AlexGreen#20 Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 7 minutes ago, Rainmaker90 said: 3rd best odds from Vegas. Vegas' goal is not to be correct. Vegas' goal is to get you to put money down on the bet. In 2021 with Davante Adams we were a +79 team. Our SRS of 4.45 was 8th in the league. We were a good but not great team by pretty much every predictive metric worth it's salt. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deps Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 2 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: GB was not a SB contender after trading Adams. Thinking otherwise is ridiculous. That's all there is to it. They were to at least get to the Super Bowl. Every team in the NFC looked flawed. Hurts wasn’t a lock to keep the job long term, let alone play that good. The 49ers had no clue what they would get at QB. Brady might still have been retired. The Rams were a house of cards that miraculously managed to stay up the previous season. The Vikings looked OK, but hardly world beaters. The team with the highest floor was probably the Cowboys, but they were still the Cowboys. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 16 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Vegas' goal is not to be correct. Vegas' goal is to get you to put money down on the bet. In 2021 with Davante Adams we were a +79 team. Our SRS of 4.45 was 8th in the league. We were a good but not great team by pretty much every predictive metric worth it's salt. This jibes with "most people thought the Packers would be Super Bowl contenders", which is the argument you're allegedly fighting against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainmaker90 Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 14 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Vegas' goal is not to be correct. Vegas' goal is to get you to put money down on the bet. In 2021 with Davante Adams we were a +79 team. Our SRS of 4.45 was 8th in the league. We were a good but not great team by pretty much every predictive metric worth it's salt. Right, so GB not a SB caliber team so Vegas puts them to 3 in odds . Why would anyone bet them at those bad of odds if they weren’t supposed to be that good? This is my last post about this. You guys are so upset at Rodgers you can’t be objective . You know who felt Rodgers gave us a shot to win the SB last year? Matt LaFleur. Brian Gutekunst. Mark Murphy. That’s why they gave him that contract that put us in a bad spot financially. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 14 minutes ago, Sandy said: This jibes with "most people thought the Packers would be Super Bowl contenders", which is the argument you're allegedly fighting against. While true, there's a psychology to betting Super Bowl winners that doesn't really apply to normal game by game betting. With a fanbase like the Packers, sometimes you'll see juiced odds. The idea is to make a casual go "See! The smart guys in Vegas think we have a shot. I'm going to put some down and hope they know something." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 51 minutes ago, Rainmaker90 said: Right, so GB not a SB caliber team so Vegas puts them to 3 in odds . Why would anyone bet them at those bad of odds if they weren’t supposed to be that good? This is my last post about this. You guys are so upset at Rodgers you can’t be objective . You know who felt Rodgers gave us a shot to win the SB last year? Matt LaFleur. Brian Gutekunst. Mark Murphy. That’s why they gave him that contract that put us in a bad spot financially. Their lack of testicular fortitude has less to do with them thinking we could win a Super Bowl. It was more about appeasing a fan base and Rodgers. They were afraid this would turn into a full-blown Favre situation. Rodgers had them bent over a barrel and he knew it. They gave up all the leverage with Rodgers which is on them. Do most front offices go into a season thinking they have a chance? Of course. Did they think Rogers gave us the better chance? Of course. Did they lack the stones to do what they should have done, which was trade him prior to dolling out that money? Absolutely they did. At some point in the future, Murphy will admit this to everyone. It will be after he's retired and doing some interview, but it will come out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turf toe Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 28 minutes ago, Old Guy said: Their lack of testicular fortitude has less to do with them thinking we could win a Super Bowl. It was more about appeasing a fan base and Rodgers. They were afraid this would turn into a full-blown Favre situation. Rodgers had them bent over a barrel and he knew it. They gave up all the leverage with Rodgers which is on them. Do most front offices go into a season thinking they have a chance? Of course. Did they think Rogers gave us the better chance? Of course. Did they lack the stones to do what they should have done, which was trade him prior to dolling out that money? Absolutely they did. At some point in the future, Murphy will admit this to everyone. It will be after he's retired and doing some interview, but it will come out. no he wont, for a variety of reasons Rain maker is right, 1, this roster is/was loaded with talent, and the window concerning that often changes a lot in just one season (injury, and deportation) and while the on paper deal with Rodgers might seem very high, it actually aligns about 5th or 6th in the top 10 group of QB's., and there where still question marks concerning Love capability 2. a number of issues went bad from the start, Barry game plan against the Vikes sucked, the OL was minus a healthy