Packers Huddle

APB wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 06:25

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 02:52

Start the young guys...

Uhhh....they are, all over the roster.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 02:52

sit many of the guys who started the first 7 games and earned the present win-loss record. I guarantee that there is another Rasul on this season's Packers PS who just needs a chance and who will never get that chance if the starters who got us to a 2-5 record continue to start.

The young guys who got the Packers to this 2-5 record are the very players they're trying to develop with on-field experience. There may be another Rasul on the PS but the likelihood he's already playing and developing on the field is greater.

I can see a case for Preston getting less snaps but, in reality, those edge guys are rotating so frequently the young guys are getting their snaps in anyway. Cox is the only one you cannot say that for but he's so damn raw it'd likely just make the Sunday product even less watchable.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2023 22:45

Papa John wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2023 22:41

CWIMM wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2023 05:32

There are plenty of young players on the roster who have been drafted early. The jury is still out if they're truly talented though.



Unfortunately the front office didn't go all in while Rodgers was still around. Otherwise Love wouldn't be our starting QB at this point.

Correct, they did not go all in. And now this whole damned franchise has a horrible case of blue balls because of it. Even saying 90% in is generous. 1 more receiver would have put us in the big game. We could've had Tee Higgins. Or, if you were going to trade up, trade up 2 more spots and take Justin Jefferson FFS. Instead he goes to our rival. Makes me sick to my stomach. BG should have been fired IMMEDIATELY after the conclusion of night 1 of that draft.

Come on Papa if you are going to bitch at least do so factually! How many spots more would have it taken to take Justin Jefferson? It was not 2.

Papa John wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 09:06

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2023 22:45

Papa John wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2023 22:41

Correct, they did not go all in. And now this whole damned franchise has a horrible case of blue balls because of it. Even saying 90% in is generous. 1 more receiver would have put us in the big game. We could've had Tee Higgins. Or, if you were going to trade up, trade up 2 more spots and take Justin Jefferson FFS. Instead he goes to our rival. Makes me sick to my stomach. BG should have been fired IMMEDIATELY after the conclusion of night 1 of that draft.

Come on Papa if you are going to bitch at least do so factually! How many spots more would have it taken to take Justin Jefferson? It was not 2.

We would have need to trade up 4 more spots than we did if we wanted to get him where he went. Sometimes memory doesn't serve. But even staying put and drafting Tee Higgins would have been infinitely more beneficial to this team than doing what we did.

Look, 23, I am certain that you have heard this rant already. But God knows if I were around here when that draft happened there would have been hell to pay.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 03:02

Papa John wrote: ↑

27 Oct 2023 10:09

musclestang wrote: ↑

27 Oct 2023 06:04

I'm not going to disagree on how things look at time, but i will disagree on talent. There is plenty in that locker room. Coaches need to get them ready and the training staff needs to get the rest healthy. It's a tired excuse, but it is the reality we're in. maybe we don't have the coaches, I'm not impressed with the internal promotions on the offensive side of the ball and our DC should have been gone with our ST 2 years ago. But it is what it is for now.

Sure there is some talent. But what good is talent in the absence of grit? Ballerinas are talented. At the end of the day there is no amount of talent that will drive a cornerback to stick his nose into the skirmish and square up the pile driving tight end. Talent won't make a QB decide to hang in the pocket and step into the throw before taking a blitzing safety's helmet to the chest. Those things take balls. Look at any great player in the history of this league and all of that talent wouldn't mean &%$@ if he didn't have his balls.

As Aaron Rodgers once said, the spectrum of talent at this level is relatively small. The great teams are the ones with the gritty lunch pail type guys who will crawl through a mile of broken glass to get that W. I see none of that with this team. Since 2010, there have been glimpses, but nothing sustainable. Who will step up and inspire?

You ever see a Ballerina's feet? And the damage that multiple fractures and over-stress do to their feet? IMO there are plenty of NFL players that have a lot less grit and drive.

If you want a comparison, try a soldier that is 30 pounds overweight and can't survive in the heat without AC and with 50 pounds of gear on his back. fyi, there is something major wrong with the Packers training staff. No way is the injury list normal. The Packers are a bunch of soldiers trained for Greenland in December and then shipped to Egypt in July - and then we wonder why they get hurt.

Papa John wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 09:12

I have seen the feet of multiple ballerinas but that is a subject for another forum.

Papa John wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 09:12

We are seeing more contactless injuries in the league.

I think much of it has to do with teams not hitting as much as they used to during practice.

musclestang wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 11:10

Papa John wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 09:12

We are seeing more contactless injuries in the league.

I think much of it has to do with teams not hitting as much as they used to during practice.

