Jump to content

DWhitehurst

Members
  • Content Count

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

82 Starter

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree. He can't 'expect' the Front Office to go with any of his recommendations and shouldn't make a fuss if they don't. On the other hand, as I said, I also don't think it is unreasonable for Rodgers (or any other player) to expect that the Front Office would at least give an ear to some of his recommendations and consider them. If Rodgers tried but Gutekunst refused to even give him an ear, then I can understand why Rodgers wouldn't want to come back. Like I said, it's the extremes that are the problem to me. But none of us knows what the case actually was/is. For example, did Rodgers act
  2. I try to avoid extremes here when it comes to Rodgers (or any other player for that matter) "having a say." One extreme is to suggest that Rodgers gets to make roster decisions relative to cuts, player acquisitions, etc. The other extreme is to suggest Rodgers should never be allowed to express his opinion to the Head Coach/Front Office on these roster decisions. So while we don't know for certain what happened behind closed doors, if Rodgers attempted to speak directly to Gute about his opinions on roster decisions and was ignored by Gute or told "nunya business", then that is terrible playe
  3. Yes, you are right--we need to support competition in our education system and return decision-making to the parents. More charter schools, more support for private school alternatives, school voucher system. Give the tax-dollars not to the public (tax-payer funded) teacher's unions but to the parents to selectively spend on their child's education as they see best. Basically everything our public teacher's unions are opposed to.
  4. Great Cigar Lounge/Bar establishment in STL (Charles P. Stanley) when I was there a few summers ago for a....church convention. Placed was packed with Lutheran clergy. Haha
  5. I hope I'm wrong, but I seriously don't think they'd get so much in a trade for Rodgers as some here are predicting, especially now that it is post-draft. Again, I hope I eat crow if they trade him. But none of us here wants to see Gutekunst fire-sale Rodgers and get peanuts in return. In that case I'd guess most of us here would rather just make Rodgers retire. So, let's put the question this way: As a fan, what is the BARE MINIMUM you could accept in return for Rodgers should Gutekunst trade him??? For me personally, I'd say my bare minimum would be two 1sts + a 2nd + a player of
  6. At this point I don't care either way. Tired of it actually. I can see possible benefits either way. You could 1) give Rodgers what he wants, presumably an extension with a no-trade clause, give yourself a chance to win a SB next year if not beyond.....or.....2) trade Rodgers for picks after June 2nd and build a team with a very talented supporting cast for Love to develop with. No one knows what you 'might' have with Love but Lafleur and Gutekunst. If they've seen enough to guess that Love--with time and experience--can be the future, then at this point the best of the imperfect options
  7. My guess is that it is a combination of money and having a team that is in contention for a SB more often than not. That is why I think the Packers FO more long-term approach is actually better than an "all in", short-term approach where you may have a better chance to make it to the SB in a very short window of opportunity, and then suck for a number of years before your next small window opens up. (Denver is an example of this).
  8. That's my guess. too. It may not even be on par with what Detroit got for Stafford. If this guess is correct, then it would explain why the Packers FO anxiously wants Rodgers back. If he won't reconcile, then he's going for a lot less than he's worth, which will make the Packers FO look very bad.
  9. For some quirky reason, every time I hear Bortles name, I think of Bartyles, as in "Bartyles and James" winecoolers. (It's a Gen X thing). Ok, back to serious discussion...So, say hypothetically they trade Rodgers after June 2nd, they get some picks in return. Is it beyond possibility that some of that gained draft collateral could be used to move up and get a top QB prospect--a more promising one than Love--in an upcoming draft? So, should Love not pan out, it would not necessarily be the end of the world, would it? Or is the timeframe too long to find out if Love is going to pan out or not,
  10. Agreed. I'm just speaking to the unlikely possibility he doesn't make the team and what reason that could possibly be. I think he was a steal in the 7th round. Why did he last that long? The only other thing I read is that he had some disagreement with coaches, though I don't think it is something to worry about.
  11. Agree that it isn't a straight association. But the background to what I'm saying is someone saying a 23 bench on a 315pnd rookie OLineman isn't a sign that more strength development in this area (in addition to all other areas) is needed and to be expected, and/or that it cannot be improved upon to 'some' extent simply because they are a longer-armed guy. 35+ bench? No. 28-30 bench? Possibly, with time. (And yes, both leg and core strength are higher priorities). I wish I could bring the Packers trainer into this discussion. Haha
  12. Yes, no doubt. As a former trainer, bodybuilder, I'm well aware of these things. Don't believe me, but I think Newman can develop more strength in all the functional areas needed, including bench. And bench is not the #1 component to the functional strength needed for an OLineman, but to assert it isn't a component at all is absurd. As I said, because of his particular anatomy, it is unlikely he develops into a 35+ bench guy, but I think I do think he can and will improve his strength in all functional areas needed, including bench.
  13. Ok, how is it misleading? No doubt, bench is not EVERYthing when it comes to the overall functional strength needed by an OLineman, DLineman, etc. But no one here has asserted that. But how is bench not ONE of the multiple components to actual OL strength?
  14. I hope I'm not proven wrong, but Hill has shown enough skills to be a RB3 except for pass blocking/blitz pickup. That would be the only thing that gets Hill cut if he doesn't improve there. But this is the same issue for almost every rookie RB. Certainly was the case for Aaron Jones coming in and he developed that.
×
×
  • Create New...