To all the McGinn Detractors

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.