees it.

So when you’re looking to move into a new era, you decide who will be a part of the trans future, and cut bait on the big contracts who don’t fit that criteria.

Restructuring one more year just means we get him one more year. Our last year with Nijman on a cost controlled situation. Our second year with Zach Tom.

If the packers truly prefer to move on a year too early than a year too late, as many say (and as the team typically does), Bakhtiari wouldn’t have been restructured this year and would be a HELLUVA sweetener in getting the Rodgers deal done.

I’m just truly baffled by the way they’ve treated his contact given his decision not to add void years (which I’m thankful for to be honest; but it also sores where his head is in regards to his contract and play future)

I think there is a possibility we actually extend Bakhtiari in the 2024 offseason. He only has about 8 games under his belt since 12/31/2020. We kept Clifton and Tauscher for a long time and if Bak has a good season, we may be able to get him at a somewhat reasonable contract since we already paid him big time in 2020.

The only positive to keeping Bakh this year and releasing in 2024 is to support your 1st year QB as much as possible. But I'm not shutting the door on an extension at all.

The Packers don’t want to “tank” or cut good players that won’t be a part of the future, because they do not want to go 3-14 in Loves first year.

They need to go at least 8-9 to not get hammered with accusations they pushed Rodgers out just to ruin everything.

Lafleur and Gute don’t want to be exposed fairly or unfairly without Rodgers.

Even if winning 3 games, cleaning up the cap, and starting 2024 with a great draft pick was the best outcome for the packers, they wouldn’t do it. Even if they win 3 games purely because of the roster and nothing to do with Lafleurs coaching.

They would rather keep good players that won’t be in the future and win 8ish games and hurt the future than tank it out and restart in 2024

Drj820 wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 18:09

The Packers don’t want to “tank” or cut good players that won’t be a part of the future, because they do not want to go 3-14 in Loves first year.

No one said anything about tanking. It's about building the next generation.

We have Yosh Nijmen and Zach Tom and developmental prospects and Jenkins held up well at LT when he played there and several draft picks.

It is not required to have a former all pro at LT to have a decent season. Or even a winning season. Or even a very good season. We went 13-3 without Bakhtiari in 2021 for pete's sake. It's not even like you have to look far back to understand this stance.

Bakhtiari's contract is an albatross. For years the Packers made 3rd contracts or contracts to players over 30 EXTREMELY rare. And this contract, they have made almost unkeepable. He will be cut or traded in one year's time. And we'll get significantly less value for him by waiting.

Everyone is so afraid of moving on. But this is a move-on game and a move-on league. Zach Tom is our most likely future at LT. Let the future be now.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 18:32

Drj820 wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 18:09

The Packers don’t want to “tank” or cut good players that won’t be a part of the future, because they do not want to go 3-14 in Loves first year.

No one said anything about tanking. It's about building the next generation.

We have Yosh Nijmen and Zach Tom and developmental prospects and Jenkins held up well at LT when he played there and several draft picks.

It is not required to have a former all pro at LT to have a decent season. Or even a winning season. Or even a very good season. We went 13-3 without Bakhtiari in 2021 for pete's sake. It's not even like you have to look far back to understand this stance.

Bakhtiari's contract is an albatross. For years the Packers made 3rd contracts or contracts to players over 30 EXTREMELY rare. And this contract, they have made almost unkeepable. He will be cut or traded in one year's time. And we'll get significantly less value for him by waiting.

Everyone is so afraid of moving on. But this is a move-on game and a move-on league. Zach Tom is our most likely future at LT. Let the future be now.

Zach Tom probably is the future. I’m just telling you the packers org want to delay the future another year because they don’t want to endure growing pains at LT and in other spots during Loves first season starting.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 18:48

Zach Tom probably is the future. I’m just telling you the packers org want to delay the future another year because they don’t want to endure growing pains at LT and in other spots during Loves first season starting.

