To all the McGinn Detractors

[bobblehead]

I noticed a lot of people here who don't like Bob McGinn and I had to point out what I just read.

2007 McGinn predicted the pack would be between 12-4 and 14-2
2008 McGinn predicted 6-10
2009 he is set to make his prediction before the bears game...tune it, no reason to play the season, he is quite the prognosticator.

[pbmax]

Is he going to publish it, or will white smoke appear at the top of the Atrium at Lambeau Field?

[sheepshead]

Is he going to publish it, or will white smoke appear at the top of the Atrium at Lambeau Field?



:lol:

[Fritz]

Just because he's predicted the Packers' record correctly the last two years doesn't make him a good sportswriter. People weren't unhappy with McGinn because he couldn't predict a team's success, they were unhappy because he A) lacked deep knowledge of the game he's supposed to cover, and/or B) seemed to often work without doing the legwork necessary to report rather than just speculate, and/or C) seemed to have a bias he needed to share.

[sharpe1027]

I noticed a lot of people here who don't like Bob McGinn and I had to point out what I just read.

2007 McGinn predicted the pack would be between 12-4 and 14-2
2008 McGinn predicted 6-10
2009 he is set to make his prediction before the bears game...tune it, no reason to play the season, he is quite the prognosticator.

Good predictions. Kudos (insert image).

That doesn't change any of the reasons he is often frustrating to read.

[Waldo]

Just because he's predicted the Packers' record correctly the last two years doesn't make him a good sportswriter. People weren't unhappy with McGinn because he couldn't predict a team's success, they were unhappy because he A) lacked deep knowledge of the game he's supposed to cover, and/or B) seemed to often work without doing the legwork necessary to report rather than just speculate, and/or C) seemed to have a bias he needed to share.

This.

I don't care how well he can predict the season. Go to Vegas and get rich.

He uses his "unnamed scouts" for virtually everything he writes. Some of the stuff he says on behalf of them is laughable at best. The fact that he can't filter out the laughable at best statements just makes it worse ("Pickett can't handle the nose because he can't handle a double team." LOL).

During the Favre wars he was the most noticeably biased pro-Favre beat reporter, laying into the FO over and over.

Many of the falsehoods out there that get fans riled up, originated with him. He's been one of the leaders of the anti-ZBS crusade from day 1, doing a ridiculously poor job explaining it, and gets a jab in about it regularly. Some things he has gotten fans to believe is totally false (the whole "struggling in the red zone and on 3rd and short" is riled up by him and his constant low level gripes in the stuff he writes).

[Scott Campbell]

I hate his interviews. He interrogates his detainees like he's Mike Wallace unearthing some kind of cover-up.

[Partial]

Just because he's predicted the Packers' record correctly the last two years doesn't make him a good sportswriter. People weren't unhappy with McGinn because he couldn't predict a team's success, they were unhappy because he A) lacked deep knowledge of the game he's supposed to cover, and/or B) seemed to often work without doing the legwork necessary to report rather than just speculate, and/or C) seemed to have a bias he needed to share.

This.

I don't care how well he can predict the season. Go to Vegas and get rich.

He uses his "unnamed scouts" for virtually everything he writes. Some of the stuff he says on behalf of them is laughable at best. The fact that he can't filter out the laughable at best statements just makes it worse ("Pickett can't handle the nose because he can't handle a double team." LOL).

During the Favre wars he was the most noticeably biased pro-Favre beat reporter, laying into the FO over and over.

Many of the falsehoods out there that get fans riled up, originated with him. He's been one of the leaders of the anti-ZBS crusade from day 1, doing a ridiculously poor job explaining it, and gets a jab in about it regularly. Some things he has gotten fans to believe is totally false (the whole "struggling in the red zone and on 3rd and short" is riled up by him and his constant low level gripes in the stuff he writes).

I would like you to start quoting all of the scouts by name that are your sources, then. Oh wait, you don't have any connections and if you did you surely wouldn't throw them under the bus and risk their jobs. Face palm.

Have you ever considered that writers are trying to appeal to a wide audience, beyond football fanantics like yourself? The kind of stuff you steal from wikipedia or simply make up is well over the heads of 99% of the casual football fans who do not post in a forum. I bet a good chunk of these people still read a newspaper.

Your arrogance is what gets me. You have an I'm smarter than everyone else attitude, yet you're consistently wrong. McGinn, on the other hand, has a proven track record, has been extremely well respected in his industry w/ shoutouts from national journalists like Peter King, etc. What have you done? Where is your credibility to knock someone like McGinn? Writing some blog does not make you a published journalist.

BTW, still waiting on that check. PM me for my address. Be a man and admit that you were wrong.

[Zool]

Be a man and admit that you were wrong.


Umm...This might just be my opinion, but you need to learn when to STFU.

[Zool]

Is he going to publish it, or will white smoke appear at the top of the Atrium at Lambeau Field?

MIND FREAK!!!!!

[pbmax]

I don't mind McGinn or the rude questions. Wilde did take it too far when he asked McCarthy last year, in the middle of the Favre fiasco, "Can you answer fans who are wondering 'Do those two (T2) guys know what the hell they are doing' "?

But McGinn gets on an angle and nothing will shake him from it, for an example see the yearly ZBS questions despite the fact that they have been moving away from it year by year (or the fact that the rushing game the last two years has been more than serviceable). In a recent chat, he was on about how Rodgers was still acting like a know it all, overconfident fool in his second year. This despite the source of this impression starting with rumors during his draft. By his second year, we had reports that Rodgers outlook and approach had changed.

