Great article on insider

[bobblehead]

I can't link, since its subscription, and I can't copy, but I can paraphrase what a coach told Cliff Christl.

Grant lacks vision and cut ability and is basically just a guy. We could pick up a lot of guys off the street to do what he does. (were you one of the rats who was demanding TT pay him?).

Questioned whether campen was the OLines problem. Said 6 of 28 run plays were blocked well. Every week we turn a guy into a pro bowler. Little had 2 sacks in the first quarter and we can only get 3 guys in patterns cuz the OLine is so bad. Said the pack tried to line up and play football for two series and found out they couldn't. Had to roll ARod out constantly.

Said Rodgers is tough as nails and playing well. The big plays show he and the recievers are doing pretty good. (he didn't mention the gimme drops in recent weeks). Also said kuhn had a good game, but still never destroys anyone in blocking, simply stalemates them.

Said our Nose can't demand a double, and hawk and barnett can't get off blocks very well. Said kampman often looks lost and Clay Mathews is going to be a real player in a year. Said hawk is never going to be good in the passing game and Bishop made some plays in the limited time he was given.

Said the secondary has no depth. We get problems at safety and Chillar ends up playing there. Chillar lost a footrace for a touchdown covering a guy he shouldn't be covering (ha, you were wrong waldo, chillar is no safety at all). Actually the guy said chillar played pretty well there overall, but it was a tough position to put him in covering TE's man to man.

Mentioned that we still don't seem to hear Al Harris' name....which is good for a CB.

I liked the article, it actually mirrored the packerrats boards. Seems the bunch of us have some knowledge and read what is happening similar to a guy who for whatever reason they decided to interview.

[CaptainKickass]

What coach?

[Fritz]

"Seems the bunch of us have some knowledge and read what is happening similar to a guy who for whatever reason they decided to interview."

So when the papers did interviews with "a scout from an opposing team" or "a respected NFC personnel man," and said the Packers look like a real force, are adapting well to the 3-4, look like the o-line is maturing, and all of that during the pre-season, does that mean others of us "have some knowledge" that you didn't? I don't think so.

Just because some anonymous interviewee agrees with some of the things you're saying doesn't mean you "have some knowledge" that others don't. It means you have a different point of view.

And you could be right. Or wrong. But one interview doesn't validate your point of view and turn it into "knowledge."

[bobblehead]

What coach?

Eric Baranczyk, he was a coach and player at UW La Crosse. Not sure how brilliant he is though, he is coaching in high school now. But I did like most of his observations.

[bobblehead]

"Seems the bunch of us have some knowledge and read what is happening similar to a guy who for whatever reason they decided to interview."

So when the papers did interviews with "a scout from an opposing team" or "a respected NFC personnel man," and said the Packers look like a real force, are adapting well to the 3-4, look like the o-line is maturing, and all of that during the pre-season, does that mean others of us "have some knowledge" that you didn't? I don't think so.

Just because some anonymous interviewee agrees with some of the things you're saying doesn't mean you "have some knowledge" that others don't. It means you have a different point of view.

And you could be right. Or wrong. But one interview doesn't validate your point of view and turn it into "knowledge."

I wasn't tooting my own horn...I meant WE have some knowledge. I'm not the one who has been anti Barnett, but many have and this guy agrees. I also have some egg on my face as I thought out OLine was going to be pretty good, but others were proven right in that they are playing for shit.

When I said a bunch of us, I meant the board as a whole, not myself. The only thing I feel very vindicated on at the moment is that paying Grant after his 8 good games was a bad idea. Otherwise, this team is proving me wrong at every turn. I hope we turn it around against the purple wave, but we are looking like we are going to get killed atm.

[Partial]

I was preaching that Grant sucks in the game thread. Everyone got on top of me in a mean, vicious way telling me how wrong and dumb I was. Turns out the professionals and I see eye to eye.

[Fritz]

"Seems the bunch of us have some knowledge and read what is happening similar to a guy who for whatever reason they decided to interview."

So when the papers did interviews with "a scout from an opposing team" or "a respected NFC personnel man," and said the Packers look like a real force, are adapting well to the 3-4, look like the o-line is maturing, and all of that during the pre-season, does that mean others of us "have some knowledge" that you didn't? I don't think so.

