5th Down Depreciation Thread

[TransientTexan]

Just now, Patriotplayer90 said:

 

You are blaming the QB with the highest QB rating of all time for our troubles.   Doesn't sound like I'm the one who needs to open my mind

you're lying. I've never made that argument. but glad to see you're back in binary land. 

[TransientTexan]

1 minute ago, BayRaider said:

never bring in good FAs.

they've brought in good FA's. and during the period they weren't bringing in many FA's, they were spending 99% of their salary cap re-signing guys like Nelson, Sitton, etc. saying they've been drafting terribly for years is a blatant exaggeration. they had a terrible draft in 2015. 2014 & 16 were fine for the slot they were in. jury is out on 17 & 18. 

[incognito_man]

21 minutes ago, Patriotplayer90 said:

The opinion of every one in the world who is not a Proud(stubborn) Packer fan.

LMAO

You misspelled 'whiny, entitled'

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by incognito_man

[incognito_man]

11 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

I sincerely hope not... the Packers have done a terrible drafting job for years now and never bring in good FAs. Honestly Rodgers must really like that Wiscoinsin cheese and beer. Rodgers on the Rams would have like 58!TDs and a 130 QB Rating. No offense to Goff, doing a splendid job over there. Every time Rodgers throws to someone I’m usually like “Who the fook is that guy?”.

Hot takes!

?

[AlexGreen#20]

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Hot takes!

?

NEED MOAR SPICY TAKEZ

[TheOnlyThing]

26 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

they've brought in good FA's. and during the period they weren't bringing in many FA's, they were spending 99% of their salary cap re-signing guys like Nelson, Sitton, etc. saying they've been drafting terribly for years is a blatant exaggeration. they had a terrible draft in 2015. 2014 & 16 were fine for the slot they were in. jury is out on 17 & 18. 

"They" (meaning the previous GM) brought in fewer FAs than any other GM in the NFL.

After winning the SB in 2010, the number of "good FA's" they brought in to GB can be counted on one hand that is missing a couple of fingers.

They made no player trades of any consequence.

They did spend significant money on their own players. Some of those re-signings were good and some not so good.

They did not do any better than average in the draft between 2011-2017 and they did below average in adding talent outside the draft.

There is a reason they got relieved of their duties after the 2017 season and it was not because they were succeeding at their job.

 

[TransientTexan]

5 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

"They" (meaning the previous GM) brought in fewer FAs than any other GM in the NFL.

After winning the SB in 2010, the number of "good FA's" they brought in to GB can be counted on one hand that is missing a couple of fingers.

They made no player trades of any consequence.

They did spend significant money on their own players. Some of those re-signings were good and some not so good.

They did not do any better than average in the draft between 2011-2017 and they did below average in adding talent outside the draft.

There is a reason they got relieved of their duties after the 2017 season and it was not because they were succeeding at their job.

 

any team you look at will have misses in FA. if one team has 25m to spend every year, some of it will hit and some won't. but another team even with the same hit rate that spends 15m per yr will obviously have less "hits". most teams don't have player trades of consequence. they're pretty rare in the NFL as opposed to other sports. but yes if you get to select someone out of your 31-team "field" vs. 1 team yes you'll be able to pick out a couple. 

inevitably, out of the 31 team field, there will be some team that strikes gold in 1 or 2 drafts, opening up a "window" for themselves, and while that "core" of players is on their rookie deals, they'll have more money to spend to bring in "outside FA's". this team will be held up as a shining example by the moaners of how to operate. but then, inevitably once that team has to pay their "core", they can't bring in as many FA's (see Seattle), and their drafting regresses, and they have less draft capital due to their success, they'll fade back into the background below GB. but that's ok for the moaners who will conveniently forget about that team and move on to envying the next few teams that hit their "window". meanwhile the teams they used to envy will be having poor or mediocre seasons out of sight. See how convenient it is to cherrypick teams when you get to use a 31-team "field"? you get to ignore all the failures that followed your methods, and just pick the ones that happened to strike gold. that's not a proper way to evaluate methods.

as for drafting, I disagree. 2011 & '15 were bad. '12 avg.  '13 was great.'14  & '16 were good. '17 is still pending evaluation. looks like a decent hit rate. The problem is just that a decent hit rate at the #26 draft slot will obviously be at a disadvantage against even a poor hit rate that's drafting in the #13 slot. 