He clearly caught onto something about the 07 team earlier than others. But last year, everyone was predicting the Packers falling to near .500 because they believed 2007 to be either flukish or mostly Favre.

The fact that the QB and offense turned out well and the defense and ST went into the tank was not forseen by many I read. Give McGinn credit though. He was down on Sanders earlier than everybody but Bretsky and wist. :lol:

[mraynrand]

The critiques of McGinn on here are fair; people seem to have identified all his weaknesses. But I've read McGinn and a whole host of other beat reporters, living in NFL cities Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, San Fran, and Cleveland. Terry Pluto and Clare Farnsworth are thought to be among the best beat writers out there. In some ways, they are superior to McGinn - better writers, a little better internal knowledge of the game. But none of them match up with some of the in depth content of McGinn. McGinn presents more interesting and informative aspects of the game than most beat writers. He has some really annoying tendencies and some obvious flaws (mentioned above in this thread), but he compares favorably to other beat writers - even some of the best.

[sharpe1027]

I would like you to start quoting all of the scouts by name that are your sources, then. Oh wait, you don't have any connections and if you did you surely wouldn't throw them under the bus and risk their jobs. Face palm.

Have you ever considered that writers are trying to appeal to a wide audience, beyond football fanantics like yourself? The kind of stuff you steal from wikipedia or simply make up is well over the heads of 99% of the casual football fans who do not post in a forum. I bet a good chunk of these people still read a newspaper.

Your arrogance is what gets me. You have an I'm smarter than everyone else attitude, yet you're consistently wrong. McGinn, on the other hand, has a proven track record, has been extremely well respected in his industry w/ shoutouts from national journalists like Peter King, etc. What have you done? Where is your credibility to knock someone like McGinn? Writing some blog does not make you a published journalist.

BTW, still waiting on that check. PM me for my address. Be a man and admit that you were wrong.

Partial calling out someone for not admitting they were wrong? Did I wake up in Bizzarro world? Your beef with Waldo may be justified, but you have to realize you are one of the most stubborn SOBs in refusing to admit anything.

[mraynrand]

I would like you to start quoting all of the scouts by name that are your sources, then. Oh wait, you don't have any connections and if you did you surely wouldn't throw them under the bus and risk their jobs. Face palm.

Have you ever considered that writers are trying to appeal to a wide audience, beyond football fanantics like yourself? The kind of stuff you steal from wikipedia or simply make up is well over the heads of 99% of the casual football fans who do not post in a forum. I bet a good chunk of these people still read a newspaper.

Your arrogance is what gets me. You have an I'm smarter than everyone else attitude, yet you're consistently wrong. McGinn, on the other hand, has a proven track record, has been extremely well respected in his industry w/ shoutouts from national journalists like Peter King, etc. What have you done? Where is your credibility to knock someone like McGinn? Writing some blog does not make you a published journalist.

BTW, still waiting on that check. PM me for my address. Be a man and admit that you were wrong.

Partial calling out someone for not admitting they were wrong? Did I wake up in Bizzarro world? Your beef with Waldo may be justified, but you have to realize you are one of the most stubborn SOBs in refusing to admit anything.

Expected response: "No I'm not!"

[Tarlam!]

Wow, Partial. Probably the worst post I've ever seen here. Congrats on that.

[KYPack]

I would like you to start quoting all of the scouts by name that are your sources, then. Oh wait, you don't have any connections and if you did you surely wouldn't throw them under the bus and risk their jobs. Face palm.

Have you ever considered that writers are trying to appeal to a wide audience, beyond football fanantics like yourself? The kind of stuff you steal from wikipedia or simply make up is well over the heads of 99% of the casual football fans who do not post in a forum. I bet a good chunk of these people still read a newspaper.

Your arrogance is what gets me. You have an I'm smarter than everyone else attitude, yet you're consistently wrong. McGinn, on the other hand, has a proven track record, has been extremely well respected in his industry w/ shoutouts from national journalists like Peter King, etc. What have you done? Where is your credibility to knock someone like McGinn? Writing some blog does not make you a published journalist.

BTW, still waiting on that check. PM me for my address. Be a man and admit that you were wrong.

Partial, slow way the hell down. Waldo may make the odd error in his posts, but "consistently wrong"? No way I'd characterize his posts in that manner. He does a lot of actual statistical research and posts what he thinks. Basically, he does a pretty good job of that.

McGinn?

The guy has a definite handle on the team he covers. One area of his writing that has always bothered me is a disdain for the nuts and bolts of football. He spent a whole year calling the Packers D a 4-3 over. The Packers rarely were in an over D and basically played a vanilla 4-3 under 99% of the time in the "Sanders era". That shit really bothered me.

JSO has employed writers who could care less about football basics (McGinn Silverstein, etc) or who don't have a clue about them (Lori Nickel). Most staffs have a guy with a great deal of understanding of Pro intricacies. It doesn't have a broad appeal, but it is a necessity. JSO doesn't believe in necessities anymore, I guess.

[mraynrand]

Most staffs have a guy with a great deal of understanding of Pro intricacies. It doesn't have a broad appeal, but it is a necessity.

I'd quibble with you a little on this one - I would change 'most' to 'some.' It's easier to see why in radio and TV - a lot of radio stations bring in a guy who knows the game to the last detail, and every time he starts talking, ratings plummet. It's worse on TV (think weather report on the FOX pregame show - that gives a whole new meaning to 'Boob tube'). It's a sad state of affairs for the football purists who want Xs and Os, but that stuff doesn't have as much appeal in the popular media.

