MacReady Posted March 6, 2020 Author Share Posted March 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, coachbuns said: Have agreed on this from the start. It's the other we've disagree on. All receivers considered are we above, at or below average in the NFL? If you say below average, I’m going to have to insist that you list 16 teams better than us. Again. Until you do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachbuns Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: All receivers considered are we above, at or below average in the NFL? If you say below average, I’m going to have to insist that you list 16 teams better than us. Again. Until you do it. #1 Adams way above average, #2 Lazard should be a number 3, all others aren't close to being average. Results speak for themself ... wr position needs help. Not looking for the Packers to be average at wr ... looking for them to be above average. Edited March 6, 2020 by coachbuns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 6, 2020 Author Share Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, coachbuns said: #1 Adams way above average, #2 Lazard should be a number 3, all others aren't close to being average. Results speak for themself ... wr position needs help. Again, name 16 receiving corps better overall. I can name 18 clearly worse. If you can’t name even 15 that are better, why do you keep responding? All I will do is ask for those 16 better receiving corps. The list is literally in the original post of this thread. Edited March 6, 2020 by Outpost31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachbuns Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Again, name 16 receiving corps better overall. Again, eye test says it all. Not interested in being average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacman5252 Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 In the pff world, for OL you just don’t want many sub 60s starting. You can live with a few replacement level 60-65s on the OL. You can’t have a hold like Bell in 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 6, 2020 Author Share Posted March 6, 2020 20 minutes ago, coachbuns said: Again, eye test says it all. Not interested in being average. What does your eye test tell you about 16 teams that are better? You and I both know you’re not accepting the challenge because you won’t win the challenge. The entire point of this thread is for people like you and others to gain perspective on the NFL. What you think is bad other teams would kill for. There are 18 teams in the NFL that would have traded receiving corps with us in a heartbeat. You don’t get a prescription for what you can see, you get one for what you can’t see. If I was your eye doctor right now I would tell you to look at the receivers for other teams before you complain about what you do see with our team. Our receiving corps isn’t great. It hasn’t been for a long time. It’s still better than half the league thanks to Adams, and if you fixate on fixing it you’re going to find yourself worse somewhere else. With that said, instead of worrying about what we’re not comparatively terrible at, why are people not more worried about IDL, where we ARE below average? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachbuns Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 9 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: What does your eye test tell you about 16 teams that are better? You and I both know you’re not accepting the challenge because you won’t win the challenge. The entire point of this thread is for people like you and others to gain perspective on the NFL. What you think is bad other teams would kill for. There are 18 teams in the NFL that would have traded receiving corps with us in a heartbeat. You don’t get a prescription for what you can see, you get one for what you can’t see. If I was your eye doctor right now I would tell you to look at the receivers for other teams before you complain about what you do see with our team. Our receiving corps isn’t great. It hasn’t been for a long time. It’s still better than half the league thanks to Adams, and if you fixate on fixing it you’re going to find yourself worse somewhere else. With that said, instead of worrying about what we’re not comparatively terrible at, why are people not more worried about IDL, where we ARE below average? IDL is a big problem for sure. That being said, 31 NFL teams would love to have Adams ... 31 NFL teams would probably look at Lazard ... 2/3 of the other teams wouldn't take a look at any other of the Packer's wr's. I'm not disputing you about the Packers being a touch above average with their wr's. I'm saying Packers should and can do better than what they have. Oh, yeah - I did like the prescription line about getting one for what you can't see. All this bantering is making me hungry; time for a good Wis. fish fry. On to bigger fish to fry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) As Westly would put it, "That list does not mean what you think it means." Edited March 6, 2020 by Mazrimiv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 6, 2020 Author Share Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: As Westly would put it, "That list does not mean what you think it means." Debunk it. I presented data. Present a counter argument. Otherwise, I’ll go to IMDB.com for my Princess Bride quotes. And that wasn’t Westly. Edited March 6, 2020 by Outpost31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 add an E, you fool(s)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 31 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: What does your eye test tell you about 16 teams that are better? You and I both know you’re not accepting the challenge because you won’t win the challenge. The entire point of this thread is for people like you and others to gain perspective on the NFL. What you think is bad other teams would kill for. There are 18 teams in the NFL that would have traded receiving corps with us in a heartbeat. You don’t get a prescription for what you can see, you get one for what you can’t see. If I was your eye doctor right now I would tell you to look at the receivers for other teams before you complain about what you do see with our team. Our receiving corps isn’t great. It hasn’t been for a long time. It’s still better than half the league thanks to Adams, and if you fixate on fixing it you’re going to find yourself worse somewhere else. With that said, instead of worrying about what we’re not comparatively terrible at, why are people not more worried about IDL, where we ARE below average? No different at IDL than we are at WR. 1 stud who pushes up the overall average up and a bunch of meh after that. We're below average there because no one's argued against you that we're not, also because Rodgers doesn't play defense. Above average where it fits your narrative, below where you don't have one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 6, 2020 Author Share Posted March 6, 2020 14 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: No different at IDL than we are at WR. 1 stud who pushes up the overall average up and a bunch of meh after that. We're below average there because no one's argued against you that we're not, also because Rodgers doesn't play defense. Above average where it fits your narrative, below where you don't have one. I’m trying to be less hostile. You being a butthead accusing me of things is not helping. But okay, granted. We’re exactly the same on IDL as we are at WR. Now tell me what showed up more in our defeat. Would it have made a difference if we had Adams/Cobb/Robby Anderson/MVS/Lazard? Now what if we had another IDL that was capable of not being embarrassed? Lazard showed visual proof of being able to beat Sherman. Who showed ability to beat the OL in that game? So fine. We’re exactly the same. Now it’s a matter of what’s more important. What is harder between turning poor quality into good production when you put WR versus DL? Remembering that the offense knows where it’s going, I maintain that it’s harder to have a good defense without talent than offense. Since defense wins Championships (this is still true), we need IDL more than we need WR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 Clearly DL, but it's the off-season so I'm going to talk about improving both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannondale Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Debunk it. I presented data. Present a counter argument. Otherwise, I’ll go to IMDB.com for my Princess Bride quotes. And that wasn’t Westly. There's nothing to debunk. If you only have one legitimate threat, with no complimentary players to force issues, defenses can take it away, or at least contain it. First example that came to mind was Calvin Johnson. The Packers had good success bracketing him back in the day and forcing others to produce. Think back to 2011ish. If Jennings didn't have a big game that meant Nelson had a big game. If Nelson didn't have a big game that meant J.Jones had a big game. Presently, teams can even afford to assign a DB to A.Jones without paying a price. If you can't force the defense to play defense or threaten the ball more than 5 yards down the field, which happened quite often last year, stats don't mean crap Edited March 6, 2020 by cannondale 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 Also, I was being a butthead, for that I apologize. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.