Your final point is hilarious. I guess just because a team made a decision, that in itself validates the decision. Using that logic, then there obviously was "a reason" that they were with the team from 2005-2016 and the team was right to retain them each and every one of those years, and "it was not because they were failing at their job". Forget about the fact that there was an incentive to switch to one of the assistants before they all walked out the door for other jobs, having exhausted their strategy of using fake promotions to retain them. 

 

 

[Pugger]

8 hours ago, BayRaider said:

I sincerely hope not... the Packers have done a terrible drafting job for years now and never bring in good FAs. Honestly Rodgers must really like that Wiscoinsin cheese and beer. Rodgers on the Rams would have like 58!TDs and a 130 QB Rating. No offense to Goff, doing a splendid job over there. Every time Rodgers throws to someone I’m usually like “Who the fook is that guy?”.

Yes, our last GM didn't do much in the FA market but it isn't easy to draft real game changers when you are drafting near the bottom of every round year after year.  Once in a while you'll find a hidden gem but most of the time the top players are long gone by the 20th pick, especially in the first.  

[Patriotplayer90]

6 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

any team you look at will have misses in FA. if one team has 25m to spend every year, some of it will hit and some won't. but another team even with the same hit rate that spends 15m per yr will obviously have less "hits". most teams don't have player trades of consequence. they're pretty rare in the NFL as opposed to other sports. but yes if you get to select someone out of your 31-team "field" vs. 1 team yes you'll be able to pick out a couple. 

inevitably, out of the 31 team field, there will be some team that strikes gold in 1 or 2 drafts, opening up a "window" for themselves, and while that "core" of players is on their rookie deals, they'll have more money to spend to bring in "outside FA's". this team will be held up as a shining example by the moaners of how to operate. but then, inevitably once that team has to pay their "core", they can't bring in as many FA's (see Seattle), and their drafting regresses, and they have less draft capital due to their success, they'll fade back into the background below GB. but that's ok for the moaners who will conveniently forget about that team and move on to envying the next few teams that hit their "window". meanwhile the teams they used to envy will be having poor or mediocre seasons out of sight. See how convenient it is to cherrypick teams when you get to use a 31-team "field"? you get to ignore all the failures that followed your methods, and just pick the ones that happened to strike gold. that's not a proper way to evaluate methods.

as for drafting, I disagree. 2011 & '15 were bad. '12 avg.  '13 was great.'14  & '16 were good. '17 is still pending evaluation. looks like a decent hit rate. The problem is just that a decent hit rate at the #26 draft slot will obviously be at a disadvantage against even a poor hit rate that's drafting in the #13 slot. 

Your final point is hilarious. I guess just because a team made a decision, that in itself validates the decision. Using that logic, then there obviously was "a reason" that they were with the team from 2005-2016 and the team was right to retain them each and every one of those years, and "it was not because they were failing at their job". Forget about the fact that there was an incentive to switch to one of the assistants before they all walked out the door for other jobs, having exhausted their strategy of using fake promotions to retain them. 

 

 

You guys dismiss completely valid opinions.  Maybe try paying attention and giving them consideration.  No, not every team in the league has a bad defense, running game , has several years of poor drafts and neglects to bring in talent via FA, and has a team which completely implodes without their QB.  The teams which are this way are what we consider "bad".  True, most coaches and GMs in the league are bad, but that doesn't mean that we should accept it with an amazing player like Rodgers.

 

Does it not occur to you that a reason we could have been bad with our backup is because so many picks went into a bad defense from 2015-17, little talent been acquired in FA and much allowed to walk, and we simply had a bad team that Rodgers was masking?  Every single element on the team which doesn't directly involve Rodgers is bad.  How is a starter supposed to win with that, let alone a backup?  

[Pugger]

1 minute ago, Patriotplayer90 said:

You guys dismiss completely valid opinions.  Maybe try paying attention and giving them consideration.  No, not every team in the league has a bad defense, running game , has several years of poor drafts and neglects to bring in talent via FA, and has a team which completely implodes without their QB.  The teams which are this way are what we consider "bad".  True, most coaches and GMs in the league are bad, but that doesn't mean that we should accept it with an amazing player like Rodgers.

