incognito_man Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 19 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 gosh that sounds so easy. Here's the "hard" part, I suppose. That selling out ever year thing? That means you don't have Mike Daniels, or David Bakhtiari, or half the other really good players we have right now. It would be pretty cool to be able to sign all the good guys and draft all the good guys just for us. But the obvious answer is that that doesn't happen in real life. I'm sure you are frustrated wanting all the good players, but you have to be a realist and recognize 31 other teams do too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinkus23 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 1 minute ago, CWood21 said: 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. Packers should change their name to the above bolded. Letting go of known stable commodities is a gamble, but in sports the promise of the next young up and coming thing has an enticing ring to it, doesn't it? More often than not those penny stocks default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 3 minutes ago, incognito_man said: gosh that sounds so easy. Here's the "hard" part, I suppose. That selling out ever year thing? That means you don't have Mike Daniels, or David Bakhtiari, or half the other really good players we have right now. It would be pretty cool to be able to sign all the good guys and draft all the good guys just for us. But the obvious answer is that that doesn't happen in real life. I'm sure you are frustrated wanting all the good players, but you have to be a realist and recognize 31 other teams do too. We want the same things as he does. I just think some of us realize how difficult it truly is. Can you sign guys and get rid of them easily sometimes. Obviously. But that's not typical without ramifications Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Just now, dinkus23 said: Packers should change their name to the above bolded. Letting go of known stable commodities is a gamble, but in sports the promise of the next young up and coming thing has an enticing ring to it, doesn't it? More often than not those penny stocks default. Aside from T.J. Lang, what "known stable" commodities have the Packers let go in recent years that they've regretted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinkus23 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 5 minutes ago, incognito_man said: gosh that sounds so easy. Here's the "hard" part, I suppose. That selling out ever year thing? That means you don't have Mike Daniels, or David Bakhtiari, or half the other really good players we have right now. It would be pretty cool to be able to sign all the good guys and draft all the good guys just for us. But the obvious answer is that that doesn't happen in real life. I'm sure you are frustrated wanting all the good players, but you have to be a realist and recognize 31 other teams do too. How've they played this year? Legit Curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Just now, dinkus23 said: How've they played this year? Legit Curious What exactly is your argument? They've been among the best players in their position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 1 minute ago, dinkus23 said: Packers should change their name to the above bolded. Letting go of known stable commodities is a gamble, but in sports the promise of the next young up and coming thing has an enticing ring to it, doesn't it? More often than not those penny stocks default. What's the answer? You can't afford keeping everything. You have to go cheaper and hope you're right sometimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Just now, dinkus23 said: How've they played this year? Legit Curious how do you feel qualified to give a strong opinion on how this team if constructed if you do not even know the answer to this? legit curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinkus23 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Just now, CWood21 said: What exactly is your argument? They've been among the best players in their position. When they're on the field, perhaps. Tough to grade them when they register a zero net snaps played tho, seems to be a packer theme over the past how many years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 1 minute ago, dinkus23 said: When they're on the field, perhaps. Tough to grade them when they register a zero net snaps played tho, seems to be a packer theme over the past how many years? approximately over the last 1/8-1/4 of a season it has been an issue for MD and DB. That's the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 1 minute ago, dinkus23 said: When they're on the field, perhaps. Tough to grade them when they register a zero net snaps played tho, seems to be a packer theme over the past how many years? So...the Packers FO was supposed to know that those two were going to struggle with injuries? If that's the case, then that's a totally unrealistic expectation to hold. The Packers had their contingency plans in place with both Jason Spriggs and Kyle Murphy. And they both went down with injury. You're supposed to tell me that Ted Thompson should have known that they'd be starting PS-caliber OL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 1 minute ago, dinkus23 said: When they're on the field, perhaps. Tough to grade them when they register a zero net snaps played tho, seems to be a packer theme over the past how many years? Daniels and David are known commodities. Trying to use the fact they've been hurt as if they aren't valuable members of this team going forward and since they were signed is a hollow point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoellPreston88 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 11 minutes ago, incognito_man said: gosh that sounds so easy. Here's the "hard" part, I suppose. That selling out ever year thing? That means you don't have Mike Daniels, or David Bakhtiari, or half the other really good players we have right now. It would be pretty cool to be able to sign all the good guys and draft all the good guys just for us. But the obvious answer is that that doesn't happen in real life. I'm sure you are frustrated wanting all the good players, but you have to be a realist and recognize 31 other teams do too. New England signs guys every year. Doesn’t seem to hurt them in the long run. And they have a franchise QB to pay just like us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinkus23 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Just now, CWood21 said: So...the Packers FO was supposed to know that those two were going to struggle with injuries? If that's the case, then that's a totally unrealistic expectation to hold. The Packers had their contingency plans in place with both Jason Spriggs and Kyle Murphy. And they both went down with injury. You're supposed to tell me that Ted Thompson should have known that they'd be starting PS-caliber OL? They can't play regardless. Again all his holiness TT... Wasn't one of the aforementioned a top draft pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Just now, RoellPreston88 said: New England signs guys every year. Doesn’t seem to hurt them in the long run. And they have a franchise QB to pay just like us. Just out of curiosity, how much do you think Tom Brady's cap hit is this year? Guess without looking it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.