Bakh To IR

[APB]

Huh.

I suppose you could make the same argument for posters who continually post made-up hate nonsense about players…forum cancer.

[bud fox]

Huh.

I suppose you could make the same argument for posters who continually post made-up hate nonsense about players…forum cancer.

Agreed. It was terrible how this forum was with rodgers with made up nonsense.

Better now in that respect.

[Drj820]

you may be a communist who only wants one opinion on the forum....but this is a thread called "Bakh to IR", meaning it is the appropriate place to post about Bakh and his contributions to the team during his time injured. Sorry not everyone has the same exact opinion as you on the forum.

[APB]

you may be a communist who only wants one opinion on the forum....but this is a thread called "Bakh to IR", meaning it is the appropriate place to post about Bakh and his contributions to the team during his time injured. Sorry not everyone has the same exact opinion as you on the forum.

Just applying the provided “cancer” criteria to the situation, comrade.

[TheSkeptic]

It’s Ñot complicated folks, when your the highest paid player on the team, and you never actually play, and you get on the mic and tell the media that we are rebuilding…when the rest of the team says we are going to surprise people…you are one spreading cancerous thoughts throughout the locker room.

What does rebuilding mean? It means that the team is young and inexperienced and is not yet ready for the playoffs. This is 100% true. Yet, they may indeed surprise a lot of people because before the season started the consensus around the league was that the Packers were worse than Da Bears. The consensus was a 3-14 team. The Bears expected to win the opening game. This was a surprise. But this does not change the FACT that this is a REBUILDING YEAR. A rebuild on the path to being a SB contender NEXT SEASON. This team may indeed squeak into the playoffs, either as a wild card or if the Lions prove to be just the Lions. If they come anywhere close, this season, it will be a pleasant surprise.

Everything Bakh said is THE TRUTH. And you all will be a lot happier if you accept the 2 year ride toward being a legitimate SB contender rather then defining your happiness on this season.

[musclestang]

almost half the team is 1st or 2nd year players. Defense has the most vets, but still a lot of youth along the DL, best ILB is only in year 2, new guys at safety and DB. Offense has 1st year QB starting, and every pass catcher is rookie or year 2. OL? LOL. How is it not a rebuilding year? Trust me, teams aren't saying we need to get to the super bowl this year. Lets sign 2 rookie WR's, and 2nd year WR, 2 rookie TE's and replace half our offensive line. Lets also go with a 1st year starter at QB. Recipe for massive success LOL

[Drj820]

It’s Ñot complicated folks, when your the highest paid player on the team, and you never actually play, and you get on the mic and tell the media that we are rebuilding…when the rest of the team says we are going to surprise people…you are one spreading cancerous thoughts throughout the locker room.

What does rebuilding mean? It means that the team is young and inexperienced and is not yet ready for the playoffs. This is 100% true. Yet, they may indeed surprise a lot of people because before the season started the consensus around the league was that the Packers were worse than Da Bears. The consensus was a 3-14 team. The Bears expected to win the opening game. This was a surprise. But this does not change the FACT that this is a REBUILDING YEAR. A rebuild on the path to being a SB contender NEXT SEASON. This team may indeed squeak into the playoffs, either as a wild card or if the Lions prove to be just the Lions. If they come anywhere close, this season, it will be a pleasant surprise.

Everything Bakh said is THE TRUTH. And you all will be a lot happier if you accept the 2 year ride toward being a legitimate SB contender rather then defining your happiness on this season.

“Rebuilding means not yet ready for the playoffs”-I agree that’s what it means

My problem is why the hell is the highest paid player telling people that we aren’t going to the playoffs?

Think back to the preseason: The defense has what 8 first rounders, we had a healthy Jones and still thought Dillon was good, and we had one of the best OLs in the league before Jenkins got hurt and Bakh quit.

The nfc is and was wide open, the team from day one should have been competing for the division, but even then…we should be competing for a 6 or 7 seed.

We don’t need the guy who is supposed to be leading us in a division fight to be telling the media he’s “tapped out” on the idea of the playoffs before the season even starts.

He’s not Stephen A on first take. He’s supposed to be affecting the outcome.