Sure, and I'm just telling you that the Packer have won more games without Bakhtiari than with him in the past 3 seasons, so his value to the team in that regard is being overstated and overrated by people on this board and apparently people on the Packers' team

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 18:52

Drj820 wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 18:48

Zach Tom probably is the future. I’m just telling you the packers org want to delay the future another year because they don’t want to endure growing pains at LT and in other spots during Loves first season starting.

Sure, and I'm just telling you that the Packer have won more games without Bakhtiari than with him in the past 3 seasons, so his value to the team in that regard is being overstated and overrated by people on this board and apparently people on the Packers' team

I know you think you know more than many posters here, you think you know more than the packers org too?

I think they think Bakh is very valuable to have out there with Love and they want them together in Loves first year.

While I also agree that it is better for Love for Bakh to be on the team, I agree with you that I would rather move on and get loot for him and prep the future/clean up the cap.

Bakh is only 31 and is a top 3 OT in league when he’s healthy. He is about 1 pro bowl away from having a very convincing HOF resume.

I want him on our team if we are if we are building towards a ‘24-‘26 possible Super Bowl window.

BF004 wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 19:46

Bakh is only 31 and is a top 3 OT in league when he’s healthy. He is about 1 pro bowl away from having a very convincing HOF resume.

I want him on our team if we are if we are building towards a ‘24-‘26 possible Super Bowl window.

Damn BF ... 24-26 SB Window ... you in for some pain.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 19:10

I know you think you know more than many posters here, you think you know more than the packers org too?

I think they think Bakh is very valuable to have out there with Love and they want them together in Loves first year.

While I also agree that it is better for Love for Bakh to be on the team, I agree with you that I would rather move on and get loot for him and prep the future/clean up the cap.

We are all here, are we not, to discuss our opinions about the team and the way they handle their business, as well as to defend those opinions against the opposing arguments made by our peers. But when I do it, it's because "I think I know better than most?"

No, it is my opinion that the team is mishandling the asset of Bakhtiari and the liability of his contract at present, just as it was my opinion last year that it was time to move on from Aaron Rodgers and that keeping Davante Adams felt imperative. I sometimes do not agree with the decisions and assessments made by the team I root for, which is a surprise to many I suppose, since I'm better known as an organizational/Gutey sycophant.

It's my opinion that our 2023-2024salary cap situation is a large hinderance to building a team and that we need to shed some contractual weight. It is my opinion that shedding weight should start with older players or soon-to-expire contracts who we will not be able to afford to retain moving into the next window.

It is a fact of medium-term recent Packers life that players over 30 rarely get new deals, as the Packers tend to let players walk in free agency before their skills decline in order to avoid paying for past performance and to maximize comp picks. I prefer that mode of operations and while we had a big super bowl window collide with the covid cap contraction in a way that justified moving away from that mode of operations, I would like to see the tea move back in that direction.

It is my opinion that we are uniquely situated to make such a move away from Bakhtiari because we have three players who have competently started at LT over the past 3 years on the roster aside from him, and two of those guys (Nijman and Tom), LT is probably their best/ideal position.

And it is my opinion that we simply can't afford to sign an additional extension for Bakhtiari or Preston Smith due to the cap constraints, emerging young players, and their ages.

You're all welcome to believe otherwise and defend those viewpoints, but when there is a disagreement between me and someone else, assuredly, I believe my own argument is the correct one; or else why else would I be stating it?

BF004 wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2023 19:46

Bakh is only 31 and is a top 3 OT in league when he’s healthy. He is about 1 pro bowl away from having a very convincing HOF resume.

I want him on our team if we are if we are building towards a ‘24-‘26 possible Super Bowl window.

I'm sorry but "only" and "31" don't compute for me. He's over 30 and has been ravaged by injuries for 2 1/2 calendar years. What does his HoF resume have to do with '24-'26? That's in the past.

Why are we so ready to forgive injuries to this guy and write off so many others as injury prone or breaking down? I don't trust David Bakhtiari's body with the rigors of the NFL to the tune of a $21M/year deal, let alone to a $40M 2024 cap hit. Let someone else pay for that risk.