 

Does it not occur to you that a reason we could have been bad with our backup is because so many picks went into a bad defense from 2015-17, little talent been acquired in FA and much allowed to walk, and we simply had a bad team that Rodgers was masking?  Every single element on the team which doesn't directly involve Rodgers is bad.  How is a starter supposed to win with that, let alone a backup?  

So the real problem isn't the QB or the HC?  It was the accumulation of talent by TT since 2011?  We have a new GM.  Gute isn't going to turn this entire thing around in one offseason.

[Patriotplayer90]

4 minutes ago, Pugger said:

Yes, our last GM didn't do much in the FA market but it isn't easy to draft real game changers when you are drafting near the bottom of every round year after year.  Once in a while you'll find a hidden gem but most of the time the top players are long gone by the 20th pick, especially in the first.  

It pains me that people accept this excuse.  They put all of their eggs in one basket , constantly spending both first and second round picks on the secondary, which is still bad.  So if the position group receiving all of your draft resources is bad, you don't participate in FA, how could you possibly expect for the team to not be bad?

[Patriotplayer90]

13 minutes ago, Pugger said:

So the real problem isn't the QB or the HC?  It was the accumulation of talent by TT since 2011?  We have a new GM.  Gute isn't going to turn this entire thing around in one offseason.

I'm fine with McCarthy as long as Rodgers is around. It at least this year. I don't think he's a good coach, but talent is definitely the problem.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Patriotplayer90

[Pugger]

3 minutes ago, Patriotplayer90 said:

It pains me that people accept this excuse.  They put all of their eggs in one basket , constantly spending both first and second round picks on the secondary, which is still bad.  So if the position group receiving all of your draft resources is bad, you don't participate in FA, how could you possibly expect for the team to not be bad?

In the last 2 drafts what WRs would you have taken in those 2 rounds instead of DBs or FA receivers would you have signed?  Ted did dabble in FA by signing Cook (and made the mistake of  letting him go) and Bennett.  We all know how that last one turned out.  I don't know what FA WRs were available but IMO that position wasn't a big need until we decided to let Jordy go.  That wasn't a popular move but the new kids Gute drafted might turn out to be pretty darn good.  Just this past offseason Gute did participate in FA and signed Graham.   Most everyone said we needed more talent and speed on defense the last couple of years.  I still think Ted screwed up in 2017.  I like King and all but we should have taken TJ Watt at the 29th pick instead to bolster up our anemic OLB corps.  D. Randall not working out for us is another misstep by Ted.  There is a reason why Ted was finally replaced.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

9 hours ago, BayRaider said:

I sincerely hope not... the Packers have done a terrible drafting job for years now and never bring in good FAs. Honestly Rodgers must really like that Wiscoinsin cheese and beer. Rodgers on the Rams would have like 58!TDs and a 130 QB Rating. No offense to Goff, doing a splendid job over there. Every time Rodgers throws to someone I’m usually like “Who the fook is that guy?”.

Since you are an outsider, welcome, and let me catch you up on this thread:

It is a thread started due to the superstition that Aaron Rodgers plays better when the OP starts a thread like this.  Rational posters don't take it all that seriously.

Rational posters recognize that for various reasons, Rodgers has started slow this year, largely revolving around an unfortunate injury and lack of practice time as a result.  They also recognize that other issues such as veteran receivers dropping a bunch of balls and then exiting with injury have slowed the offense as well, and these issues will get better as the season moves forward.

Unfortunately, the thread has been taken over by a poster who appears to be here to argue, taking an extreme viewpoint opposite that of the OP that Aaron Rodgers can do no wrong, and that it is the head coach that is the problem, putting forth arguments that contradict their own position.  Thus we sit arguing irrational points, well, just because.

So, grab your whiskey and favorite cigar, and sit back and watch antics if you are in to that sort of thing. 

Understand though, packer nation does appreciate what Aaron Rodgers does for the team, while also appreciating how the NFL has crafted rules that make capitalizing on that talent very difficult.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Ragnar Danneskjold

[Sasquatch]

Honestly, maybe it's time we bury this thread in a really deep, dark hole and cap it with asphalt.  Other fan bases don't get or understand why we hate Rodgers so much - which we don't - and therein lies the rub. 

Outpost will just have to resort to good ol fashioned Voodoo dolls to change the mojo of our players.