[Labrev]

What does rebuilding mean? It means that the team is young and inexperienced and is not yet ready for the playoffs. This is 100% true. Yet, they may indeed surprise a lot of people because before the season started the consensus around the league was that the Packers were worse than Da Bears. The consensus was a 3-14 team. The Bears expected to win the opening game. This was a surprise. But this does not change the FACT that this is a REBUILDING YEAR. A rebuild on the path to being a SB contender NEXT SEASON. This team may indeed squeak into the playoffs, either as a wild card or if the Lions prove to be just the Lions. If they come anywhere close, this season, it will be a pleasant surprise.

Everything Bakh said is THE TRUTH.

He didn't say it because it was accurate. He said it because he is Rodgers's lackey.

When asked to explain his comments, he went immediately to the notion that saying anything else would be disrespectful of the loss of a HOF QB, and said nothing about the meaning of rebuilding and why GB fits the description.

He would rather demoralize the team with defeatist rhetoric than risk offending his boi.

Good riddance to his stinky attitude. Yes, his elite play at LT will be missed, and I take no pleasure in his health ailments, but if according to him we are just going to "suck" (his word) anyway, then no point in keeping him around.

[APB]

When asked to explain his comments, he went immediately to the notion that saying anything else would be disrespectful of the loss of a HOF QB, and said nothing about the meaning of rebuilding and why GB fits the description.

See, that's simply not true. He explained it IN DEPTH. You and [mention]Drj820[/mention] just refuse to acknowledge it.



Here he is again, saying essentially the same thing:

https://fb.watch/nqCTpEo5mH/

He would rather demoralize the team with defeatist rhetoric than risk offending his boi.

Again, just listen to the words he speaks. He doesn't rule out playoffs. He doesn't say it's gonna be a losing season. He says he doesn't know while citing examples of how it's gone both ways in the past for teams.

Good riddance to his stinky attitude. Yes, his elite play at LT will be missed, and I take no pleasure in his health ailments, but if according to him we are just going to "suck" (his word) anyway, then no point in keeping him around.

Again, this is a complete misrepresentation of what he said. Here is the quote from the Bussin' With The Boys interview, as summarized here:

Bakhtiari admitted the Packers weren’t going to be good in 2023 when he explained the front office’s position on potentially not trading Rodgers to the Jets if New York doesn’t provide proper compensation. Bakhtiari hinted the Packers would “suck” next season:

“Or, option three, and again I’m not being a homer, the Packers are rebuilding, whether you think so or not. Could they be good? I don’t know. Could they be bad? Probably, if you’re betting, more people are going to think they’re going to be bad than good, right?

So then they’re gonna be like, ‘We’re going to suck anyways, we want what we want and we’re not going to bend [to] anyone, so we’ll just eat it. [Rodgers] can stay un-retired. We’ll pay you. We don’t care because if we’re going to do it our way, it’s going to be on our terms. If not, what are we gonna be Super Bowl contenders anyways? So we’ll eat it. [Rodgers] can hang on the side, we’ll pay you your money and then we’ll suck anyways, get the picks.’”

He was talking through several scenarios, verbalizing what he thought would be the organization's position in the event Rodgers trade talks went nowhere. You know, one in which the Packers didn't trade Rodgers (they did), there was no compensation to bolster this year's and future rosters (there is/will be), and Rodgers would be forced into a virtual forced retirement (he wasn't).

None of that happened.

Yet, here you guys are, continuing to carry a grudge over a scenario that you continually misrepresent and which never happened.



I mean, Jesus. You're entitled to your own butthurt feelings but at least do yourselves (and the rest of us) a favor and base them upon on something that's real.

[TheSkeptic]

What does rebuilding mean? It means that the team is young and inexperienced and is not yet ready for the playoffs. This is 100% true. Yet, they may indeed surprise a lot of people because before the season started the consensus around the league was that the Packers were worse than Da Bears. The consensus was a 3-14 team. The Bears expected to win the opening game. This was a surprise. But this does not change the FACT that this is a REBUILDING YEAR. A rebuild on the path to being a SB contender NEXT SEASON. This team may indeed squeak into the playoffs, either as a wild card or if the Lions prove to be just the Lions. If they come anywhere close, this season, it will be a pleasant surprise.

Everything Bakh said is THE TRUTH.

He didn't say it because it was accurate. He said it because he is Rodgers's lackey.

When asked to explain his comments, he went immediately to the notion that saying anything else would be disrespectful of the loss of a HOF QB, and said nothing about the meaning of rebuilding and why GB fits the description.

