LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
SOFT!Originally Posted by McGinn
No longer the member of any fan clubs. I'm tired of jinxing players out of the league and into obscurity.
Review of this kind of Bob McGinn breakdown:
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
SAWFT
HOFer
i heard that you can't believe a damn word that mcginn types
Clearly Bob McGinn is Satan
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
I believe most of Bob's reported material.
I do not believe most of Bob's conclusions. Remember, this is a man who was taught the only way he knows to develop a winning football team by Ron Wolf and one of his main conclusions is that you need a big running back and good running game to win in December at Lambeau.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Once upon a time I defended Brett Favre's overall character in his dealings with GB
As more information came out I changed my mind about that and openly admit I was wrong
Often I think our judgment of McGinn does not give him that flexibility. Dude has won a ton of accolades as a sportswriter. Despite being hated by most in here he's good at what he does.
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
And back when Wolf was GM the game was different. The running game was valued much more than it is now. If you asked him if that was still the case in today's game I'd bet he'd note the game has changed and he no longer believes that to be the case.
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
We are better off because the run game is not "valued" so much now. That being said, I'm coming around to the point of view that we are better off with the two new guys - even with just Bennett - than with Cook. Bennett's pass blocking mentioned in the article was impressive. Also, I didn't know he had basketball skills. And Kendricks I remember as a deep threat at Wisconsin, in addition to being a good blocker. The net effect of this is more flexibility in the passing game and possibly better run blocking, which I HOPE is used sparingly/as a change of pace with speed backs rather than plodders. I don't know if Kendrick has ever done much at fullback, but I really could see him lining up there occasionally, as Packer TEs often do. I also like Bennett's relatively high Wonderlic score, as one of Cook's weaknesses was mental lapses.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Between our 2 new te helping out the oline transition I think that the team must like what they saw in both Spriggs and Murphy, or I dont think TT would have let both Tretter and lang go.
If it was the DL evaluation I would be more concerned, but TT has proven efficent at drafting OL, plus rodgers helps the ol as well.
My only problem with McGinn, is that he'll offer these backhanded comments (e.g. [McCarthy and Rodgers limit how tough the Packers can become]) and then does not support that comment at all in the article. The part I bolded should have been edited out of the article completely. It's just sloppy.
No longer the member of any fan clubs. I'm tired of jinxing players out of the league and into obscurity.
No he actually still trots out the adage that you need to be able to run specifically in December. He's not good at changing with the times.
Exactly. He said this in relation to this years free agency proceedings. He wanted a big back too.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
You do need to be able to run. Once we were one dimensional, Atlanta pinned back the ears and had Rodgers scrambling for his life.
I think I've posted once or twice (or 100x) my preference for a TE who can actually..you know...block someone in the run game otherwise you have a glorified fat WR.
I know its just my pipe dream going on 5 years now, but I still am dreaming of taking advantage of the skill set we have on this team and going with no true RB, but having Monte or Cobb on the field with a Joe Mixon (yea, I went there, but he fits the role) mixed in. If the D doesn't honor the run, use those new TEs to crush it, wear them down and force them to honor it, then when they do, split the "RB" out wide with the TE inline, but upright and throw it.
Ellington would have fit that role, McCaffrey probably does, but Eddie certainly did not.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
Bob isn't saying you need to run to balance out the threats to your passing attack. He wants a big back to succeed in the cold of Lambeau come December.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
A defense pinning its ears back wasn't the insurmountable problem. Packers ran the ball 23 and 15 times in the WC and Divisional games, and they didn't seem to have any issues protecting Rodgers in those games. While I have almost entirely suppressed any memory of the Atlanta game, I suspect the problems with leaky pass pro against Atlanta probably had more to do with key injuries than an offense become one-dimensional. After all, once Lacy went down McCarthy developed a very successful one-dimensional passing attack. I don't remember, did Atlanta do something to negate the quick breaking routes and was GB unable to find a counter?
What PB said. He states that you need a big bruising back to have a chance to win in December. This came a couple months after Monty put up 180 against the Bears in December.
Neither is TT. He still thinks you can have a quality defense in this era of football using ILB's with pedestrian speed.
Who cares if McGinn changes with the times, he's just a journalist. He has no impact on what the team does. Unlike the GM.
Packers defense needs an injection of speed. Hopefully this draft will put some salve on that weeping sore.
I understand. What I disagree with is that it takes a big back. A good OL and a normal back will suffice. The problem with building a team around winning in Lambeau in December is that the superbowl is played in a warm area.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote