Page 5 of 7

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 08:40
by TheSkeptic
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.
Which is exactly why Cox should be getting 10 snaps a game, and not in garbage time. How is he supposed to be less raw when practices are non-contact?

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 09:06
by Papa John
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.
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.

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 09:10
by Pckfn23
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.
Hey, I wasn't happy about it either! I thought the timing of it was off for several reasons.

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 09:12
by Papa John
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.
I have seen the feet of multiple ballerinas but that is a subject for another forum.

Seems like you're focused on the injury aspect of "grit." I am focused on how these players engage in the game. The reason they get injured so often IMO is that they play not to get injured. Instead of being fearless warriors, they are ballerinas. 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.

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 09:17
by Yoop
Papa John wrote:
01 Nov 2023 09:12
I have seen the feet of multiple ballerinas but that is a subject for another forum.
haha, oh please, spare us nothing :rotf: :rotf:

I remember years ago when Holmgren mentioned Ballerina lessons for his OL, or a member of it, probably because agility is a key ingredient to having great footwork.

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 11:10
by musclestang
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.

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 13:27
by Tooothsome Jeb
Injuries occur due to Ted and Gutebum's penchant for drafting a left guard and switching him to right tackle. Vice versa. Move a guy out of his natural strength and move him all down the line.

Watson, no explanation for. Kid's a natural pussy 😂

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 13:36
by wallyuwl
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.
Come on, no one uses PEDs. :lol: :hide: :lombardi:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107889/

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 13:42
by bud fox
Papa John wrote:
01 Nov 2023 09:12
[]

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

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 16:12
by texas
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.

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 16:31
by Drj820
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

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 16:35
by texas
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
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.

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 16:49
by Yoop
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.
come on Tex, his point was we should have went all in, specially concerning receivers before we drafted Love, and not a bunch of mid round raw ones, and Rodgers didn't suck in 019 either, we had just installed a new offensive design and coach, no offense, but why people discount that as trivial isn't right, in fact it usually does take a couple season to get all the kinks out when ya do that stuff, 2020 Rogers was all pro MVP.

there was never a need to draft Jordan Love.

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 19:13
by Drj820
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.
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

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 19:48
by Pckfn23
Seems relevant.

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 20:05
by lupedafiasco
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
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.

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 20:16
by Drj820
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.
Paying for it the year after a HOF qb leaves is just par for the course. I’m just saying we should have made it even more painful and acquired some playmakers through trades.

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 23:18
by texas
In hindsight you can always say they could have done more. And they might have been able to eek out an upgrade here or there (I very much doubt the cap is make believe and you can just rent anybody you want- this isn't the NBA), but I have no problem saying they went 90% all-in starting in 2021. 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.

Re: Reality

Posted: 01 Nov 2023 23:23
by wallyuwl
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.

Re: Reality

Posted: 02 Nov 2023 07:15
by APB
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.
Since 2011? :dunno:

I gotta ask, what constitutes a successful draft in your view? Or even a non-$hit draft?