[Waldo]

The critiques of McGinn on here are fair; people seem to have identified all his weaknesses. But I've read McGinn and a whole host of other beat reporters, living in NFL cities Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, San Fran, and Cleveland. Terry Pluto and Clare Farnsworth are thought to be among the best beat writers out there. In some ways, they are superior to McGinn - better writers, a little better internal knowledge of the game. But none of them match up with some of the in depth content of McGinn. McGinn presents more interesting and informative aspects of the game than most beat writers. He has some really annoying tendencies and some obvious flaws (mentioned above in this thread), but he compares favorably to other beat writers - even some of the best.

Rick Gosselin is a man among boys when it comes to beat writers.

One thing I really respect about him, he is his own source. He is one of the best, most accurate draft gurus out there, and one of the most knowledgeable members of the press on the history of the game. He doesn't just cover the Cowboys, he covers all teams, and his analysis of the NFL at large is some of the best.

A couple of years back the JSO used to have great draft coverage when they had Gil Brandt do some stuff for them in the spring time.

[KYPack]

Most staffs have a guy with a great deal of understanding of Pro intricacies. It doesn't have a broad appeal, but it is a necessity.

I'd quibble with you a little on this one - I would change 'most' to 'some.' It's easier to see why in radio and TV - a lot of radio stations bring in a guy who knows the game to the last detail, and every time he starts talking, ratings plummet. It's worse on TV (think weather report on the FOX pregame show - that gives a whole new meaning to 'Boob tube'). It's a sad state of affairs for the football purists who want Xs and Os, but that stuff doesn't have as much appeal in the popular media.

No, I agree with you.

The broadcast media doesn't have the time or the bandwidth to get into detail of the game.

Pro football fans don't want to hear about the labor pains, they just want to play with the baby.

The print media is another story. Every staff on a major newspaper covering a pro football team needs to have a source (preferably a person in-house) who can explain the detail of the game to the McGinns who are writing their stories.

If JSO had such a resource, a 2006 story by Lori Nickel never would have seen the light of day, much less have been printed. She interviewed Jags about the ZBS. Then she wrote a particularly execrable story about the scheme. if JSO had a football analyst on staff, he could have helped. He would have told her, "Lori, you can't file this piece of shit, he did nothing but blow smoke up your ass for 90 minutes".

But it was mind over matter. She didn't mind and it didn't matter.

Fox put your weather girl on hold for a year so she can have her baby. Maybe she will bring it to the studio so the fans can play with it, eh?

[bobblehead]

Just because he's predicted the Packers' record correctly the last two years doesn't make him a good sportswriter. People weren't unhappy with McGinn because he couldn't predict a team's success, they were unhappy because he A) lacked deep knowledge of the game he's supposed to cover, and/or B) seemed to often work without doing the legwork necessary to report rather than just speculate, and/or C) seemed to have a bias he needed to share.

This.

I don't care how well he can predict the season. Go to Vegas and get rich.

He uses his "unnamed scouts" for virtually everything he writes. Some of the stuff he says on behalf of them is laughable at best. The fact that he can't filter out the laughable at best statements just makes it worse ("Pickett can't handle the nose because he can't handle a double team." LOL).

During the Favre wars he was the most noticeably biased pro-Favre beat reporter, laying into the FO over and over.

Many of the falsehoods out there that get fans riled up, originated with him. He's been one of the leaders of the anti-ZBS crusade from day 1, doing a ridiculously poor job explaining it, and gets a jab in about it regularly. Some things he has gotten fans to believe is totally false (the whole "struggling in the red zone and on 3rd and short" is riled up by him and his constant low level gripes in the stuff he writes).

He is a fucking journalist, he isn't supposed to filter out what you consider the best and worst waldo. If he did that he would be doing exactly what you accuse him of...writing an article first and then building the facts around it.

He doesn't name the scouts becasue they would stop talking to him if he did...DUH!!!

As far as the "falsehoods" I'd have to see the article and the facts to dispute him as I don't recall him saying anything about 3rd and short. I have seen about 80% of this forum saying that though.

As far as the BF deal...I disagreed with him and I think history has shown that TT and MM did the right thing. But again, he is still merely a human being and will make mistakes. Show me a perfect journalist who's opinions never get proven wrong?

[bobblehead]

Just because he's predicted the Packers' record correctly the last two years doesn't make him a good sportswriter. People weren't unhappy with McGinn because he couldn't predict a team's success, they were unhappy because he A) lacked deep knowledge of the game he's supposed to cover, and/or B) seemed to often work without doing the legwork necessary to report rather than just speculate, and/or C) seemed to have a bias he needed to share.

I would say the fact he got the records right while most around here got them way wrong makes your point A) laughable at best.

[Fritz]

Predicting a team's record correctly two years ago doesn't translate into deep knowledge of the game.

[pbmax]

During the Favre wars he was the most noticeably biased pro-Favre beat reporter, laying into the FO over and over.
FO? Football Organization? Just curious.

I thought McGinn and Wilde were actually two of the few who gave a straight view of the Packers side of the issue. This is mainly a function of their sources. The Packers talked to the local guys (I am sure both were surprised that Thompson, Dorsey or McKenzie had their number) as well as Glazer and Schefter. Brett talked to Al Jones, Mooch, ESPN and Greta.

McGinn's opening pre-season article in 2008 (the first one he writes after the draft, at the start of camp) basically said "So the Packers decided to move on from Favre ..." gave his explanation that this decision had its genesis in meetings after the Giants game and went from there to explain why this was reasonable of Favre's abilities at this point of his career. He didn't go at them for this much after that.

