Jump to content

Packers Training Camp 2021 Thread


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I guess I'm confused about what's so wrong with the equation. The equation is one of the most successful franchises in the NFL.

As far as having heard things, I've heard whispers as well, but to me it mostly comes off as people being mad that the adult in the room won't let them play with lit firecrackers. See: Rodgers, Aaron for the most recent example.

Over the last decade the number of SB wins = 0

Not sure we are "one of the most successful franchises in the NFL"

Granted we have been good.   But never quite good enough.    Would you rather win 10-13 games a year and never win the SB, or be more up and down with a SB win or two?   Have these been good years, or have we really only been the best loser?

We understand how to stay "good", but we certainly haven't found a way to have ultimate success.   How a person answers the above questions may reflect how they feel about the current situation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Norm said:

I always felt like the "I never heard from them" thing isn't really the whole truth.

You mean a player/ agent might not reveal the truth

Season 1 Omg GIF by America's Got Talent

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vegas492 said:

Yes it is a no win.  But a meeting or phone call telling the player that they were appreciated and that an offer cannot be made that wouldn't be insulting may be what is considered "friendlier" by our QB.

Didn't both Bulaga and Lindsley say they never even heard from the Packers upon free agency?  I honestly cannot remember.

Front office are business/finance people,  coaches are colleagues

Pretty sure the coaching staff will have done the whole thanks for everything you have done for our franchise thing. The front office will be primarily dealing with agents, they will have found out how much the player wants, pretty quickly decided there is no chance of a deal so didn't offer one.

We don't really know but the whole not even getting an offer thing is probably a bit misleading. 

If Bulaga or Linsley wanted to play for us they would have told their agent to sort something out. It goes both ways.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, mikemike778 said:

Pretty sure the coaching staff will have done the whole thanks for everything you have done for our franchise thing.

The front office will be primarily dealing with agents, they will have found out how much the player wants, pretty quickly decided there is no chance of a deal so didn't offer one. 

If Bulaga or Linsley wanted to play for us they would have told their agent to sort something out.
It goes both ways.

This ^

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hitnhope said:

Over the last decade the number of SB wins = 0

Not sure we are "one of the most successful franchises in the NFL"

not mutually exclusive. almost all of the teams that did win a SB had significantly more draft capital than GB over the decade. everyone except Seattle had at least two 1st-rounder's worth of additional draft capital. Heck, Tampa & New York had twelve 1st-rounder's worth of additional draft capital. the teams aren't competing with a balanced amount of resources. 

& it's a stupid argument when your cutoff is 1yr shy of GB's SB. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

not mutually exclusive. almost all of the teams that did win a SB had significantly more draft capital than GB over the decade. everyone except Seattle had at least two 1st-rounder's worth of additional draft capital. Heck, Tampa & New York had twelve 1st-rounder's worth of additional draft capital. the teams aren't competing with a balanced amount of resources. 

& it's a stupid argument when your cutoff is 1yr shy of GB's SB. 

Nobody running the Packers has won a Super Bowl.   Simple fact.

A decade is 3 times the average players career.  The Packers have turned over the roster excluding Rodgers and Crosby, and haven't won.   The only way my argument is stupid is that you dont like it.   Have we won in the last decade?

Not sure what your draft capital argument has to do with anything.  If anything it would argue against how the Packers have been going about things in the past number of years.  Always good, but never making the moves to put them over the top.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hitnhope said:

Nobody running the Packers has won a Super Bowl.   Simple fact.

A decade is 3 times the average players career.  The Packers have turned over the roster excluding Rodgers and Crosby, and haven't won.   The only way my argument is stupid is that you dont like it.   Have we won in the last decade?

Not sure what your draft capital argument has to do with anything.  If anything it would argue against how the Packers have been going about things in the past number of years.  Always good, but never making the moves to put them over the top.

no it sounds stupid in many ways. many other teams rosters have *also* turned over multiple times and not won. 70+% of other teams fit that category. 

it's retarded to try to handwave away the massive draft handicap teams suffer, which benefits the losers. As if a team being straight-up garbage for many years, and combining the resulting draft boost with some luck, is some sort of ingenious & coveted strategy. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TransientTexan said:

no it sounds stupid in many ways. many other teams rosters have *also* turned over multiple times and not won. 70+% of other teams fit that category. 

it's retarded to try to handwave away the massive draft handicap teams suffer, which benefits the losers. As if a team being straight-up garbage for many years, and combining the resulting draft boost with some luck, is some sort of ingenious & coveted strategy. 

