Please be advised that opinions other than the two options given are unwelcome.
Printable View
Please be advised that opinions other than the two options given are unwelcome.
This is a business, only the fans give a rats ass where the checks are coming from.
Needless to say these "don't cares" are not packer people.
Back when Major League Baseball first started with free agency I didn't like it at all. Growing up I was used to teams having primarily the same players year after year unless someone was brought up from the minors or there was a big blockbuster trade. I think it gave the teams more of an identity that you could associate with. I slowly got used to it so when it started in the NFL it wasn't quite as hard to accept. I stopped giving a flying f' about MLB somewhere in the mid-90's and the NFL is the only pro sport I've watched for years. Free agency definitely has taken some of the luster off of the game for me because the business aspect of it became front and center. Pro sports used to be more nostalgic when we fans actually believed that teams and players had some sort of a "loyalty" factor that went both ways. I guess you either adapt or just quit watching the sport because it isn't going to change back to what it once was.
It's somethi I literally have no control over, meaning it doesn't bother me in the least.
I choose the third option; This poll sucks ! :)
I believe most fans - other than Fantasy players - follow a team more than individuals on the roster.
What is a team if not the players on the roster? The team colors? Would it matter if last year's Bears players became this year's Packers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pugger
Justin Harrell and other hardcore packer fans often speculate about, say, the offensive line of the future. Or who will be the WRs of the future. But there is no future beyond the initial rookie contract. The team is mostly new faces every 3 years.
I get that people just go along with it. I think fans had a more fun experience back when there was a real local team to follow; you could develop loyalty to players and track their development.
I think in a game that features 11 starters on each side of the ball continuity is key. I don't like breaking that up constantly. Would like to see a better system that keeps teams together while still forcing them to spend near the cap.
I'm rooting for the laundry.
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/pro...gif?v11301bss2
Agree with Bass for the most part (except the part about only watching football: in my current life I don't have time to watch anything at all). Frequent roster turnover deprives teams of continuity and makes watching (for those who have time...) less interesting. For all of its warts, the NFL of the 1970s was much more interesting than the 2010s. Or maybe it was just that the NFL is more interesting when you're a kid.
I don't like it. I'd rather teams stay together more.
Yep. I remember in backyard football we would pretend to be "The Mad Stork", Ted Hendricks. We knew he'd always be a Packer because he was a Packer. And then it happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier
But that was the exception. Teams mostly stayed together in the 80s too. I loved tghe 8-8 Pzackers, just knew they were about to be contenders.
It is what it is and that is a business.
Loyalty = show me the $money$
Looking at the Facts:
http://www.packersnews.com/story/spo...lors/99120766/
Free agency showing Packers' true colors
1970 football was terrible, only I was young so it was hard to know how terrible until the NFL put in the 1978 rules changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier
1970 football was ruled by hoary cliches and a lack of risk taking. Unless your idea of innovation was run, run, then long pass on 3rd and 7.
I could see arguing that the 1960s were better. For every Lombardi then there was the AFL.
But better passing AND player movement means that teams are not stuck in the same track for nearly as long as they were back in the day. Now teams that bounce around from mediocre to terrible and back again are truly poorly run (see Rams, Los Angeles, or Jets, New York).
Most of the year to year change has little to do with free agency. Draft, injuries, players not panning out, and the unforgiving march of time cause most of the roster churn. FA gets a lot of attention, but the best players almost never get there, so it is really the attention is on a handful of players that are just good enough that you've heard their names before, but are not likely truly elite (or not elite anymore, like AP).
The salary cap seems to force Ted to let a lot of good players go after 1 contract. I don't remember that so much in ye good ole days. You might be right, but I prefer to think that you are wrong and it used to be wonderful and it's time to Make Football Great Again.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadScientist
Amen. I don't do nothing for free. Madtown pays me a nickle a word to post here. And if lots of people get pissed off, I see a little extra something in my check.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbuck27
Maybe you are old enough to remember the actual good old days, but I started following the Pack in the mid 70's when players stuck around year after year, even though most of them did not deserve to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
The good old days weren't always good.
And tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems.
The Green Bay Packers have lost a lot of their Offensive 2016 Roster Players in this FA period to date. It sure appears to me that FA is about players making the very best deal they can for themselves. It also appears to me that TT has decided to make some hard decisions based on a players real value to the teams future.
Offense:
As it has gone down the Packer OL will look remarkably different in terms of Roster spots as the team trains for the 2017 season. The Packers have lost more than Josh Sitton as we can now add Free Agency losses T. J. Lang ( TT and Ball reportedly low balled him) and J.C. Tretter has left Green Bay to play Center on the Cleveland Browns OL.
OL Don Barclay remains with Packers on a one-year deal that was relatively cheap.
It is of utmost importance to keep Aaron Rodgers on his feet so I have some concern as to how these losses may end up as a threat to Aaron Rodgers health.
TT has made moves at TE to upgrade that position (acquiring Martellus Bennett and Lance Kendricks) so there is no concern there and the draft; TT can now direct his attention to another position with a pick. It appears that nice guy and former 3rd Rd. pick Richard Rodgers time in Green Bay may soon expire.
TT it appears, either (depended on the accuracy of conflicting reports) lost out on a solid bid to retain Eddie Lacy (or a conflicting report says TT and Ball low balled Lacy as well as T. J. Lang) Whatever, Lacy accepted a incentive laden offer from the Arch Rival Seattle Seahawks. That will be an interesting watch for me. We know at least that Lacy left the Packers Organization with class and no bad feelings.
TT has to find help at the RB position.
Defense:
TT opened the vault and locked up OLB Nick Perry (a five year $59 million deal that includes an $18.5 million signing bonus. A nice deal for Nick Perry. Nice deals often go South for the Team.
Former Packers CB Davon House is returning to Green Bay. That cannot hurt the team as it is really hurting at the CB position. He will make a decent Nickleback.TT still needs more assurance for a legit NO. 1 CB.
TT needs so much more to bolster the teams defense. As I write this we are now watching for a possible signing of former Eagle Connar Barwin.
Nonsense, you had plenty of innovation. See, the Chiefs and Oilers would run on 3rd and long, and the Raiders would throw long on 1st and 2nd downs. Ok, so the 70s wasn't a good time for offensive innovation. But that is just because it was the defenses' turn to shine.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
When I say I liked the NFL of the 70s better I'm not speaking of offensive schemes (although the modern paradigm for offensive innovation was forged in the 70s with Coryell) but of being a fan, of following a team.
I am happy that Mad is treating you so well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
When the Lombardi era ended fans didn't stop being fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
Really? I don't think it is as dire as you suggest. We lost a RB who can be replaced in this upcoming draft. RB is one position where a rookie can come in a contribute significantly right away. We upgraded our TE position. The only position we are noticeably weaker on offense is RG with Lang gone. Perhaps we have a player ready to step into his shoes just like Taylor did when Sitton was waived.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbuck27
We do need to bolster our defense. I'm glad Perry is back and having House won't hurt. We still need help on the DL, LB and CB. The FA period isn't over yet and next month we have the draft which from all accounts seems to be one of the deeper classes in recent years.
It is a fact that we have lost a lot off the 2016 Roster. I will be explicit now:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pugger
My concern is mostly focused on the losses on the OL.
I will be even more explicit. TT has still a lot of CAP Money available to him and bringing in an impact player and there are still options available to him. I would suggest he stays in the game and signs that high potential impact player.
If his focus in this FA period was to get rid of the Deadwood; he still needs to replace that Deadwood with Roster players that will help the team get to next season's Super Bowl.
An upgrade at the TE position is hardly getting that job done.