He would rather demoralize the team with defeatist rhetoric than risk offending his boi.

Good riddance to his stinky attitude. Yes, his elite play at LT will be missed, and I take no pleasure in his health ailments, but if according to him we are just going to "suck" (his word) anyway, then no point in keeping him around.

There I agree with you. He is on IR, he can stay there until the end of the season. Since it IS a rebuilding and preparation year, give Walker all the snaps and find out if the Packers need to draft a LT for next year when it matters. Or Jones or Tenuta.
But it was still the truth and he should just have repeated it rather than bringing in the name of a jets QB.
IMO there is way too little TRUTH and way too much SPIN and Rah Rah in this world. Never apologize for saying what you believe to be true.

[Drj820]

When asked to explain his comments, he went immediately to the notion that saying anything else would be disrespectful of the loss of a HOF QB, and said nothing about the meaning of rebuilding and why GB fits the description.

See, that's simply not true. He explained it IN DEPTH. You and @Drj820 just refuse to acknowledge it.



Here he is again, saying essentially the same thing:

https://fb.watch/nqCTpEo5mH/

He would rather demoralize the team with defeatist rhetoric than risk offending his boi.

Again, just listen to the words he speaks. He doesn't rule out playoffs. He doesn't say it's gonna be a losing season. He says he doesn't know while citing examples of how it's gone both ways in the past for teams.

Good riddance to his stinky attitude. Yes, his elite play at LT will be missed, and I take no pleasure in his health ailments, but if according to him we are just going to "suck" (his word) anyway, then no point in keeping him around.

Again, this is a complete misrepresentation of what he said. Here is the quote from the Bussin' With The Boys interview, as summarized here:

Bakhtiari admitted the Packers weren’t going to be good in 2023 when he explained the front office’s position on potentially not trading Rodgers to the Jets if New York doesn’t provide proper compensation. Bakhtiari hinted the Packers would “suck” next season:

“Or, option three, and again I’m not being a homer, the Packers are rebuilding, whether you think so or not. Could they be good? I don’t know. Could they be bad? Probably, if you’re betting, more people are going to think they’re going to be bad than good, right?

So then they’re gonna be like, ‘We’re going to suck anyways, we want what we want and we’re not going to bend [to] anyone, so we’ll just eat it. [Rodgers] can stay un-retired. We’ll pay you. We don’t care because if we’re going to do it our way, it’s going to be on our terms. If not, what are we gonna be Super Bowl contenders anyways? So we’ll eat it. [Rodgers] can hang on the side, we’ll pay you your money and then we’ll suck anyways, get the picks.’”

He was talking through several scenarios, verbalizing what he thought would be the organization's position in the event Rodgers trade talks went nowhere. You know, one in which the Packers didn't trade Rodgers (they did), there was no compensation to bolster this year's and future rosters (there is/will be), and Rodgers would be forced into a virtual forced retirement (he wasn't).

None of that happened.

Yet, here you guys are, continuing to carry a grudge over a scenario that you continually misrepresent and which never happened.



I mean, Jesus. You're entitled to your own butthurt feelings but at least do yourselves (and the rest of us) a favor and base them upon on something that's real.

Is bakh a player on the team or is he auditioning for his next career on first take?

[Labrev]

When asked to explain his comments, he went immediately to the notion that saying anything else would be disrespectful of the loss of a HOF QB, and said nothing about the meaning of rebuilding and why GB fits the description.

See, that's simply not true. He explained it IN DEPTH. You and @Drj820 just refuse to acknowledge it.

Oh, he did explain his rebuild stance. 'Didn't know that. I stand corrected. My larger point still stands, however.

And yes, in fact, he was asked to explain it on his first day back at TC and the very first thing he said to explain it was that saying that the Packers would not regress without Rodgers would be disrespectful to a HOF QB.

"How I look at is, it's disrespectful to say you're not rebuilding off a Hall of Fame quarterback," Bakhtiari said on Wednesday, via ESPN. "It was disrespectful to say you weren't rebuilding off of Brett Favre when you moved to Aaron. No one knew Aaron and what he was going to be, so I'm not going to sit here and like pull back those words because that is, when you look at how it's been building, how we were chasing after it and the cap -- there was a bunch of situations that can definitely allude to it -- we have a young team."

He thinks it's "disrespectful" to say you're not rebuilding after losing a HOF QB, one who just so happens to also be his best friend, ergo one whose good graces he is greatly invested in staying in.

