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?Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
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
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?
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
Didn't we just have losing football WITH Rodgers?
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
(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