GDT Week 6 - Packers @ Vikings

[dinkus23]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

this doesn't even mean anything.

are you suggesting those who "rallied to the flag of the future" got Aaron Rodgers injured?

No. Those who saw that great things don't have long term value in sports, and can change on a single play.

Thus why they were beating the drum of going all-in every single goddamn year you have a franchise player at frankly the only position that matters in the sport. 

Watching the 30 for 30, and Missing Rings on this Packers regime is going to be very depressing

[Norm]

2 minutes ago, dinkus23 said:

No. Those who saw that great things don't have long term value in sports, and can change on a single play.

Thus why they were beating the drum of going all-in every single goddamn year you have a franchise player at frankly the only position that matters in the sport. 

Watching the 30 for 30, and Missing Rings on this Packers regime is going to be very depressing

You're saying we should sell out every year in case someone important gets hurt. Who does that? NE supposedly did. Working great. It has no value. But selling it does. An opinion based on absolutely nothing but frustration.

[RoellPreston88]

He’s right though. If Thompson is a great a GM as everyone says he is, this team should be able to make the playoffs without Rodgers, no?

[SpeightTheVillain]

It's also a stupid argument because this team is built the way it is because we have Aaron Rodgers. If we didn't have HOF QB play, the team would look very, very different, just in the overall building strategy. When you take out the reason we are built this way of course it is gonna be hard to win.

And lets see how Hundley does before we declare this season over.

[dinkus23]

No. Again. You sell out every year to win because you have a once in a lifetime talent at the position. Taking into consideration an average NFL career is 3 years, you already have to reload your roster in about 36 months, structure contracts correctly and no FA signing cripples you long term.

Remember that anchor of a contract that DeMarco Murray signed in Philly? Gone within a year. 'Member also that Byron Maxwell contract which paid him top CB money, only to realize he couldn't play 1 game into the season? I 'member! Gone as well... Building a team in year A out of fear of what type of work you might have to do to adjust in year B or C is ******* cowardice.

This must be missed upon you.

All 'dem draft picks tho 

[SpeightTheVillain]

3 minutes ago, dinkus23 said:

No. Again. You sell out every year to win because you have a once in a lifetime talent at the position. Taking into consideration an average NFL career is 3 years, you already have to reload your roster in about 36 months, structure contracts correctly and no FA signing cripples you long term.

Remember that anchor of a contract that DeMarco Murray signed in Philly? Gone within a year. 'Member also that Byron Maxwell contract which paid him top CB money, only to realize he couldn't play 1 game into the season? I 'member! Gone as well... Building a team in year A out of fear of what type of work you might have to do to adjust in year B or C is ******* cowardice.

This must be missed upon you.

All 'dem draft picks tho 

And what about the Vince Young Eagles? The Current Seahawks? The post Harbaugh 9ers? The best way to be "all in" is to make the playoffs 9 straight seasons. To keep the window open

Instead of having to take 3 years off to rebuild because you've spent yourself into cap hell. 

 

[Norm]

8 minutes ago, SpeightTheVillain said:

And what about the Vince Young Eagles? The Current Seahawks? The post Harbaugh 9ers? The best way to be "all in" is to make the playoffs 9 straight seasons. To keep the window open

Instead of having to take 3 years off to rebuild because you've spent yourself into cap hell. 

 

Which plenty of teams have fell into but it often goes unacknowledged. Swinging for the fences seems logical but doesn't seem to work that well.

[dinkus23]

8 minutes ago, SpeightTheVillain said:

And what about the Vince Young Eagles? The Current Seahawks? The post Harbaugh 9ers? The best way to be "all in" is to make the playoffs 9 straight seasons. To keep the window open

Instead of having to take 3 years off to rebuild because you've spent yourself into cap hell. 

 

The 3 Teams you listed are missing one variable consistently that the Packers have, though the clock it ticking fast now than recent years.

[CWood21]

9 minutes ago, SpeightTheVillain said:

And what about the Vince Young Eagles? The Current Seahawks? The post Harbaugh 9ers? The best way to be "all in" is to make the playoffs 9 straight seasons. To keep the window open

Instead of having to take 3 years off to rebuild because you've spent yourself into cap hell. 

Can there not be a happy medium?  I see both sides taking it to the extreme.  In previous years, TT has been too reluctant to tap into FA.  This year, he's shown a level of activity that he hasn't shown before.

[Norm]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Can there not be a happy medium?  I see both sides taking it to the extreme.  In previous years, TT has been too reluctant to tap into FA.  This year, he's shown a level of activity that he hasn't shown before.

The main guys who left have all played well. So it kinda shifted again where we went the wrong direction not keeping guys this time.

We should have blended more FA I think most of us agree. Just don't need to do it just to do it. That's my thing. Don't shoehorn it.

[dinkus23]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Can there not be a happy medium?  I see both sides taking it to the extreme.  In previous years, TT has been too reluctant to tap into FA.  This year, he's shown a level of activity that he hasn't shown before.

Wrong side of the ball unfortunately, but surprising none the less.

[CWood21]

Just now, dinkus23 said:

Wrong side of the ball unfortunately, but surprising none the less.

So...the Packers didn't invest enough in their offense?

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, NormSizedMidget said:

The main guys who left have all played well. So it kinda shifted again where we went the wrong direction not keeping guys this time.

We should have blended more FA I think most of us agree. Just don't need to do it just to do it. That's my thing. Don't shoehorn it.

And I think that's a very valid logic.  But I'm seeing posters in here who think that the Packers need to make big FA signings every single offseason.  The Packers have one of the healthiest cap situations despite having a franchise QB whom they're paying a significant amount of money to.  How many contracts has Ted handed out that he's regretted?  Not very many.

[dinkus23]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

So...the Packers didn't invest enough in their offense?

No, offense was fine. Having a threat at TE would be a nice piece, but they hemorrhaged talent at OL and CB to get a piece they didn't need, scheme wise.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, dinkus23 said:

No, offense was fine. Having a threat at TE would be a nice piece, but they hemorrhaged talent at OL and CB to get a piece they didn't need, scheme wise.

Literally NOBODY predicted the amount of injuries on the OL.  We had Justin McCray and Adam Pankey as our tackles to end the game, and both of those players would have been on the PS had it not been for the Don Barclay injury to start the year.  It's literally impossible to argue that the Packers should have invested more into their OL.

EDIT: You could probably make the same argument with CB.  We had two UDFA as our boundary corners to end the game.  That's just too much attrition to account for.