So basically, he was never going to say anything else, because he was not going to disrespect a HOF QB/his BFF.

Again, just listen to the words he speaks. He doesn't rule out playoffs. He doesn't say it's gonna be a losing season. He says he doesn't know while citing examples of how it's gone both ways in the past for teams.

True, he does not say it is certainly going to be a losing season, just that "they" (the Packers) are "probably" going to be "bad." What a relief!

[Labrev]

Again, this is a complete misrepresentation of what he said. Here is the quote from the Bussin' With The Boys interview, as summarized here:

Bakhtiari admitted the Packers weren’t going to be good in 2023 when he explained the front office’s position on potentially not trading Rodgers to the Jets if New York doesn’t provide proper compensation. Bakhtiari hinted the Packers would “suck” next season:

“Or, option three, and again I’m not being a homer, the Packers are rebuilding, whether you think so or not. Could they be good? I don’t know. Could they be bad? Probably, if you’re betting, more people are going to think they’re going to be bad than good, right?

So then they’re gonna be like, ‘We’re going to suck anyways, we want what we want and we’re not going to bend [to] anyone, so we’ll just eat it. [Rodgers] can stay un-retired. We’ll pay you. We don’t care because if we’re going to do it our way, it’s going to be on our terms. If not, what are we gonna be Super Bowl contenders anyways? So we’ll eat it. [Rodgers] can hang on the side, we’ll pay you your money and then we’ll suck anyways, get the picks.’”

He was talking through several scenarios, verbalizing what he thought would be the organization's position in the event Rodgers trade talks went nowhere. You know, one in which the Packers didn't trade Rodgers (they did), there was no compensation to bolster this year's and future rosters (there is/will be), and Rodgers would be forced into a virtual forced retirement (he wasn't).

None of that happened.

Unfortunately for him, he cannot distance himself from those thoughts, even as he floats them as thoughts of the FO in a hypothetical scenario, as if are not his own thoughts in reality. Why? Because it would be IMPOSSIBLE for that not to be the case.

For one thing, we already know he considers the 2023 Packers to be a rebuilding team, because they had a HOF QB last year and now they do not, which according to him makes rebuilding by definition. He then addresses the reality of rebuilding by clearly giving more weight to a rebuilding team being bad than good.

For two, even if we did not know he thinks we're rebuilding, he is begging the question: why does he think our FO believes that?

His statement that the fact that we are rebuilding (for one, assumes the FO shares *his* idea of "rebuilding"... take note of the clear trend here) means that most would think we would suck, admits that some will think otherwise.

Why does he assume that our FO is not among the few that think otherwise?

Well I'll tell you why!!! The reason it did not occur to Bakh that the FO might be in the minority that think the GB will be good despite "rebuilding" (whatever that means to a given person)....

.... is because the idea that GB will be good despite rebuilding DID NOT OCCUR TO BAKH HIMSELF.

[Labrev]

For one thing, we already know he considers the 2023 Packers to be a rebuilding team, because they had a HOF QB last year and now they do not, which according to him makes rebuilding by definition. He then addresses the reality of rebuilding by clearly giving more weight to a rebuilding team being bad than good.

AND, he extends that even to *this* team, specifically!!

At this point in his monologue, he has a very clear opportunity to articulate why GB would be good rather than bad notwithstanding their rebuild. Note that he is not talking about the FO's state-of-mind until *after* saying that most folks would think GB as a rebuilding team will be bad.

But no, he makes no effort to distinguish this Packers team so as to suggest they will buck the rebuild trend.

Why does he assume that our FO is not among the few that think otherwise?

.... because the idea that GB will be good despite rebuilding DID NOT OCCUR TO BAKH HIMSELF.

So when you say we should base our complaints on something real, you neglect to realize not only that these statements are questionable even with your defense of them (reasonable minds can take exception with them even with the context you presented, even if you are of a different mind)... but also that the absence of a statement where one should have been made is also, in fact, real.

[Yoop]

you seem to think that players should have the same loyalty to the team as fans have or a owner would have, and that isn't the case, this is simply a portion of there lives, it's like you working for a employer and a board member requiring the same loyalty from you that they or the owner has.

Bakhtiari doesn't owe this team a dang thing, neither did Rodgers, and if he thinks changing from Rodgers to Love is rebuilding then he has a right to that opinion, you have no argument, neither does Dr. J, baffling why your spending so much energy trying to convince others that you do.

