2023 Rookie Minicamp / OTAs / Training Camp

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

The one issue I seem to disagree with most people here is the very, very good OL. I'm skeptical. We have one very very good player, Jenkins, and one potentially very very good player, Tom. Bahk is playing on one leg, and I'm skeptical he will hold up over 17 games, much less playoffs. Then we have Meyrs, Runyon, and Nijman, three so-so players. Rhyan might develop. Jones might develop. But calling this group a very very good OL is a stretch for me. I hope I'm wrong. 

We will have a very good left side of the line.  The rest is shaky.

[Mr Bad Example]

1 hour ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I always felt that the Sherman era has been misunderstood.  I think the goal at the end of Wolf and the tenure of Sherman was to get that one piece to put the team over the top.  They were pretty reactionary drafters, and didn't really build the core of the team very well..... I kind of wonder, if they could have taken a step back and had a more even approach like Thompson, if they wouldn't have actually found more success.

I don't know that I've ever really seen a GM "getting that missing piece" work. 

 

[PACKRULE]

18 hours ago, StatKing said:

Just not a fan of the way they are throwing him to the wolves. People need to stop bring up 2008. Completely different team in completely different scenarios.

We had a good mix of young and veteran offensive players when Rodgers took over, this year the bulk of our production will need to come from first or second year players. It's hard for me to believe it's as simple as "they just need more reps".

Throwing him to the wolves? What would you prefer maybe start a vet and let him get mop up duty more? They gave him 3 years on the bench behind a hall of famer.....would you rather they bubble wrapped him or get him 3-4 old vet WR's who won't be around long enough to grow with him? I mean sure it would be ideal to have an in house vet but a great many QB's have come in this way some much earlier. 

NO offense but this is not even remotely tossing him to the wolves......they coddled him the way they did with AR also. They let him grow and get pieces of games here and there. He's ready, the WR room while not perfect is good lots of young talent. 

[PACKRULE]

6 hours ago, StatKing said:

The salary cap isnt real but thats beside the point. We should have traded Rodgers high after back to back MVPs and resigned Davante to a long term deal. Giving Rodgers that huge contract and trading him after one year still makes no sense to me. Just setting Love up to fail if we don't provide him with atleast one proven high end pass catcher. 

many other QB's around the league were not given high end talent to succeed while they were young, and to be honest often enough they develope their own relationships with guys down the roster they are working with anyway. 

Let them grow together it's part of the road bumps we need Love to endure and go through. He needs and the team needs to grow together, i really dig what they did with the offense, it's all drafted together the next couple years should be great to watch them grow together, and if Love isn't do it he's not the guy. You can have 3 probowlers out there at WR but if Love can't delivery it won't mean crap. 

[thrILL!]

9 minutes ago, Mr Bad Example said:

I don't know that I've ever really seen a GM "getting that missing piece" work. 

 

Tampa Bay signing Tom Brady and winning the Super Bowl would disagree. 

[PACKRULE]

12 minutes ago, thrILL! said:

Tampa Bay signing Tom Brady and winning the Super Bowl would disagree. 

He was a major piece but they did add Gronk and a few others I believe as well. You still have a strong point though. 

[ThatJerkDave]

19 minutes ago, Mr Bad Example said:

I don't know that I've ever really seen a GM "getting that missing piece" work. 

 

I don't think that ever works.  By the time you find that piece, there are two more that have sprung up.  Not defending how the end of Wolf/Sherman did things.  Just that I understand what they were trying to do.  

Honestly, a 2005 style blow-up and rebuild in like 99 or 2000 would have made the rest of the 2000s with Favre stronger contenders.  Could have had an 06-07 type of team with a more in his prime Favre.  Of course, that is easy to say now.  They did win a lot of games, and there is no guarantee that Sherman, or the aged Wolf were up to the task.  Or it could have been an even bigger disaster, what do I know? I am just some jerk on the internet.  

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, Mr Bad Example said:

I don't know that I've ever really seen a GM "getting that missing piece" work. 

 

Elway with Peyton Manning.

Snead with Stafford.

Waiting to see if the World's Greatest GM That Has Never Won Anything, Joe Douglas joins the list with Rodgers.

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, thrILL! said:

Tampa Bay signing Tom Brady and winning the Super Bowl would disagree. 

Crap, knew I missed one.

[wgbeethree]

37 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Elway with Peyton Manning

Just a friendly reminder to all. Manning threw for 3 TDs and 7 INTs on that SB run.

[OneTwoSixFive]

1 hour ago, PACKRULE said:

NO offense but this is not even remotely tossing him to the wolves......they coddled him the way they did with AR also. They let him grow and get pieces of games here and there. He's ready, the WR room while not perfect is good lots of young talent. 

I don't think you understand what the word coddling means.

Unless we are talking about a way of cooking eggs (which we are not), coddling means indulgent and overprotective.