Some thought he and Wilde were harsh after Favre left. Some saw this a evidence they had an agenda, I saw it as evidence the Packers stopped talking to them. Combine closed lines of communication and a 6-10 record and you will get a litany of complaints.

[pbmax]

He is a fucking journalist, he isn't supposed to filter out what you consider the best and worst waldo. If he did that he would be doing exactly what you accuse him of...writing an article first and then building the facts around it....

...As far as the "falsehoods" I'd have to see the article and the facts to dispute him as I don't recall him saying anything about 3rd and short. I have seen about 80% of this forum saying that though.
As a journalist, if you don't filter what sources are telling you then you will be writing and echoing a poor understanding or pure spin. If Waldo is right about the Pickett quote, then it gives the reader a false impression. Pickett is not Grady Jackson immovable, but he can handle a double-team. If McGinn needs to use this source to get at a different nugget of truth, then he needs to clarify with context or a differing viewpoint.

And McGinn directly blamed the ZBS emphasis on small lineman for the short yardage problems in 2006 and 2007. He rarely noted that the same ZBS lineman were much better at short yardage in 2008. The worst offense is not acknowledging Colledge (the first ZBS body type added by T2) having developed into a force as a run blocker. I still almost fall out of my chair remembering him planting Fat Pat Williams a yard deep in the endzone with a one on one block for a TD at Lambeau last year.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Partial calling someone out for not admitting they are wrong.

Ty agreeing with Rand and Bobble on assesment of McGinn.

Might be time to head back to the js online..things are getting a bit to weird here.

[retailguy]

Partial calling someone out for not admitting they are wrong.

Ty agreeing with Rand and Bobble on assesment of McGinn.

Might be time to head back to the js online..things are getting a bit to weird here.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.... :shock:

I'm just sayin..... :D :oops: :wink:

[Partial]

Partial calling someone out for not admitting they are wrong.

Ty agreeing with Rand and Bobble on assesment of McGinn.

Might be time to head back to the js online..things are getting a bit to weird here.

Dude, you know I'm man enough to take my medicine. Always have been, always will be.

[retailguy]

Predicting a team's record correctly two years ago doesn't translate into deep knowledge of the game.

However, predicting a teams record incorrectly around here will quickly get you ridiculed, labeled and thought of as if you don't know anything.

I love ya Fritz, but you can't have it both ways...

Overall I think McGinn does a pretty good job. Not perfect, but better than most. I'm glad to read him, find I can sort through most of the bullshit, and typically glean quality information from his stuff.

I like him a lot better than Greg Bedard, but I miss cliff a lot. Cleft is a humorous substitute, kind of like your old uncle who thought he was funnier than he was, but, in 2009 it is what it is....

[boiga]

Speaking of reporters, did you guys know that Jason Wilde is back, working for the local espn affiliate:

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/wilde/

Is ESPN trying to get the monopoly on all sports writers around the country?

[Waldo]

Predicting a team's record correctly two years ago doesn't translate into deep knowledge of the game.

However, predicting a teams record incorrectly around here will quickly get you ridiculed, labeled and thought of as if you don't know anything.

I love ya Fritz, but you can't have it both ways...

Overall I think McGinn does a pretty good job. Not perfect, but better than most. I'm glad to read him, find I can sort through most of the bullshit, and typically glean quality information from his stuff.

I like him a lot better than Greg Bedard, but I miss cliff a lot. Cleft is a humorous substitute, kind of like your old uncle who thought he was funnier than he was, but, in 2009 it is what it is....

I didn't think that I'd miss Cliff, but I do. The guy was a prick in every sense of the word, but when it came to football, he had a level of competance none of them have nowadays.

Notice 2-3 years after Cliff ends his "keep Art Monk out of the Hall" crusade, he gets in. For years he had been #1 on the "guys that deserve to be in Canton but aren't" lists, his biggest roadblock of course was Cliff Cristl, who was the most anti-Monk voter/selector.

[pbmax]

Overall I think McGinn does a pretty good job. Not perfect, but better than most. I'm glad to read him, find I can sort through most of the bullshit, and typically glean quality information from his stuff.
Exactly, though I don't miss Cliff as much as RG seems to.

[retailguy]

Overall I think McGinn does a pretty good job. Not perfect, but better than most. I'm glad to read him, find I can sort through most of the bullshit, and typically glean quality information from his stuff.
Exactly, though I don't miss Cliff as much as RG seems to.

Not pining away for him exactly, but fair to say I'd rather read Cliffy than McGinn and I'd rather read McGinn than Bedard, and I haven't even read a Lori Nickel article in so long I don't even know if she still works there....

[pbmax]

Notice 2-3 years after Cliff ends his "keep Art Monk out of the Hall" crusade, he gets in. For years he had been #1 on the "guys that deserve to be in Canton but aren't" lists, his biggest roadblock of course was Cliff Cristl, who was the most anti-Monk voter/selector.
I thought Cliff was keeping his vote for a couple of years, even after retirement? Who got the vote?

[bobblehead]

Predicting a team's record correctly two years ago doesn't translate into deep knowledge of the game.

2 years in a ROW....and he went wildly against the grain both years. I guess in the minds of many though, the only thing that proves unequivocally that someone knows what they are talking about is if you (not specifically you, but whomever is listening) agree with them.

Look, if I can't point out that history has proven a guy accurate in his assessments as proof of knowledge, then what can I use??

[bobblehead]

He is a fucking journalist, he isn't supposed to filter out what you consider the best and worst waldo. If he did that he would be doing exactly what you accuse him of...writing an article first and then building the facts around it....

