JJ Watt is going to be so, so, so good as a media guy.
JJ Watt is going to be so, so, so good as a media guy.
Goddamn shithead media puke.Originally Posted by call_me_ishmael
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
I was listening to him subbing in for AJ Hawk on McAfee and he is way better than Hawk IMO. It's probably easier to show up one time and do it but JJ comes off as so genuine and at least in tune with normal people and the lavish lifestyle these guys are able to live after earning big bucks. In short, for a very rich guy, he is relatable. I think he will be an elite broadcaster in short order and make some serious cashola doing it.
So you're not buying my Tex imitation?
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Is that your definition of media guy/puke? It ain't mine for the most part anyway. Most of the REAL media shitheads never played pro sports and are definitely NOT real or normal or genuine or whatever J J Watt is getting called. I didn't see him, so I don't know if he is like that or not, but it's very believable that he might be - the good things I mean.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
So someone who has never been a reporter or been trained as a media person, but has been a pro athlete who's wealthier than all the PackerRats put together is more believable and more credible and more "normal"that professional reporters who make about as much as APB?
Okay. Just trying to understand your world, Tex.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
He goes up a bunch because he went to the UW. If he went to Miami Tex would call him names also.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
Even though their stupid-assed opinions aren't worth shit, I suspect those media bastards make a helluv a lot more than APB or any of us in here, with maybe a couple of exceptions. If those assholes stuck to digging up actual facts, they might not be so bad, but their whole existence is speculation, opinions disguised as fact, and worst of all, an agenda of stirring up trouble. Somehow, I don't think J.J. Watt will be like that.
My world? My world is about enjoying life, a large part of which is seeing my favorite teams WIN. And I hate it when something could happen to blow that all up - like Rodgers going somewhere else, as well as shitheads actually WANTING that rottenness of losing to happen. Can you understand that? Or are you part of the problem? Most of your posts say the latter.
Last edited by texaspackerbacker; 03-29-2023 at 03:49 AM.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Alright, Tex. You're a fucking pig-headed idiot if you think that there are Packer fans who actually want the team to lose. I don't think anyone here wants this team to lose. Don't be so fucking simplistic.
There are people - and yes, I am one of them - who for different reasons are ready to move on from Rodgers. Some think his play is simply declining and it's useless to keep trying with him. Others don't like the guy. Some are just tired of the off-season drama. Some are not happy that he'd begun to exert control over player acquisition and retention. Some just want to see a new era. For some, it's a combination of the above.
And those who are ready to move on to Love - or to whomever - recognize that in the short term, the team might not do quite as well. But they are willing to live with Jordan Love as QB and the team going, say, 7 - 10, as opposed to having Rodgers one more year and going 8 - 9. That's what many people think the difference is. They could be wrong, sure. Or are there two more years with Rodgers scuffling along? Those people think Love might be good, and that 6 - 11 or 7 - 10 could be followed by some bright, successful years. Others think maybe Love will suck, and the team will tank, but that this could lead to a high draft pick and a shot at the next great Green Bay QB.
Your first premise - with Rodgers it's going to be great, without him they're going to be horrible for god knows how long - is just your opinion. It's not a fact, despite what you may believe. Your second premise, based on the first, that people who do not want Rodgers back therefore want the Packers to be horrible - is just wrong.
So if it's possible, stop calling people names because they've shaken up your world a little bit. I'm sorry your happiness seems so dependent upon the world, especially the Packer world, needing to look the way you want it to look.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Agree that I want GB to win, and maybe they won't win 13 games, but I don't think they were going to win 11 games next year with Rodgers.
Yes, next season might have more losses than wins, but it will be a chance to see something new, without the expectations for Super Bowl contention...and the subsequent crushing (playoff?) loss. The games will be more unpredictable.
The Packers didn't crack .500 with Rodgers as their QB until he'd played 29 games. It's going to take a bit of patience with JL, but they have a nucleus of young players who can keep them from being as bad as last season's Bears.
I will be cheering for GB to win.
Haven't heard JJ Watt. Some ex-players are dopes, some are smart with good opinions. I don't think non-players who are credentialed reporters like Tom Silverstein are media pukes. Matt Schneidmann at the Athletic is decent, Bill Huber at SI... again, these are credentialed reporters who have editors and fact-checkers.