With Love, the Packers merely waited until their guaranteed HOF QB was moved on. That it took three years before it happened has to do with the guy in front of Love and how much he was being paid. No coddling, no indulgence, just how it went down. Pretty much the same situation with Favre - again no coddling. If you would have preferred Love was thrown into things in his rookie season while they sat Rodgers, well there is plenty of room in your head for the one brain cell you possess.

Just as a bye the bye, I also disagreed with the take by @StatKing who you were responding to. Sure this is a young team, but it's also a team with plenty of talented potential, putting Love in a position many young QBs would envy, especially as the best QBs normally go to the worst teams.

[StatKing]

9 hours ago, Old Guy said:

This is something a lot of us on the board were espousing for a long time. This is also something you mocked everyone for even considering. 

Welcome aboard but don't act like this was your stance all along because it wasn't. 

There was no point in giving him that contract other than to save face. If the plan was to wait until he didn't have an MVP caliber season to ship him off then that's a bad plan. I'd rather he retired a Packer but that's just me.

[StatKing]

1 hour ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I don't think you understand what the word coddling means.

Unless we are talking about a way of cooking eggs (which we are not), coddling means indulgent and overprotective.

With Love, the Packers merely waited until their guaranteed HOF QB was moved on. That it took three years before it happened has to do with the guy in front of Love and how much he was being paid. No coddling, no indulgence, just how it went down. Pretty much the same situation with Favre - again no coddling. If you would have preferred Love was thrown into things in his rookie season while they sat Rodgers, well there is plenty of room in your head for the one brain cell you possess.

Just as a bye the bye, I also disagreed with the take by @StatKing who you were responding to. Sure this is a young team, but it's also a team with plenty of talented potential, putting Love in a position many young QBs would envy, especially as the best QBs normally go to the worst teams.

Agree to disagree. Plenty of teams have young talent with potential, that doesn't mean those guys end up being any good. Give me proven guys to throw to any day of the week.

[PACKRULE]

1 hour ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I don't think you understand what the word coddling means.

Unless we are talking about a way of cooking eggs (which we are not), coddling means indulgent and overprotective.

With Love, the Packers merely waited until their guaranteed HOF QB was moved on. That it took three years before it happened has to do with the guy in front of Love and how much he was being paid. No coddling, no indulgence, just how it went down. Pretty much the same situation with Favre - again no coddling. If you would have preferred Love was thrown into things in his rookie season while they sat Rodgers, well there is plenty of room in your head for the one brain cell you possess.

Just as a bye the bye, I also disagreed with the take by @StatKing who you were responding to. Sure this is a young team, but it's also a team with plenty of talented potential, putting Love in a position many young QBs would envy, especially as the best QBs normally go to the worst teams.

I think you are wrong! The pack could have moved on from AR sooner but the whole thing made sense according to the way they bring up players and the way AR responded to the Pick. At the QB position they like a kid to sit and watch and learn. They PROTECT them is what I would call it. It's protecting an f**king investment. Coddle is the term I used like it or not. It's a way of looking at it. I am all for that, unless you have no choice and to be honest I'd toss a year away with a vet to help a young QB learn before putting him out there period. That's just me, but i would not want no david carr's. 

I never said jack about tossing Love out to the wolves. I merely suggested that he wasn''t really as per statking, he has a vet RB, a Vet Oline like what the heck Statking was upset about WR's.

I think you were so fast to suggest my use of the worldcoddle wasn't right you didn't even read my post with proper context. 

Why after that you decided to be a **** and make comments about brain cells is just a d**k move. My response to statking was not rude or pissy. Lucky for me i rarely post here for these reasons, I'm not that sensitive but having to read a response like this reminds me every time why these forums are crap. So you sir can go EABOD for the rest of your weekend. 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2023 by PACKRULE

[StatKing]

1 minute ago, PACKRULE said:

I think you are wrong! The pack could have moved on from AR sooner but the whole thing made sense according to the way they bring up players and the way AR responded to the Pick. At the QB position they like a kid to sit and watch and learn. They PROTECT them is what I would call it. It's protecting an f**king investment. Coddle is the term I used like it or not. It's a way of looking at it. I am all for that, unless you have no choice and to be honest I'd toss a year away with a vet to help a young QB learn before putting him out there period. That's just me, but i would not want no david carr's. 

I never said jack about tossing Love out to the wolves. I merely suggested that he wasn''t really as per statking, he has a vet RB, a Vet Oline like what the heck Statking was upset about WR's.

I think you were so fast to suggest my use of the worldcoddle wasn't right you didn't even read my post with proper context. 

Why after that you decided to be a **** and make comments about brain cells is just a d**k move. My response to statking was not rude or pissy. Lucky for me i rarely post here for these reasons, I'm not that sensetive but having to read a response like this reminds me every time why these forums are crap. So you sir can go EABOD for the rest of your weekend. 

 

 

Dude quit being so sensitive. It's just his opinion.