Bakh and Jenkins, protection sucked, Watkins proved to be worthless, and every receiver outside of Lazard was practicing the Chinese fire drill, wrong routes and drops prevailed. now the FO may have expected some of that, but the reason Rodgers was kept on imo is because they didn't expect it to be as bad as it was, and Rodgers didn't play as well as expected either. with relations as they where between Rodgers and Gute I can't see the FO keeping Rodgers around just to satisfy the fan base Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 3 hours ago, Rainmaker90 said: 3rd best odds from Vegas. I'm sure someone had them there, but I be don't think that was the standard take as the season started. Or was this like RIGHT as they traded Adams. Hell I don't care. But my quick googling had them 5th from both things I found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toddfather Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 4 hours ago, Rainmaker90 said: Right, so GB not a SB caliber team so Vegas puts them to 3 in odds . Why would anyone bet them at those bad of odds if they weren’t supposed to be that good? This is my last post about this. You guys are so upset at Rodgers you can’t be objective . You know who felt Rodgers gave us a shot to win the SB last year? Matt LaFleur. Brian Gutekunst. Mark Murphy. That’s why they gave him that contract that put us in a bad spot financially. You can look at it like that for sure. However you can also say that they went in on another year with him and locked in control of the assets. So we are spending 40 mil this year for the pick swap, the second, and hopefully another 1st next year, but at worst a second. Then the contract is off the books. You hopefully see some promise out of this super young team and you have a whole season where your focus is on the football. I don't hate the resign, and I don't hate what we ended up doing because of the contract, and the divorce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 7 hours ago, Rainmaker90 said: Right, so GB not a SB caliber team so Vegas puts them to 3 in odds . Why would anyone bet them at those bad of odds if they weren’t supposed to be that good? This is my last post about this. You guys are so upset at Rodgers you can’t be objective . You know who felt Rodgers gave us a shot to win the SB last year? Matt LaFleur. Brian Gutekunst. Mark Murphy. That’s why they gave him that contract that put us in a bad spot financially. Because the general public is stupid. +++ Did they feel that way? Or was it the easy direction to take? And even if they did, sweet, go ahead and acknowledge that I'm brighter than them, and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainmaker90 Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 15 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Because the general public is stupid. +++ Did they feel that way? Or was it the easy direction to take? And even if they did, sweet, go ahead and acknowledge that I'm brighter than them, and move on. Brighter than the odds makers Brighter than Mark Murphy Brighter than Brian Gutnkunst Brighter than Matt LaFleur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 On 6/3/2023 at 8:57 AM, AlexGreen#20 said: Bull**** He sucked in Chicago in the Superbowl year: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201101230chi.htm The Defense held Minnesota to 3 points with 4.5 minutes left in the game in 2013: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201301050gnb.htm Only needed 24 points to win against SF in 2014. We ended up passing for only 177 yards and rushing for 124: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201401050gnb.htm The great sorrow in Seattle in 2015: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201501180sea.htm 162 yards rushing and the defense holding the Redskins to 18 points: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201601100was.htm Sub 7.0 Y/C and losing a QB duel to 963 year old Carson Palmer. Defense held them to 20 points in the regular season: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201601160crd.htm Held the Giants to 13 points: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201701080gnb.htm Good game, but not a Godgers game. Defense held them to 23. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/202001120gnb.htm Defense held the Rams to 18 points: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/202101160gnb.htm Hardly Godgers at all against the Bucs. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/202101240gnb.htm We've talked plenty about the most recent 49ers debacle There have been plenty of games in his time with the Packers where the D/ST played well enough for an average QB performance to win the game. Sometimes we got that out of Rodgers. Sometimes we didn't. So a couple games in an 18 year career? Cool. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 just because they put them at 3rd in the odds doesn't mean they could have not put them at third in the odds. it's not a hard concept to understand 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 I can't wait to pretend every game Love loses, he could have won. Because it's such an easy concept to understand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 1 hour ago, Rainmaker90 said: Brighter than the odds makers Brighter than Mark Murphy Brighter than Brian Gutnkunst Brighter than Matt LaFleur IDK what you guys are exactly talking about anymore, but I do think we had the best shot with AR over whatever else we could have put under center. But who ******* cares? That doesn't mean it's the right decision necessarily for the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.