Skip Bayless or Colin Cowherd fall more into the media puke category for me, and I don't pay attention to them. They aren't 'reporting' anything factual unless someone else has already broken the story.
I don't know who Tex is calling a puke, it's all a vague generalization, or maybe it's just him stereotyping everyone as a puke, which is a helluva way to go (ignorantly) thru life.
What's undeniable is that there are plenty of Packer fans, and a lot bigger percentage in here than in general, who want WHAT ABSOLUTELY WILL CAUSE LOSING FOOTBALL - stupidly getting rid of Rodgers. Yeah, I doubt many or any who claim to be Packer fans want the team to lose, but I read this idiocy about moving on or whatever, and it's clear that a lot of people are damn dumb enough to want THE CAUSE of that losing football.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Obviously, I will be cheering for the Packers to win too, just not expecting it - and I'd be extremely pleased to be wrong about the Packers being as good with Love as they would be/have been over the years with Rodgers. Just typing that, though makes me think, no way.
I haven't heard Watt either. I can't think of many former players who are dopes, Aikman maybe but he's the only one that comes to mind. McAfee? No, he's way better than just about anybody who hasn't been a player. I have a weakness, I guess: when I read articles - which I do a LOT even though I hate the content and the writers, I seldom look at the byline. Silverstein obviously I've heard of, your other "good" examples not so much, but I really haven't paid attention whether they are the ones writing the worst of the shit or not ...... and don't get me started about God damned "fact checkers", or there could be bans. I tend to lump them all as "media pukes" as a default until proven otherwise - which hardly ever happens. And you didn't address the FACT at least I see it as a fact that those bastards, probably even the "good" ones see it as their sick role in life to stir up trouble.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
I think some reporters do like to stir the pot. I think McGinn was that way, at least with his opinion pieces. When he stuck to analysis he was much better. I'm not a big fan of opinion pieces anyway.
Not everyone is a muckraker. Investigative journalism does and has played an important role, in the US and around the world.
Fact-checking is very important. Like you, I'm not interested in getting banned, but let's just say there's a certain large news outlet that didn't maintain tight enough editorial control or have its personalities stick to facts enough, and it's got them tangled up in some nasty legal trouble that could be financially crippling for them.
One thing about sports reporting -- the big national guys like Schefter will get the big scoops because they are coming from the agent and they want exposure. The real good, interesting nuggets IMO come from the local guys who are in the building every day and talking to everyone, even the assistant equipment manager and the goings on. They're more likely to be plugged in to what people are really thinking inside the building.
You are convinced that if Rodgers isn't the quarterback, chaos and disaster will reign. That may happen, but it's not a fact. Unless you live in the multiverse, and if so, then there are other constructs that also exist - Rodgers sucks next year and the Packers look promising, Rodgers is mediocre with the Jets and so is Love with the Packers, and on and on. "Absolutely will cause losing football" is just a strong opinion, nothing more.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Chaos and disaster, I don't know, but LOSING at the minimum more than half of the time, hell yeah. And granted, that's a "strong opinion", but just watch, it's gonna be a correct opinion - and I'd love to be wrong about that. What I'd love a lot more is for it all to be moot because Rodgers is still the Packers QB in '24 and beyond. I'm not holding my breath, though.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
I'm NOT gonna mention where I'm gonna start a new thread about God damned media shitheads because we aren't supposed to even mention that supposed to be unknown paradise of a different kind of posting.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Oh! Just like your strong opinion that neither the Packers or Rodgers would consider a trade?
Didn't we just have losing football WITH Rodgers?
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
Asked and answered - one bad year, Rodgers' own play not even all that horrible except in comparison to his own GOAT standard, the primary reasons for the badness being his own injury as well as injuries to Watson and Doubs, as well as what the new guy said, losing Adams and MVS - circumstances extremely unlikely to occur again.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
(checks NFL standings)
Yes, yes we did.
Also, there's not much of a historical precedent (outside of Brady) for sustained winning football with QBs hitting their 40's. Most player's performance takes a steep decline very early in their 30's, making it to their late 30's is an accomplishment in itself. Asking for more than that is asking for something at the extremes of statistical probability. Being an MVP doesn't mean you are going to play that way as you age, especially past your prime. Ask Cam Newton or Matt Ryan.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote