Some Super Thoughts

[pbmax]

Speaking of mute injuries, did DeSean Jackson have the same injury as Paul Pierce last year? Terrible, debilitating, requiring surgery, until it was time to go back in? Did anyone catch any coverage of his actual ailment?

[gbgary]

lol

[mmmdk]

Actually, they usually come with a certain amount of pained hollering. Not quiet at all unless the guy gets knocked out.

True!

Moot has become a lame word. in LOTR there's a thing called "Entmoot" - a meeting of Ents; somehow the old english word "moot" got torn asunder by cowboys with a mouthful of beans.

[swede]

...somehow the old english word "moot" got torn asunder by cowboys with a mouthful of beans.

I've read a lot of Zane Gray and Louis L'Amour. I think the tearing asunder of English archaisms by the cowpokes is meant to evoke the tension of independent actors living within a feudal system.

[mmmdk]

I've read a lot of Zane Gray and Louis L'Amour. I think the tearing asunder of English archaisms by the cowpokes is meant to evoke the tension of independent actors within a feudal system.

Damn straight!

[MichiganPackerFan]

...
Tampa Bay - 15th (lost)
Seattle - 15th (won)
...

Fun research: i enjoyed going through it. I think these two got flip flopped though.

or slocum or james jones or jarrett bush

I know Bush is a favorite whipping boy around here, but I thought he'd played well on special teams and his rare appearances on defense this year. Am I forgetting something from this season?

I think the injuries - three in particular - will cost this team. I'm thinking Grant, Finley - and Mike Neal. Yes, Mike Neal. I think his loss was big. He seemed to me to be a difference maker (a potential difference maker, at least) who could have helped this team get penetration without blitzing as much and could have taken some load off some of the guys on the line.

I think the loss of grant hurt the most and could have led to three more of those close losses turning to victories. ARod would have had a nice fun toy to play with in finley, but i think he was forgetting how to distribute the ball. I hope he remembers that next season. I think the loss of Neal, Harrell and Jolly all hurt for depth. Harrell was finally over the back injury and a whole pile fell on his knee. If it wasn't for bad luck, he'd have no luck at all. Jolly had a inexcusable losing battle to CDS (compulsive dumbass syndrome) Maybe that's what the codeine was for. Vicious circle..

[vince]

I know Bush is a favorite whipping boy around here, but I thought he'd played well on special teams and his rare appearances on defense this year. Am I forgetting something from this season?

Yeah, you're forgetting his jock laying on about the 15 yard line on the first TD the Eagles scored Sunday.

[Smidgeon]

Fun research: i enjoyed going through it. I think these two got flip flopped though.

You're right. Completely missed that. And I read and re-read it several times for punctuation and grammar...

[MichiganPackerFan]

Yeah, you're forgetting his jock laying on about the 15 yard line on the first TD the Eagles scored Sunday.

Didn't he also have a couple really difficult stops too?

[VermontPackFan]

In other words, if the Packers don't win it all, it's McCarthy's fault.

Not so easy, technically it will all be TT's fault for cutting the cord on Bert... (insert smiley face here)

[mraynrand]

I like the original post Smidge. Here's something to consider. Of the top teams, each of them has had some down years, resulting in higher picks the next year. The three top teams, with the exception of the Sherman years, place huge value on draft picks, and consistently draft well. The three keys to good drafting: Get a large number of picks that can fill your roster with decent talent. Get a few lower round gems to provide near blue chip players. Get a few blue chip players, especially QBs, that can run your team for a decade or more. How do most teams get blue chip players? You get them with gems and by not screwing up when you have those rare high picks following a down year. TT pretty much failed on this in 2006, but made up for it in spades in 2009. Roethlesburger, Manning, and Rodgers were pretty much picked at a spot in the draft with the expectation they would be blue chip players; Brady was a late round gem. The impressive thing is when organizations don't have frequent down years or down years that get them into the top 5-10 in the draft, but are still able to secure quality players. All the top organizations are alike in this regard.

[Smidgeon]

I like the original post Smidge. Here's something to consider. Of the top teams, each of them has had some down years, resulting in higher picks the next year. The three top teams, with the exception of the Sherman years, place huge value on draft picks, and consistently draft well. The three keys to good drafting: Get a large number of picks that can fill your roster with decent talent. Get a few lower round gems to provide near blue chip players. Get a few blue chip players, especially QBs, that can run your team for a decade or more. How do most teams get blue chip players? You get them with gems and by not screwing up when you have those rare high picks following a down year. TT pretty much failed on this in 2006, but made up for it in spades in 2009. Roethlesburger, Manning, and Rodgers were pretty much picked at a spot in the draft with the expectation they would be blue chip players; Brady was a late round gem. The impressive thing is when organizations don't have frequent down years or down years that get them into the top 5-10 in the draft, but are still able to secure quality players. All the top organizations are alike in this regard.

And New England does it by trading players a year early for bad teams' first round picks...

[mraynrand]

And New England does it by trading players a year early for bad teams' first round picks...

Or worthless players for a #3!

[vince]

The problem with the Packers in this analysis is there is a complete change of philosophy right smack dab in the middle of your data. The short-term philosophy failed and the long-term philosophy may well be in the process of working.

[mraynrand]

The problem with the Packers in this analysis is there is a complete change of philosophy right smack dab in the middle of your data. The short-term philosophy failed and the long-term philosophy may well be in the process of working.

It was only a three year span of the short term philosophy - Sherman only controlled (completely) 02, 03, and 04 - and I don't recall, but I thought Hatley was either uninvolved, sick, or deceased for the '04 draft. Favre, Green, and the O-line helped bridge that gap.