incognito_man Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 Just now, CWood21 said: So...in other words, they're going to release a player simply because they feel it's bad PR...good to know. those are other words alright. Because I have no friggin clue where they came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 1 minute ago, incognito_man said: those are other words alright. Because I have no friggin clue where they came from. As I've showed with my numbers, the Packers can re-sign all of their key FA and still have some cap space left over. Hell, they can even dig into their "second tier" FA and re-sign some of them with some change left over. The only thing that keeping Randall Cobb under contract prevents them from doing is being active in FA. Now...if you believe that the Packers' activity in FA last year wasn't a fluke and that they're going to continue to be active in FA, then a Cobb release has to happen in order to do so. If you believe he's going to revert to previous years, Cobb likely is still under contract for another year. It's not nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 Just now, CWood21 said: As I've showed with my numbers, the Packers can re-sign all of their key FA and still have some cap space left over. Hell, they can even dig into their "second tier" FA and re-sign some of them with some change left over. The only thing that keeping Randall Cobb under contract prevents them from doing is being active in FA. Now...if you believe that the Packers' activity in FA last year wasn't a fluke and that they're going to continue to be active in FA, then a Cobb release has to happen in order to do so. If you believe he's going to revert to previous years, Cobb likely is still under contract for another year. It's not nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be. i can do this too: Quote you're right, it's not complicated at all. It's very simple: nobody pays 3 WRs that much money because it's not smart. And we won't either. Whatever mental gymnastics you want to do to try to avoid that is over-complicating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 You're more than welcome to throw out some numbers, and some analysis to support your ideas but the ad hominem don't really do anything to support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, CWood21 said: You're more than welcome to throw out some numbers, and some analysis to support your ideas but the ad hominem don't really do anything to support it. I never used ad hominem. In fact, I've done the exact opposite of that this entire time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 19 minutes ago, Slinky said: Like I said, lots of Packer fans cry foul when we get hosed by the refs. But when it's the other way around they turn a blind eye. How in the world can anyone say that was PI on the Adams play?? LOL It wasn't, it was illegal contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgbeethree Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 14 minutes ago, Slinky said: Yup. You're right, my bad. Point still stands. Instead of punting it gave us an automatic 1st down. While your point may be valid (I've seen plenty of homers explain and excuse calls based on the way they want to see it) you just picked the wrong battle. That 100% was the right call on that particular play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Slinky said: LOL. Watch the games maybe? I love box score scouts. And homers. Also, Hundley throwing 46 times to J. Wiliams' 15 rushes is pretty ridiculous. But we won, so, it's all good! Lol, as if Ray didn't watch the freaking game. My god. I wasn't happy with that Pass to run ratio, but the short quick passing game late is what saved us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slinky Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 21 minutes ago, wgbeethree said: While your point may be valid (I've seen plenty of homers explain and excuse calls based on the way they want to see it) you just picked the wrong battle. That 100% was the right call on that particular play. No it wasn't. and everybody in the game thread even said so too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 50 minutes ago, wgbeethree said: Dudes.... We just won two overtime games in a row to save our playoff chances!!! How exciting is that? Yeah but nobody will get fired, proving that all my opinions were right. What good is football if I can't be proven right?!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgbeethree Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 25 minutes ago, Slinky said: No it wasn't. and everybody in the game thread even said so too. Again... That play is literally the definition of illegal contact. That could be the video example of the definition of the rule from now until infinity. I don't even understand how you could argue otherwise. Just because other people were wrong doesn't me you can be wrong too. That again is the 100% right/legal call. You're whole point is that people see what they want to and you are 100% proving that even if it's from the absolutely wrong side on this particular play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 Pointing to posts in the game thread as "proof" of something being true is probably the most idiotic part of the argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 49 minutes ago, Slinky said: No it wasn't. and everybody in the game thread even said so too. You're saying Adams wasn't impeded at all on his route? Cause he looked plain as day to me that he has McCourty on the double move and he got in his way and gave him a shove to stop a big play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 13 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: You're saying Adams wasn't impeded at all on his route? Cause he looked plain as day to me that he has McCourty on the double move and he got in his way and gave him a shove to stop a big play. That's exactly what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkySauce Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 4 hours ago, Slinky said: Love how people are down on Mac and Co. all game. Then when we squeak one out, they forget about all the complaining they've done up to that point. And that's the issue people have with winning this game. Now nobody will hold these idiots accountable for almost losing to the Browns. We won because of thew refs, period. I love how you assume that Mark Murphy might have fired TT (or TT might have fired MM, or MM might have fired DC), but then Adams scores that TD to beat the Browns and suddenly they all collectively change their minds. In your heart I'm sure you feel that the Packers coaching and managerial staff were seriously impacted by how the referees performed this afternoon. But no, that's not how this works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.