Jump to content

MacReady

Veteran Members
  • Posts

    37,373
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by MacReady

  1. I just about had the biggest panic attack of my life going through Matthew Broderick’s IMDB page when I saw he voiced Simba in The Lion King. I was about to have a full meltdown because I knew Simba was the kid from Home Improvement. All is right in the world because Simba grew up in the movie. Now I know which movie I’m watching next. Haven’t seen that movie since probably 1997.
  2. I’m gonna love whoever we pick 25th overall unless DeJean is available and it’s not him.
  3. Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is one of the hardest movies to watch. Such a terrible tragedy of a normal person being harassed and bullied for close to two hours by a sociopath, selfish, loser moron who thinks too highly of himself. I have always disliked Ferris. I was watching it again last night because I’m trying to watch some movies I like a little less than others going through my entire movie collection. So I Googled Ferris Beuller is a **** to see if anyone else agreed with me. Saw an old Reddit post asking what people thought happened to Ferris afterwards. Someone said what happened to Ferris was the plot of Election. So now I’m watching Election as a sequel to Ferris Beuller’s Day Off and this is now head canon for me. Edit: Nevermind. So far Matthew Broderick is a victim in Election. If I was about to have to spend a lot of time with a girl who had an affair with another teacher, I’d probably change school districts or sabotage her chance at winning school president. Nevermind again. Not a victim. It’s Ferris Beuller.
  4. The Packers absolutely have their own metrics for positional value and adhere to principles that have been adopted and have worked for several decades. To suggest they wouldn't stray from that for the right player is faulty. To suggest it doesn't exist is more faulty. I have no doubt the Packers would draft a WR in the first round if they believed he was an exceptional player. That possibility gets less and less the lower (first overall, second overall, etc) the pick is. If you don't think the Packers weigh positional value the higher they are with their picks, there really is no point carrying on this conversation so it's best you just cease and desist, which is what I plan on doing.
  5. Mhmm. And you think that's coincidence?
  6. Five receivers drafted in the first round since 1936 (the history of the Packers) and you're hopping onto a high horse of acting as if historical data is on your side. You're also acting as if the Packers actually did draft Watson in the first round instead of drafting a defensive tackle. Do you understand that the facts are not on your side in this debate?
  7. The AJ Hawk draft was the first draft I started talking about football online. I wanted AJ Hawk. I was super excited when we drafted AJ Hawk. With this fact in mind, I implore you to find a single time I've stated the Packers would never draft an ILB in round one. I think ILB is overvalued. I personally argue against the Packers drafting an ILB in round one. I've never suggested the Packers wouldn't do it. The Packers have drafted 5 receivers in the first round. Period. Try to tell me it's not an organizational, "You better be sure." Further, reported and true are not the same thing in football.
  8. Our last first round WR brought to us by the same man who gave us Ahmad Carrol and our last third round punter.
  9. Was he a first round pick or was he picked in the second round?
  10. In what round? Also, I hate when people say it cost 2 second round picks to get him. No it didn’t. It cost A second round pick. 2nd + 2nd to receive a 2nd means it cost a second round pick to turn an existing second round pick into a higher second round pick. Hey, you see 2 first round receivers as coincidence over 45 years with one of them coming from our worst GM and you go right ahead and see that as just coincidence. I’ll see it as a team who doesn’t see WR as worthy of first round picks.
  11. Or it means they had an extreme need at WR and still elected to risk not taking one with their first pick. It’s not a point for you like you think it is. And they probably wouldn’t have taken Watson even if Wyatt wasn’t available.
  12. Apparently it is because you didn’t understand my point. Someone saying something doesn’t mean it’s true. Lies and GM speak as well as agents telling their players and teams telling their agents things they want others to believe is kinda *** for tat with any football talk at all.
  13. Also. lol. The Packers didn’t take Watson because Wyatt was there is literal proof the Packers put a higher emphasis on other positions. We’d just traded Adams and we used our first round pick to draft a DT rather than a WR. I love when people prove my point for me.
  14. But did any of those things happen? Or…
  15. Well considering the Packers have picked 2 receivers in the first round since 1979, it’s kinda the Packers rule, too.
  16. It’s not worth it I shouldn’t even have started. We’ve got 5 extremely promising receivers. Drafting one in the first round stunts the development of one. It makes no sense.
  17. How are those teams doing with Super Bowl wins? Because I count one ring out of all those receivers you just listed. And a stellar receiving corps of MVS and Rashee Rice on the last Super Bowl winner. Swap Rice with JJSS on the winner before that. Bad teams pick receivers in the first round to sell tickets. Also, history might suggest the best receivers come from the first round, but the best value receivers absolutely do not. Show me any draft since 2010 where the best value WR in the entire draft was in the first round.
  18. The logic doesn’t hold up. The franchise has been doing it this way for the past three decades. They’ve never wanted for a franchise WR. Who cares if they’re a first round talent at the draft when getting first round production has actual tangible value? Also, history doesn’t suggest first round receivers are better. This has been true for the past 10 years. The current era. 2/3 top rookie receivers last year weren’t drafted in the first round. 5 non first round receivers had over 700 yards receiving. 2 first round receivers hit that mark.
  19. Or you just keep drafting guys and getting compensatory picks all the time and keep doing that and use first round picks on other positions and always pay your WRs the cost of one okay one.
  20. lol. How is it an antiquated view when the Packers have been the most consistent team in the NFL at having elite receivers without spending a single first round pick on one? Driver to Jennings to Nelson to Adams to Wicks/Reed/Doubs/Watson. And now you think it’s antiquated? When we have like four extremely promising prospects not only on rookie deals, but on rookie 2nd, 3rd and beyond round deals.
  21. Yeah, it’s really faulty logic. Second contracts are huge. First round picks are supposed to be franchise players. The flaw is in determining whether or not a player is a bust because they get that second contract from their first team or a second team.
  22. At Center? Cameron Erving - traded. Billy Price - new team after second year. Chris Spencer - signed with Bears. Jeff Faine - Did not complete first deal with Browns. I don't know what kind of cherry picking and mental gymnastics the guy's doing to come up with those numbers, but they are demonstrably wrong. At first I misread it and saw a 100% hit rate on guards. He doesn't have the right number of guards. How he determines guard is also suspect. Brandon Scherf for example. Vernon Carey. Long list of guards he played tackle in the NFL. Some cherry picking is likely. Tough to hide the TE/WR though. And QB. I'm sure the LB/EDGE is all out of whack.
  23. The attention honey badgers get is overrated. Pound for pound it’s tougher than anything else on the list, but if anyone is seriously saying they’d rather fight any other animal on this list they probably deserve to get eaten. Literally anything on this list in their turf without weapons is an automatic death except for a honey badger.
  24. I still have PTSD over the 20 questions I did where RAKE was the answer. I think the question was whether or not it was a cleaning tool and I said no. I thought cleaning like inside. That has to have been 10 some years ago and I still remember the meltdown.
×
×
  • Create New...