[musclestang]

I still haven't seen a thing he's said that isn't just the straight up truth. Call it disrespectful, delusional, silly, fantasy, illogical etc, doesn't matter. To think we'd go from one of the best every play the position to a 1st year starter and not have a drop off is any and all combinations of the aforementioned words LOL.

and he also followed it up with, just because the expectations with some might not be that high outside of the locker room, the guys inside believe they can and will compete and win.

I'd say the guy has a pretty firm grasp on reality myself

[Labrev]

you seem to think that players should have the same loyalty to the team as fans have or a owner would have

Bakhtiari doesn't owe this team a dang thing, neither did Rodgers,

So they played here for free?

Yeah, they owe the team nothing, so I suppose they should also be free to gamble, maybe even place bets against their own team, too!

What an absolutely, preposterously ridiculous comment, even for you. Yet this is what it takes to defend Bakh's comments, tbh.

If the players need not be loyal to their team, why should fans, or owners?

you have no argument, neither does Dr. J, baffling why your spending so much energy trying to convince others that you do.

No, but one more argument about WRs after 5000 failures will finally convince everyone, right?

[Half Empty]

you seem to think that players should have the same loyalty to the team as fans have or a owner would have

Bakhtiari doesn't owe this team a dang thing, neither did Rodgers,

So they played here for free? No, they played for what the contract that they and the team agreed to.

Yeah, they owe the team nothing, so I suppose they should also be free to gamble, maybe even place bets against their own team, too! No, because it's not the team that's telling them they can't do it.

What an absolutely, preposterously ridiculous comment, even for you. Yet this is what it takes to defend Bakh's comments, tbh.

If the players need not be loyal to their team, why should fans, or owners? Doubt if many owners ARE loyal. Take away the ridculously rapid growth of their team's worth, let's see what happens. Fans may be loyal, but they need not be. Those who are have a multitude of different reasons for that feeling.

you have no argument, neither does Dr. J, baffling why your spending so much energy trying to convince others that you do.

No, but one more argument about WRs after 5000 failures will finally convince everyone, right?

[salmar80]

What's real insane about Bakh's thing is the sheer amount of rotten luck involved.

When he signed his extension in November 2020, it was the first time since TT came to power that the team gave someone else the kind of contract only previously preserved for the QB: A contract with over 65% guaranteed.

The high-guarantee franchise player contract structure was something TT always avoided (except for QB), exactly because if it all went to hell early in the contract, the team was screwed due to the pending cap hits. Usually we gave under 35% guaranteed, because that enables the team to get outta it after 2 years.

Now we broke that mold ONCE with Bakh, a player with no prior serious injury history, and a player at a position where top guys can often play at the top til 35. We did it for an all-in push to have the best protect AR in his last seasons, and lo and behold, Bakh blows his knee just over a month later.

Then, in an age of ACL repairs feeling like routine, fully recoverable operations, with ever faster return to action times, Bakh just happens to have something go very wrong with it. I can't remember another case with a failure as bad as his.

He rehabs as best as he can, in a loop of painful and frustrating recovery and setback that would've driven me insane, and finally in 2022, god forbid, he dares to have some fun with his best friend. Let's just say I wouldn't dare criticize him of that to his face.

[Yoop]

you seem to think that players should have the same loyalty to the team as fans have or a owner would have

Bakhtiari doesn't owe this team a dang thing, neither did Rodgers,

So they played here for free?

Yeah, they owe the team nothing, so I suppose they should also be free to gamble, maybe even place bets against their own team, too!

What an absolutely, preposterously ridiculous comment, even for you. Yet this is what it takes to defend Bakh's comments, tbh.

If the players need not be loyal to their team, why should fans, or owners?

you have no argument, neither does Dr. J, baffling why your spending so much energy trying to convince others that you do.

No, but one more argument about WRs after 5000 failures will finally convince everyone, right?

big difference is your making a mountain out of a mole hill, and there is evidence galore of our GM's basically avoiding using a high pick on a WR for 8 stinking years.

player are loyal to themselves first and fore most, just like almost all working Americans, and if you think life revolves around what a co worker says then you've got a lot to learn, his team mates let what Bakhtiari said go in one ear and right out the other, seriously people that complain about Bakhtiari need some tlc