Norm Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: The reason we were really active in free agency is the same reason you mentioned, mediocre drafting. We had cash to spend when previously that cash would have gone into resigning guys. There hasn't been some grand shift in philosophy. There has been a change in circumstances. I still think how when we started signing guys all the usual suspects said it was Wolf pulling all the strings in FA then when FA didn't automatically make you the greatest team ever and Bennett flopped it was Ted that screwed up. One of my favorite parts of their "arguments" this year. I need to reconsider my philosophy of criticism. I like the idea of never being able to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
th87 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Why is it that every time an argument against Thompson and McCarthy is made, the first point made by detractors is, "Well if you remove the games we played against bad teams . . ."? Every team plays bad teams. You have to beat bad teams. When you remove games against bad teams, pretty much everybody has a middling to poor record. There is no god damn perspective with this group. If a team with it's backup QB is able to keep it's head above water without the starting QB, that's the sign of a well coached football team. Because context matters. Squeezing past teams who are a combined 8-31 means you're a little better than them. They have beaten no team not last in their respective divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 1 minute ago, th87 said: Because context matters. Squeezing past teams who are a combined 8-31 means you're a little better than them. They have beaten no team not last in their respective divisions. When you're down your starting QB, best pass rusher, and 3 of your top 4 CBs, beating anybody is an accomplishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Why is it that every time an argument against Thompson and McCarthy is made, the first point made by detractors is, "Well if you remove the games we played against bad teams . . ."? Every team plays bad teams. You have to beat bad teams. When you remove games against bad teams, pretty much everybody has a middling to poor record. There is no god damn perspective with this group. If a team with it's backup QB is able to keep it's head above water without the starting QB, that's the sign of a well coached football team. And it goes further. I said this somewhere the other day. You barely beat the Browns. Fine. They say, we're barely better . Take away all this and we lose too You barely lose to the #1 seed in the AFC at the time I believe. Any of them think we're barely worse than PIT? Of course not. It's a fluke. They played down to us. Take away all this and we lose by 40 and blah blah blah. We could beat NE with Hundley and they wouldn't go wow great win! It would be whatever their and ******* crap opinion already was, and will always be. Take away all the points and we lose every game. We suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOnlyThing Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 15 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: The reason we were really active in free agency is the same reason you mentioned, mediocre drafting. We had cash to spend when previously that cash would have gone into resigning guys. There hasn't been some grand shift in philosophy. There has been a change in circumstances. The 2011 & 2012 drafts were mediocre (at best). Only Perry, Cobb, and Daniels received 2nd contracts from those classes There was little to no free agent activity in 2015 or 2016 despite those mediocre drafts. Last offseason represented a significant change in the way the Packers constructed their roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
th87 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Just now, NormSizedMidget said: And it goes further. I said this somewhere the other day. You barely beat the Browns. Fine. They say, we're barely better . Take away all this and we lose too You barely lose to the #1 seed in the AFC at the time I believe. Any of them think we're barely worse than PIT? Of course not. It's a fluke. They played down to us. Take away all this and we lose by 40 and blah blah blah. We could beat NE with Hundley and they wouldn't go wow great win! It would be whatever their and ******* crap opinion already was, and will always be. Take away all the points and we lose every game. We suck. Yes, because one game negates the complete ineptitude we've shown against the non-terrible teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOnlyThing Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said: I still think how when we started signing guys all the usual suspects said it was Wolf pulling all the strings in FA then when FA didn't automatically make you the greatest team ever and Bennett flopped it was Ted that screwed up. I really loved it when the Ted fans crowed about what a great signing Bennet was back in March and when he quit on the team pretended no one could have possibly known that a guy who acted like he did in Dallas and Chicago acted that way in Green Bay. Either way, Ted is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, th87 said: Because context matters. Squeezing past teams who are a combined 8-31 means you're a little better than them. They have beaten no team not last in their respective divisions. Steelers are a little better than us, yes or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 We signed 40 million in AAV between Shields, Rodgers, and Peppers going into the 2013 season. We did not bury a sackful of money in 2014 and 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Just now, th87 said: Yes, because one game negates the complete ineptitude we've shown against the non-terrible teams. Everyone's golden god, invincible, cut my **** off to have their team, the Patriots just lost to the Cutler Dolphins. ******* inept. Went 9 years with a SB win. Inept. I swear to God you guys never pay attention to anything but GB and sports movies where the good guys always win. I'm 10000000% convinced you would cry as Pat's fans, not only that, you would have wanted Bill fired when they didn't WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN ... Get it? Win, for 9 years. And if you pull that bull**** that losing super bowls would keep you guys happy like usual, I swear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said: I really loved it when the Ted fans crowed about what a great signing Bennet was back in March and when he quit on the team pretended no one could have possibly known that a guy who acted like he did in Dallas and Chicago acted that way in Green Bay. Either way, Ted is great. I really loved it that you posted multiple times a day then but were too scared to ever post in the Bennett signing thread a single time, though it lasted weeks and now mock anyone who had the guts to have a public opinion. It's easy always being right when you form all your opinions after the fact isn't it? You don't weigh in on the draft pick threads either. It's all on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said: I really loved it that you posted multiple times a day then but were too scared to ever post in the Bennett signing thread a single time, though it lasted weeks and now mock anyone who had the guts to have a public opinion. It's easy always being right when you form all your opinions after the fact isn't it? The egos on you people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
th87 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: When you're down your starting QB, best pass rusher, and 3 of your top 4 CBs, beating anybody is an accomplishment. They were just a little better than the Bears and Bucs even when Perry and King were around. And let's not act like the sucky teams weren't dealing with major injuries of their own (TJ Ward, Doug Martin, Collins, Trevathan, etc.). Without Rodgers, this team is a hair better than the worst teams in the NFL. Cool, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 1 minute ago, th87 said: They were just a little better than the Bears and Bucs even when Perry and King were around. And let's not act like the sucky teams weren't dealing with major injuries of their own (TJ Ward, Doug Martin, Collins, Trevathan, etc.). Without Rodgers, this team is a hair better than the worst teams in the NFL. Cool, I guess. How good are most teams without their starting QB? And truthfully, we haven't played a lot of mid tier teams in the Hundley era. The only one was the Lions. Everybody else has either been good (Ravens, Saints, Steelers) or bad (Bucs, Browns, Bears) Unless you're looking to be negative, I don't see how you stake this team in one direction or the other. This looks like a 6-10/7-9 team to me without Rodgers. They're beating awful teams, losing to good teams. That's what medicore teams look like. If you're a 6-10 minus the best player in the world, you're not doing so awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, th87 said: They were just a little better than the Bears and Bucs even when Perry and King were around. And let's not act like the sucky teams weren't dealing with major injuries of their own (TJ Ward, Doug Martin, Collins, Trevathan, etc.). Without Rodgers, this team is a hair better than the worst teams in the NFL. Cool, I guess. With possibly the worst starting QB. To me that's important. There's always the game without Rodgers we are this, as if whoever replaces him is irrelevant. And before I get the sideways answerers, I'll play Carnac: "yeah but that's Ted and Mike's fault." Yes and agreed. But not the debate I'm trying to have. This isn't about casting blame. It's about replacement talent when gauging this whole deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.