Just because some anonymous interviewee agrees with some of the things you're saying doesn't mean you "have some knowledge" that others don't. It means you have a different point of view.

And you could be right. Or wrong. But one interview doesn't validate your point of view and turn it into "knowledge."

I wasn't tooting my own horn...I meant WE have some knowledge. I'm not the one who has been anti Barnett, but many have and this guy agrees. I also have some egg on my face as I thought out OLine was going to be pretty good, but others were proven right in that they are playing for shit.

When I said a bunch of us, I meant the board as a whole, not myself. The only thing I feel very vindicated on at the moment is that paying Grant after his 8 good games was a bad idea. Otherwise, this team is proving me wrong at every turn. I hope we turn it around against the purple wave, but we are looking like we are going to get killed atm.

Then I misinterpreted your post. Doh!

[Fritz]

I was preaching that Grant sucks in the game thread. Everyone got on top of me in a mean, vicious way telling me how wrong and dumb I was. Turns out the professionals and I see eye to eye.

I apologize to Bobble head for my misinterpretation of his post. However, I reiterate my point but I direct it to Partial:



"Seems the bunch of us have some knowledge and read what is happening similar to a guy who for whatever reason they decided to interview."

So when the papers did interviews with "a scout from an opposing team" or "a respected NFC personnel man," and said the Packers look like a real force, are adapting well to the 3-4, look like the o-line is maturing, and all of that during the pre-season, does that mean others of us "have some knowledge" that you didn't? I don't think so.

Just because some anonymous interviewee agrees with some of the things you're saying doesn't mean you "have some knowledge" that others don't. It means you have a different point of view.

And you could be right. Or wrong. But one interview doesn't validate your point of view and turn it into "knowledge."

[Cheesehead Craig]

What coach?

Eric Baranczyk, he was a coach and player at UW La Crosse. Not sure how brilliant he is though, he is coaching in high school now. But I did like most of his observations.

So some HS coach starts talking about the Packers and suddenly it's gospel? This is ridiculous.

[Waldo]

Re: Great article on insider

We get problems at safety and Chillar ends up playing there. Chillar lost a footrace for a touchdown covering a guy he shouldn't be covering (ha, you were wrong waldo, chillar is no safety at all). Actually the guy said chillar played pretty well there overall, but it was a tough position to put him in covering TE's man to man.

You don't see the coaches getting Bishop in the game by playing him at S.

Did I not suggest just last week that Chillar could play SS on base downs and ILB on pass downs?

I guess the coaches see him the same way I do.

Why shouldn't Chillar be covering a backup TE? That is normal for LB's.

Face it, Chillar got burned, he had a crap game. It happens.

[PlantPage55]

I disagree with him heavily on Pickett. Pickett has been doing an above average job, IMO.

[PackerTimer]

I was preaching that Grant sucks in the game thread. Everyone got on top of me in a mean, vicious way telling me how wrong and dumb I was. Turns out the professionals and I see eye to eye.

Since when have high school coaches become professionals.

[PackerTimer]

What coach?

Eric Baranczyk, he was a coach and player at UW La Crosse. Not sure how brilliant he is though, he is coaching in high school now. But I did like most of his observations.

So some HS coach starts talking about the Packers and suddenly it's gospel? This is ridiculous.

Yeah some high school hack is dead on re Grant, Pickett, Hawk, Barnett, etc, but our coaches, what the hell do they know?

[Cleft Crusty]

Every week my doppelganger over at the UrinalScented interviews a high school football coach for his insights into the professional game of football. Let's think about this. A retired columnist conveys the ramblings of your high school coach who apparently is incapable of writing and/or using a word processor. And we're supposed to think this is great insight? Maybe next the UrinalScented can go and interview a mechanic down at Earl's garage for insight into how GM can improve their assembly plant in Lordstown, OH.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What coach?

Eric Baranczyk, he was a coach and player at UW La Crosse. Not sure how brilliant he is though, he is coaching in high school now. But I did like most of his observations.

Not to rain on this parade, but I was thoroughly unimpressed with Baranczyk when I had JSO Insider.