...As far as the "falsehoods" I'd have to see the article and the facts to dispute him as I don't recall him saying anything about 3rd and short. I have seen about 80% of this forum saying that though.
As a journalist, if you don't filter what sources are telling you then you will be writing and echoing a poor understanding or pure spin. If Waldo is right about the Pickett quote, then it gives the reader a false impression. Pickett is not Grady Jackson immovable, but he can handle a double-team. If McGinn needs to use this source to get at a different nugget of truth, then he needs to clarify with context or a differing viewpoint.

And McGinn directly blamed the ZBS emphasis on small lineman for the short yardage problems in 2006 and 2007. He rarely noted that the same ZBS lineman were much better at short yardage in 2008. The worst offense is not acknowledging Colledge (the first ZBS body type added by T2) having developed into a force as a run blocker. I still almost fall out of my chair remembering him planting Fat Pat Williams a yard deep in the endzone with a one on one block for a TD at Lambeau last year.

The sources grading an individual are giving their OPINIONS...of course you are not supposed to filter them. If you do that you are writing an article with an agenda.

edit: and further more he doesn't just pick one thing to show an agenda. When you read that pickett can't handle a double team there is often a comment by another scout right behind it saying pickett is an immovable wall and the heart of the defense. He is simply shotgunning what the scouts say to him and allowing us to have access to the minds of a scout.

[Zool]

Predicting a team's record correctly two years ago doesn't translate into deep knowledge of the game.

2 years in a ROW....and he went wildly against the grain both years. I guess in the minds of many though, the only thing that proves unequivocally that someone knows what they are talking about is if you (not specifically you, but whomever is listening) agree with them.

Look, if I can't point out that history has proven a guy accurate in his assessments as proof of knowledge, then what can I use??

How close were his predictions the previous 10 years?

[bobblehead]

Partial calling someone out for not admitting they are wrong.

Ty agreeing with Rand and Bobble on assesment of McGinn.

Might be time to head back to the js online..things are getting a bit to weird here.

Scary as it is ty, you and I are almost always in agreement on football matters....the world of politics, well, we couldn't be further apart.

[bobblehead]

Predicting a team's record correctly two years ago doesn't translate into deep knowledge of the game.

2 years in a ROW....and he went wildly against the grain both years. I guess in the minds of many though, the only thing that proves unequivocally that someone knows what they are talking about is if you (not specifically you, but whomever is listening) agree with them.

Look, if I can't point out that history has proven a guy accurate in his assessments as proof of knowledge, then what can I use??

How close were his predictions the previous 10 years?

I don't know, but you are more than capable and have every right to look them up and prove me wrong, but simply implying that they weren't good won't cut it. Either put up or don't speculate. Or if you are going to speculate do it in a much better way.

for instance:

You may be right bobblehead, but 2 years doesn't make a genius. I don't know what the prior 8 years to that were, but they MIGHT show a different story.

[sharpe1027]

Predicting a team's record correctly two years ago doesn't translate into deep knowledge of the game.

2 years in a ROW....and he went wildly against the grain both years. I guess in the minds of many though, the only thing that proves unequivocally that someone knows what they are talking about is if you (not specifically you, but whomever is listening) agree with them.

Look, if I can't point out that history has proven a guy accurate in his assessments as proof of knowledge, then what can I use??

Point out all you like. I would like to see his reasoning for those predictions, otherwise I could care less. If he correctly predicted the Packers record by reading his horoscope, does that prove his football knowledge?

[Freak Out]

Is he the Press Gazette guy? I see the big countdown is underway for the Oracle to speak. You have to pay to read his stuff correct?

[Fritz]

First, RG, I'm curious about the people-get-made-fun-of-thing. Did you get ripped last year for saying the team would or wouldn't do well? I don't remember. I've written some fairly extensive posts as to why I think it's fun but foolish to predict teams' records, and I've written even more regarding the foolishness of saying "If the team goes ___ and ___, I'll be happy."

My basic point as to predicting records is that so much depends on injuries anc other context (like schedule) that predicting records is fun and fine for fans, but to take any of it as a serious estimation of how good a team will be isn't really a good idea. A team can be poised and loaded and lose one guy and the whole thing will change in that instant. So I'm not quite sure how I'm trying to have it both ways.

Bobble, I wonder if we are thinking of different definitions of knowledge. For me, knowledge means understanding how a defensive or offensive system actually works or is supposed to work (what the roles of various players are in their given positions), understanding when a guy is doing his job in his position and when he isn't, understanding the salary cap and how it works, and having more than a passing knowledge of other teams and players. (For example, I am aggravated by television announcers who don't know the players as well as I, a casual fan, do). Not sure that's a complete list, but it covers some of the essentials.

Knowing all of the above and then some probably isn't going to ensure that you can predict someone's record - there are just too many variables. Besides injuries, for one example, there might be a team on the schedule that looks like an automatic "W" for your team - say Atlanta last year - that turns out to be a much better team than anyone thought (sometimes even coaches are surprised - I think MM was a little surprised by 07).

For you, however, it sounds like knowledge is linked to the idea that one can as a result of having knowledge be more accurate in predicting outcomes.

I don't think that is so, which is why I stopped studying The Racing Form a few years ago and began to bet on the ponies' names.

[sharpe1027]

I read a 2008 prediction by McgGinn where he predicted between 5-11 and 9-7. I could predict two years in a row with that much leeway.

The substance of the article was on in many respects. He cited as a concern: injuries; the running game seeing 8-man frunts; run-stopping ability; lack of pass rush; lack of depth; TT's style of management; lack of defensive imagination; aging players.

