Off-season 2023 Banjo

[texaspackerbacker]

I think some reporters do like to stir the pot. I think McGinn was that way, at least with his opinion pieces. When he stuck to analysis he was much better. I'm not a big fan of opinion pieces anyway.
Not everyone is a muckraker. Investigative journalism does and has played an important role, in the US and around the world.

Fact-checking is very important. Like you, I'm not interested in getting banned, but let's just say there's a certain large news outlet that didn't maintain tight enough editorial control or have its personalities stick to facts enough, and it's got them tangled up in some nasty legal trouble that could be financially crippling for them.

One thing about sports reporting -- the big national guys like Schefter will get the big scoops because they are coming from the agent and they want exposure. The real good, interesting nuggets IMO come from the local guys who are in the building every day and talking to everyone, even the assistant equipment manager and the goings on. They're more likely to be plugged in to what people are really thinking inside the building.

I'm NOT gonna mention where I'm gonna start a new thread about God damned media shitheads because we aren't supposed to even mention that supposed to be unknown paradise of a different kind of posting.

[sharpe1027]

Chaos and disaster, I don't know, but LOSING at the minimum more than half of the time, hell yeah. And granted, that's a "strong opinion", but just watch, it's gonna be a correct opinion - and I'd love to be wrong about that. What I'd love a lot more is for it all to be moot because Rodgers is still the Packers QB in '24 and beyond. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Oh! Just like your strong opinion that neither the Packers or Rodgers would consider a trade?

[bobblehead]

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.

Didn't we just have losing football WITH Rodgers?

[texaspackerbacker]

Asked and answered - one bad year, Rodgers' own play not even all that horrible except in comparison to his own GOAT standard, the primary reasons for the badness being his own injury as well as injuries to Watson and Doubs, as well as what the new guy said, losing Adams and MVS - circumstances extremely unlikely to occur again.

[run pMc]

Didn't we just have losing football WITH Rodgers?

(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.

[sharpe1027]

Asked and answered - one bad year, Rodgers' own play not even all that horrible except in comparison to his own GOAT standard, the primary reasons for the badness being his own injury as well as injuries to Watson and Doubs, as well as what the new guy said, losing Adams and MVS - circumstances extremely unlikely to occur again.

He also had several average (bad for him) years before his MVP years. I think there's more to it than his thumb.

[Fritz]

Even if you buy Tex's reasoning - it wasn't Rodgers declining, it was the thumb injury and the supporting cast! (which I don't buy) - Tex's assertion that any of these circumstances are "extremely unlikely to occur again" does not take into account that Rodgers is a very old player in a young man's league who is in fact more likely to get hurt as time goes on. He's not as mobile in the pocket, for sure, and is therefore more likely to get hit and injured. One argument you could make is that Rodgers really, really needs an offensive line that can keep him clean for a long time on every play.

[Bretsky]

He also had several average (bad for him) years before his MVP years. I think there's more to it than his thumb.

if you believe attitude wise he's turned into a self absorbed Shitbag like so many do, there is that

[texaspackerbacker]

Even if you buy Tex's reasoning - it wasn't Rodgers declining, it was the thumb injury and the supporting cast! (which I don't buy) - Tex's assertion that any of these circumstances are "extremely unlikely to occur again" does not take into account that Rodgers is a very old player in a young man's league who is in fact more likely to get hurt as time goes on. He's not as mobile in the pocket, for sure, and is therefore more likely to get hit and injured. One argument you could make is that Rodgers really, really needs an offensive line that can keep him clean for a long time on every play.

I would argue, as I have for many years, that Rodgers never had an O Line that did a good job protecting. He was hurried and/or forced out of the pocket virtually every pass play his whole career. Granted he was a tad bit less mobile this past season, but not much. As for being old in a young man's league, it's NOT a young QB league. Anything Brady could do at 44, certainly Rodgers could do at 40, and probably at 41-44 too.

As for the "self-absorbed shitbag" stuff, I would say that's about 98% the creation of media pukes. There is literally no evidence of any of that toward Packer players, coaches, even fans.

[Joemailman]

I would argue, as I have for many years, that Rodgers never had an O Line that did a good job protecting. He was hurried and/or forced out of the pocket virtually every pass play his whole career. Granted he was a tad bit less mobile this past season, but not much. As for being old in a young man's league, it's NOT a young QB league. Anything Brady could do at 44, certainly Rodgers could do at 40, and probably at 41-44 too.

As for the "self-absorbed shitbag" stuff, I would say that's about 98% the creation of media pukes. There is literally no evidence of any of that toward Packer players, coaches, even fans.

Exhibit A of why most people here don't take you seriously.

[red]

i've been convinced for awhile that he either doesn't actually watch the games, or someone at the nursing home is just putting in old VHS tapes of highlights from years ago

[George Cumby]

I think it's just dementia. He is divorced from reality.

[texaspackerbacker]

Somehow, I don't think Packer fans in general - outside of this forum - are so hung up on thinking the Packers O Line has pass blocked good/unable to see pass rushers roaring in virtually every play needing to be dodged or whatever. That's in stark contrast to what Brady, Brees, and probably well over half of the QBs around the league had for pass blocking. And it happened the most from outside rushers, especially on the blind side where that sacred cow has grazed for so long.

[run pMc]

i've been convinced for awhile that he either doesn't actually watch the games, or someone at the nursing home is just putting in old VHS tapes of highlights from years ago

This is a pretty good theory. It's at least as good as any explanations or rationalizations he's put forth.

Interesting to think that GB's OL has been bad for 15 years and he's scrambling for his life all that time, when many consider his off-schedule throws and ad-libbed adjustments (which require him to run around and the OL to hold their blocks MUCH longer than other teams) to be what separates him. Oh yeah, and there's the fact that GB's OL consistently ranks in the top 10 if not top 5 of pass blocking metrics. Go watch the OL for some other teams: Cincinnati, Houston, LA (either team), or Chicago. There are a lot of teams who can barely find 3 average level starters, GB has done much better than that.

How soon some forget Sitton, Lang, Rivera, Wahle, Clifton, Tauscher, Linsley, Tretter, etc.
For giggles, go check out some of the OL's Holmgren and Wolf rolled out in the early Favre years. It's like a who's who of who's that.

[RashanGary]

This is a pretty good theory. It's at least as good as any explanations or rationalizations he's put forth.

Interesting to think that GB's OL has been bad for 15 years and he's scrambling for his life all that time, when many consider his off-schedule throws and ad-libbed adjustments (which require him to run around and the OL to hold their blocks MUCH longer than other teams) to be what separates him. Oh yeah, and there's the fact that GB's OL consistently ranks in the top 10 if not top 5 of pass blocking metrics. Go watch the OL for some other teams: Cincinnati, Houston, LA (either team), or Chicago. There are a lot of teams who can barely find 3 average level starters, GB has done much better than that.

How soon some forget Sitton, Lang, Rivera, Wahle, Clifton, Tauscher, Linsley, Tretter, etc.
For giggles, go check out some of the OL's Holmgren and Wolf rolled out in the early Favre years. It's like a who's who of who's that.

For a couple years we literally rolled out Baktiari, Sitton, (Tretter/Lindsley), Lang and Bulaga. A pro bowl caliber player at every single position.