It also doesn't make sense playing to be good at the expense of giving your team a better chance at winning.     The Packers have left opportunities go by the wayside playing it safe for the long run at the expense of moves that would have given them a better chance at winning it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TransientTexan said:

no it sounds stupid in many ways. many other teams rosters have *also* turned over multiple times and not won. 70+% of other teams fit that category. 

it's retarded to try to handwave away the massive draft handicap teams suffer, which benefits the losers. As if a team being straight-up garbage for many years, and combining the resulting draft boost with some luck, is some sort of ingenious & coveted strategy. 

Agreed. Plus, just from a cold business standpoint, the Packers have been smart--by maintaining (relatively) a competitive team that can contend more years than not it helps to keep the customers interest/devotion and inspire their ongoing investment in the product (tickets, merchandise, etc) Yes, in doing so their margin for error is smaller in terms of less quality depth, injuries to key starters (Bakhtiari), etc., but that's the tradeoff. 

Edited by DWhitehurst
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that thinks we aren't one of the most successful franchises in the NFL over the last decade doesn't really deserve to be taken seriously. The fact that it's "championship or bust" in determining whether or not we've been successful speaks for our level of success itself.

And, yes, I'd much, much rather consistently be good and come up short than win 1 Super Bowl and be irrelevant the rest of the decade. I'd 1000% rather be us than the Broncos and anyone that says otherwise is...well...yeah.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, being consistently good is the only measure of success. To be in a points (win/loss) format over 16 games requires a high degree of consistency to make it to the knock out stages. Once in the knock out stages the element of being consistently good or great can get frequently trumped by moments of luck or game changing plays. 

We have a laundry list of postseason games where 'if' that play didn't happen’ we would have progressed a lot further.  

Ultimately, isn't it the 'any given Sunday' fact of American Football that makes it such an interesting sport in the first place? Where regularly the best team on paper does not win. The sport itself is predicated on game changing moments that can quickly flip the score which makes it such a tense and by far the most interesting sport to watch. 

I agree with many here that consistently having a chance to be the Super Bowl crapshoot is far more entertaining than winning one and be irrelevant for a number of years.

There is even no validity to the theory of ‘if you are all in’ i.e. have the best roster you will win it. A few examples, off the top of my head Packers Super Bowl win in 2010, we didn't have the best roster in the NFL then, we just got hot at the right time. Both Giants Super Bowl wins. Vikings beating Saints in 2017 playoffs, the next season the Saints losing to the Rams on the non-call pass interference. Eagles beating the Pats in the Super Bowl. It goes on and on. The NFL is littered in the playoffs with teams that should have won and ended up losing and you can't tell me if that team had just signed one more player or 'gone all in' they would have won that game.

Knock out football competition format is about fine margins that cannot be mitigated by roster acquisitions. Consistently getting to the knock out segment of the season is the real trick and then you have always have a punchers chance of winning.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brit Pack said:

The way I see it, being consistently good is the only measure of success. To be in a points (win/loss) format over 16 games requires a high degree of consistency to make it to the knock out stages. Once in the knock out stages the element of being consistently good or great can get frequently trumped by moments of luck or game changing plays. 

We have a laundry list of postseason games where 'if' that play didn't happen’ we would have progressed a lot further.  

Ultimately, isn't it the 'any given Sunday' fact of American Football that makes it such an interesting sport in the first place? Where regularly the best team on paper does not win. The sport itself is predicated on game changing moments that can quickly flip the score which makes it such a tense and by far the most interesting sport to watch. 

I agree with many here that consistently having a chance to be the Super Bowl crapshoot is far more entertaining than winning one and be irrelevant for a number of years.

There is even no validity to the theory of ‘if you are all in’ i.e. have the best roster you will win it. A few examples, off the top of my head Packers Super Bowl win in 2010, we didn't have the best roster in the NFL then, we just got hot at the right time. Both Giants Super Bowl wins. Vikings beating Saints in 2017 playoffs, the next season the Saints losing to the Rams on the non-call pass interference. Eagles beating the Pats in the Super Bowl. It goes on and on. The NFL is littered in the playoffs with teams that should have won and ended up losing and you can't tell me if that team had just signed one more player or 'gone all in' they would have won that game.

Knock out football competition format is about fine margins that cannot be mitigated by roster acquisitions. Consistently getting to the knock out segment of the season is the real trick and then you have always have a punchers chance of winning.

 

Possibly the first time I've agreed with you close to 100%

Once  you get deep into the playoffs, the games are extremely tight competition wise. Even if you are the best team in the league, you may only have a 60% chance of winning the Championship game then aa 60% chance of winning the super bowl. In a game between two strong teams, it can go either way.

Ultimately you have to win it at least once though.

This is why I reject entirely criticism of Rodgers' legacy.  If he had never won the thing then yes its an issue. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikebpackfan said:

Wow, I missed that there are only 3 preseason games. Is that a Covid thing or a 17 game season thing?  Gonna make that time between game 3 and and the opener seem like an eternity. 

17 game thing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...