So, yeah he ended up being mostly correct on the reasons and the Packers fell within his huge prediction range. The problem was he basically wrote the article as a list of every possible reason that the team would not be as good as 2007.

But again, it doesn't change the other points of frustration.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Is he the Press Gazette guy? I see the big countdown is underway for the Oracle to speak. You have to pay to read his stuff correct?
Nope, you can read my stuff for free.

[Zool]

Predicting a team's record correctly two years ago doesn't translate into deep knowledge of the game.

2 years in a ROW....and he went wildly against the grain both years. I guess in the minds of many though, the only thing that proves unequivocally that someone knows what they are talking about is if you (not specifically you, but whomever is listening) agree with them.

Look, if I can't point out that history has proven a guy accurate in his assessments as proof of knowledge, then what can I use??

How close were his predictions the previous 10 years?

I don't know, but you are more than capable and have every right to look them up and prove me wrong, but simply implying that they weren't good won't cut it. Either put up or don't speculate. Or if you are going to speculate do it in a much better way.

for instance:

You may be right bobblehead, but 2 years doesn't make a genius. I don't know what the prior 8 years to that were, but they MIGHT show a different story.

Or I was just asking a simple fucking question without weighing in either way and was wondering if you had looked it up. You're the one who said he knows what he's talking about because he fucking guessed right for 2 years.

[bobblehead]

I read a 2008 prediction by McgGinn where he predicted between 5-11 and 9-7. I could predict two years in a row with that much leeway.

The substance of the article was on in many respects. He cited as a concern: injuries; the running game seeing 8-man frunts; run-stopping ability; lack of pass rush; lack of depth; TT's style of management; lack of defensive imagination; aging players.

So, yeah he ended up being mostly correct on the reasons and the Packers fell within his huge prediction range. The problem was he basically wrote the article as a list of every possible reason that the team would not be as good as 2007.

But again, it doesn't change the other points of frustration.

could you provide a link? JSO has on the front page his predictions the last 2 seasons which is exactly as I remember them.

2007: between 12-4 and 14-2
2008: 6-10

In '07 most thought we were .500 at best
In '08 many figured we were 10-6 at worst if rodgers played well.

[bobblehead]

Predicting a team's record correctly two years ago doesn't translate into deep knowledge of the game.

2 years in a ROW....and he went wildly against the grain both years. I guess in the minds of many though, the only thing that proves unequivocally that someone knows what they are talking about is if you (not specifically you, but whomever is listening) agree with them.

Look, if I can't point out that history has proven a guy accurate in his assessments as proof of knowledge, then what can I use??

How close were his predictions the previous 10 years?

I don't know, but you are more than capable and have every right to look them up and prove me wrong, but simply implying that they weren't good won't cut it. Either put up or don't speculate. Or if you are going to speculate do it in a much better way.

for instance:

You may be right bobblehead, but 2 years doesn't make a genius. I don't know what the prior 8 years to that were, but they MIGHT show a different story.

Or I was just asking a simple fucking question without weighing in either way and was wondering if you had looked it up. You're the one who said he knows what he's talking about because he fucking guessed right for 2 years.

Ok, not the way I read it. If I had the previous 10 years I would have either realized I am wrong and not posted at all or included them if they validated my point. Print doesn't use inflection and sorry if I thought you were trying to make a point with speculation, my bad.

I should have told you to type it:

"Any idea what his records were the previous 10 years or is this all you have?" I truly took your question to imply that I was cherry picking.

[Freak Out]

Is he the Press Gazette guy? I see the big countdown is underway for the Oracle to speak. You have to pay to read his stuff correct?
Nope, you can read my stuff for free.

I get much more enjoyment reading the...wisdom :) spewed in these forums then I ever do reading a paid pro's work in regards to the Packers.

[retailguy]

First, RG, I'm curious about the people-get-made-fun-of-thing. Did you get ripped last year for saying the team would or wouldn't do well? I don't remember. I've written some fairly extensive posts as to why I think it's fun but foolish to predict teams' records, and I've written even more regarding the foolishness of saying "If the team goes ___ and ___, I'll be happy."

My basic point as to predicting records is that so much depends on injuries anc other context (like schedule) that predicting records is fun and fine for fans, but to take any of it as a serious estimation of how good a team will be isn't really a good idea. A team can be poised and loaded and lose one guy and the whole thing will change in that instant. So I'm not quite sure how I'm trying to have it both ways.



Well, I was talking more about a general trend. People love to stick it to someone when they're wrong, and seldom remember when they are right.

It did happen to me once. I predicted 6-10 in 2007. I was summarily criticized for my negative outlook on that team. For weeks folks would ask if I was ready to retract my prediction, and it was culminated during week 10 or so, when I self stickied my infamous "mea culpa" to the top of the Packers forum. I then put myself in a one year self imposed exile from predictions, which I've largely extended since I don't predict very much of anything any longer.

My "lack of faith" in the 2007 team doesn't mean I don't understand football, as much as it indicates I wasn't so high on some players we had, and I wasn't high on how they'd play as a team. I got that part wrong. I got a lot of other stuff right, though.

So, admittedly, I'm a bit sensitive there, Fritz. :wink:

Many years ago, Ray Nitchke used to write for someone, Packer update maybe?(70s & 80s), and every season when optimism flowed, he'd conclude every article with the following (paraphrased): "10-6 is VERY possible. And How!"