Much of it has to do with the age at which they start, year round training now from 12 or earlier in some cases and often very sport specific. Add in PED's that strengthen muscles but not connective tissue, lots of ticking time bombs out there just waiting to go off in terms of injuries.

Papa John wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 09:12

[]

I have seen the feet of multiple ballerinas but that is a subject for another forum.
.

CWIMM wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2023 05:32

Unfortunately the front office didn't go all in while Rodgers was still around. Otherwise Love wouldn't be our starting QB at this point.

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:12

CWIMM wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2023 05:32

Unfortunately the front office didn't go all in while Rodgers was still around. Otherwise Love wouldn't be our starting QB at this point.

This is wrong because they went all-in only after we already had Love. Rodgers sucked in 2019, so they took a flyer on Love. Then Rodgers was good in 2020, so they went all-in at that point.

Just look at the contracts they handed out after that point.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:31

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:12

CWIMM wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2023 05:32

Unfortunately the front office didn't go all in while Rodgers was still around. Otherwise Love wouldn't be our starting QB at this point.

This is wrong because they went all-in only after we already had Love. Rodgers sucked in 2019, so they took a flyer on Love. Then Rodgers was good in 2020, so they went all-in at that point.

Just look at the contracts they handed out after that point.

You aren’t going all in when you have multiple first round picks in 2022 and you never move a one or a two for assets that can immediately help on the field

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:12

CWIMM wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2023 05:32

Unfortunately the front office didn't go all in while Rodgers was still around. Otherwise Love wouldn't be our starting QB at this point.

This is wrong because they went all-in only after we already had Love. Rodgers sucked in 2019, so they took a flyer on Love. Then Rodgers was good in 2020, so they went all-in at that point.

Just look at the contracts they handed out after that point.

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:35

Drj820 wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:31

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:12

This is wrong because they went all-in only after we already had Love. Rodgers sucked in 2019, so they took a flyer on Love. Then Rodgers was good in 2020, so they went all-in at that point.

Just look at the contracts they handed out after that point.

You aren’t going all in when you have multiple first round picks in 2022 and you never move a one or a two for assets that can immediately help on the field

With what cap room could we have acquired a guy who is at the level of being traded for a 1st round pick? We had a hard enough time keeping the roster the way it was as-is, and we even had to let go of Z.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 19:13

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:35

Drj820 wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:31

You aren’t going all in when you have multiple first round picks in 2022 and you never move a one or a two for assets that can immediately help on the field

With what cap room could we have acquired a guy who is at the level of being traded for a 1st round pick? We had a hard enough time keeping the roster the way it was as-is, and we even had to let go of Z.

Cap space is a mirage. You can kick as much as you want to into future and then pay for it later. Paying for it later is what you do when you go “all in”. We’ve paid for it for one year. Not a real sting at all. A lot of these guys that we needed were coming off rookie deals or cheap too. We just needed a rental. You pay for the rental that you think can put you over the top. One suggestion: AJ Brown.

Plus we know we had cap wiggle room with what we allegedly offered davante Adams

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 20:05

Drj820 wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 19:13

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:35

With what cap room could we have acquired a guy who is at the level of being traded for a 1st round pick? We had a hard enough time keeping the roster the way it was as-is, and we even had to let go of Z.

Cap space is a mirage. You can kick as much as you want to into future and then pay for it later. Paying for it later is what you do when you go “all in”. We’ve paid for it for one year. Not a real sting at all. A lot of these guys that we needed were coming off rookie deals or cheap too. We just needed a rental. You pay for the rental that you think can put you over the top. One suggestion: AJ Brown.

Plus we know we had cap wiggle room with what we allegedly offered davante Adams

The cap is a very real thing. We are paying for awful personnel decisions now like Dean Lowry, Billy Turner, Mercedes Lewis, Randall Cobb, Kevin King, Darnell Savage. Aaron Rodgers being the biggest because we didn’t commit.

The thing about Adams and I keep saying this. The Packers released the total value of the deal but not the only thing that matters which is the guaranteed money. I’m willing to bet it was a low guarantee offer which would have let them move in with less dead money whenever they wanted because they knew the team was headed towards absolute disaster.

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 23:18

In hindsight you can always say they could have done more... And now we're left holding the bag, but only for 1 year, which our front office is also clearly viewing as an evaluation year.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 23:23

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 23:18

In hindsight you can always say they could have done more... And now we're left holding the bag, but only for 1 year, which our front office is also clearly viewing as an evaluation year.

They could have started "doing more" by not having $h!t drafts almost every year since 2011. I don't trust this front office to correctly evaluate an elementary school talent show correctly.