I'm going to stick with the homer prediction because I'll catch less flack, and keep my serious concerns private from now on. :wink:

[HarveyWallbangers]

If I remember correctly, you didn't just predict 6-10. You beat into our heads how shitty the team was going to be and how inept Thompson was over and over. That's my recollection anyways. To your credit, you learned from it. Personally, I don't think the criticism was unfair. It's a forum. People are free to call you out when you are wrong. My feeling is the people that get "piled on" usually deserve most of it. Those people tend to be very adamant about their position or are less than cordial expressing their opinion. There's a reason most people pile on them.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Partial calling someone out for not admitting they are wrong.

Ty agreeing with Rand and Bobble on assesment of McGinn.

Might be time to head back to the js online..things are getting a bit to weird here.

Scary as it is ty, you and I are almost always in agreement on football matters....the world of politics, well, we couldn't be further apart.

True.

It gives me hope that one day you'll reach my enlightened state of mind. You show great promise, grasshopper.

[sharpe1027]

I read a 2008 prediction by McgGinn where he predicted between 5-11 and 9-7. I could predict two years in a row with that much leeway.

The substance of the article was on in many respects. He cited as a concern: injuries; the running game seeing 8-man frunts; run-stopping ability; lack of pass rush; lack of depth; TT's style of management; lack of defensive imagination; aging players.

So, yeah he ended up being mostly correct on the reasons and the Packers fell within his huge prediction range. The problem was he basically wrote the article as a list of every possible reason that the team would not be as good as 2007.

But again, it doesn't change the other points of frustration.

could you provide a link? JSO has on the front page his predictions the last 2 seasons which is exactly as I remember them.

2007: between 12-4 and 14-2
2008: 6-10

In '07 most thought we were .500 at best
In '08 many figured we were 10-6 at worst if rodgers played well.

I would have, but the link was not JSonline so I was trying to avoid getting packerrats in any trouble. Just google "mcginn packer 2008 prediction", it is in the top few slots.

I may be wrong, but in '08, many predicted Packers would be 3rd in the division. I doubt that meant 10-6 at worst.

[Fritz]

First, RG, I'm curious about the people-get-made-fun-of-thing. Did you get ripped last year for saying the team would or wouldn't do well? I don't remember. I've written some fairly extensive posts as to why I think it's fun but foolish to predict teams' records, and I've written even more regarding the foolishness of saying "If the team goes ___ and ___, I'll be happy."

My basic point as to predicting records is that so much depends on injuries anc other context (like schedule) that predicting records is fun and fine for fans, but to take any of it as a serious estimation of how good a team will be isn't really a good idea. A team can be poised and loaded and lose one guy and the whole thing will change in that instant. So I'm not quite sure how I'm trying to have it both ways.



Well, I was talking more about a general trend. People love to stick it to someone when they're wrong, and seldom remember when they are right.


My "lack of faith" in the 2007 team doesn't mean I don't understand football, as much as it indicates I wasn't so high on some players we had, and I wasn't high on how they'd play as a team. I got that part wrong. I got a lot of other stuff right, though.

So, admittedly, I'm a bit sensitive there, Fritz. :wink:

Many years ago, Ray Nitchke used to write for someone, Packer update maybe?(70s & 80s), and every season when optimism flowed, he'd conclude every article with the following (paraphrased): "10-6 is VERY possible. And How!"

I'm going to stick with the homer prediction because I'll catch less flack, and keep my serious concerns private from now on. :wink:

I totally agree with the above - your lack of faith in the 07 team was in no way a reflection of your knowledge. You can know football inside and out and not be able to predict a game or a season's outcome. That's why they play the games and all that.

Whenever I'm wrong, I just crow about how I was right and hope that no one digs up what I actually wrote.

I believe that this is a talented team, coming into its own, but who knows what will happen?

[retailguy]

but who knows what will happen?

Bo. Bo knows.

[Fritz]

And the Shadow. The Shadow knows.

[Bretsky]

I've always been fine with McGinn; many don't like him because he often writes things people do not want to hear.

He always has a slant, and I'm fine with that. He often uses data/scouts to support his slant. Right or wrong on the slant, he is interesting. I'd take him over anybody I read as far as Packer articles go.

[pbmax]

The sources grading an individual are giving their OPINIONS...of course you are not supposed to filter them. If you do that you are writing an article with an agenda.

edit: and further more he doesn't just pick one thing to show an agenda. When you read that pickett can't handle a double team there is often a comment by another scout right behind it saying pickett is an immovable wall and the heart of the defense. He is simply shotgunning what the scouts say to him and allowing us to have access to the minds of a scout.
Actually, if the point of his reporting is about the scouts, then altering or filtering their own opinions would be writing with an agenda.

But if he is writing about a subject the scouts are commenting on (Rodgers), then giving context or contrasting opinions is essential. Otherwise it is just water cooler talk (if it is by a bystander) or unadulterated spin (if by a party with a rooting interest). Filtering wouldn't apply here because nothing is being excluded or removed.

I agree completely with the second paragraph. Which is why I said, if Waldo's recollection was correct (and I should have said "the only opinion given") then it clearly provides little understanding. If McGinn does what you describe, then I have no complaint.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The sources grading an individual are giving their OPINIONS...of course you are not supposed to filter them. If you do that you are writing an article with an agenda.

edit: and further more he doesn't just pick one thing to show an agenda. When you read that pickett can't handle a double team there is often a comment by another scout right behind it saying pickett is an immovable wall and the heart of the defense. He is simply shotgunning what the scouts say to him and allowing us to have access to the minds of a scout.
Actually, if the point of his reporting is about the scouts, then altering or filtering their own opinions would be writing with an agenda.

But if he is writing about a subject the scouts are commenting on (Rodgers), then giving context or contrasting opinions is essential. Otherwise it is just water cooler talk (if it is by a bystander) or unadulterated spin (if by a party with a rooting interest). Filtering wouldn't apply here because nothing is being excluded or removed.

I agree completely with the second paragraph. Which is why I said, if Waldo's recollection was correct (and I should have said "the only opinion given") then it clearly provides little understanding. If McGinn does what you describe, then I have no complaint.

I happen to think McGinn purposefully dinked Cutler in the article.

Now, if you really think Cutler is better, and you are the writer...and you have several scouts that voted him number 1....you certainly can find a better quote raving about him than "he is a quote unquote bona fide qb." I'm sorry, but that is a backhanded compliment.

That is what cracks me up the most....that Waldo and others think McGinn is letting us know he likes Cutler more..when in fact it is the opposite.

But, then again...what does Ty know.

Have you read the article? If so, do you see what Ty is getting at?

[SkinBasket]

It's a forum. People are free to call you out when you are wrong. My feeling is the people that get "piled on" usually deserve most of it. Those people tend to be very adamant about their position or are less than cordial expressing their opinion. There's a reason most people pile on them.

I have no idea who you could be talking about.

On an unrelated note, thanks for the giggles in this thread Partial. You've always had the penchant for providing terribly great humorous ironic self parody and I'm glad you haven't changed.

[pbmax]

The sources grading an individual are giving their OPINIONS...of course you are not supposed to filter them. If you do that you are writing an article with an agenda.

edit: and further more he doesn't just pick one thing to show an agenda. When you read that pickett can't handle a double team there is often a comment by another scout right behind it saying pickett is an immovable wall and the heart of the defense. He is simply shotgunning what the scouts say to him and allowing us to have access to the minds of a scout.
Actually, if the point of his reporting is about the scouts, then altering or filtering their own opinions would be writing with an agenda.

But if he is writing about a subject the scouts are commenting on (Rodgers), then giving context or contrasting opinions is essential. Otherwise it is just water cooler talk (if it is by a bystander) or unadulterated spin (if by a party with a rooting interest). Filtering wouldn't apply here because nothing is being excluded or removed.

I agree completely with the second paragraph. Which is why I said, if Waldo's recollection was correct (and I should have said "the only opinion given") then it clearly provides little understanding. If McGinn does what you describe, then I have no complaint.

I happen to think McGinn purposefully dinked Cutler in the article.

Now, if you really think Cutler is better, and you are the writer...and you have several scouts that voted him number 1....you certainly can find a better quote raving about him than "he is a quote unquote bona fide qb." I'm sorry, but that is a backhanded compliment.

That is what cracks me up the most....that Waldo and others think McGinn is letting us know he likes Cutler more..when in fact it is the opposite.

But, then again...what does Ty know.

Have you read the article? If so, do you see what Ty is getting at?
I see what you are getting at, but my initial read was that the Scout was actually dissing the criticisms of others that the Bears need a "bona fide" QB. Either objecting to the characterization because it has no real meaning to him OR because Chicago needed not so much a star QB as simply an effective one. Basically, that Cutler has more than enough talent, now they just need to produce an NFL acceptable offense. Which also might be a slight dis to the other, in this article, ignored offensive positions.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The sources grading an individual are giving their OPINIONS...of course you are not supposed to filter them. If you do that you are writing an article with an agenda.

edit: and further more he doesn't just pick one thing to show an agenda. When you read that pickett can't handle a double team there is often a comment by another scout right behind it saying pickett is an immovable wall and the heart of the defense. He is simply shotgunning what the scouts say to him and allowing us to have access to the minds of a scout.
Actually, if the point of his reporting is about the scouts, then altering or filtering their own opinions would be writing with an agenda.

But if he is writing about a subject the scouts are commenting on (Rodgers), then giving context or contrasting opinions is essential. Otherwise it is just water cooler talk (if it is by a bystander) or unadulterated spin (if by a party with a rooting interest). Filtering wouldn't apply here because nothing is being excluded or removed.

I agree completely with the second paragraph. Which is why I said, if Waldo's recollection was correct (and I should have said "the only opinion given") then it clearly provides little understanding. If McGinn does what you describe, then I have no complaint.

I happen to think McGinn purposefully dinked Cutler in the article.

Now, if you really think Cutler is better, and you are the writer...and you have several scouts that voted him number 1....you certainly can find a better quote raving about him than "he is a quote unquote bona fide qb." I'm sorry, but that is a backhanded compliment.

That is what cracks me up the most....that Waldo and others think McGinn is letting us know he likes Cutler more..when in fact it is the opposite.

But, then again...what does Ty know.

Have you read the article? If so, do you see what Ty is getting at?
I see what you are getting at, but my initial read was that the Scout was actually dissing the criticisms of others that the Bears need a "bona fide" QB. Either objecting to the characterization because it has no real meaning to him OR because Chicago needed not so much a star QB as simply an effective one. Basically, that Cutler has more than enough talent, now they just need to produce an NFL acceptable offense. Which also might be a slight dis to the other, in this article, ignored offensive positions.

Hmm. Another interpretation. Interesting.

I don't exactly "see it" but i'll reread.

Amazing how 3 educated people can read the same article and get 3 different things.

[denverYooper]

What is this, PostmodernRats.com?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What is this, PostmodernRats.com?

Is that you Stanley Koteks?

Tyrone is really Mike Fallopian.

[denverYooper]

What is this, PostmodernRats.com?

Is that you Stanley Koteks?

Tyrone is really Mike Fallopian.

Does that make Waldo John Nefastis?

[Fritz]

I heard that Mike Fallopian went down the tubes.