Idiotic Internet Articles about The Packers

[Patler]

This one is a real beaut. In an article discussing the "the worst QBs to start for every NFL team" the author chose Randy Wright for the Packers. I can argue with his selection, but that's just opinion, and he is entitled to his. What amazed me is this comment:

Wright went 7-25 as a starter for the Pack – a far cry from the near 60-percent win rate recorded by the Starr/Favre/Rodgers trio (and that’s not including all of Starr’s AFL wins).

(Emphasis added.)

Does he think the Packers came to the NFL in the merger with the AFL? Does he not realize the Packers are NFL royalty? Founded in 1919, and the oldest team never to have changed its home or name? While the Packers did not play in the NFL initial season, they were admitted in year 2.

Does he think Starr came to the Packers following a career in the AFL? Where and win would Starr have had all those "AFL wins"?

Did Starr have an AFL career of which I am unaware? (Even though I actually watched his career unfold)?

[bobblehead]

First...damn Patler, you're old. Ok, got that outta the way. Second, you didn't link the article, but besides no one being aware that Starr played in the AFL, is it fair to compare a guy to 3 HoF QBs? I mean, even average guys.

[texaspackerbacker]

It was strange wording, but maybe he meant Starr's 100% winning percentage against the AFL - K.C. and Oakland being AFL teams. You know, I always like to give the benefit of the doubt to those media types (that's sarcasm, bobblehead hahahaah).

[Fritz]

You could be Wright, Tex. But as I recall, there would have been only those two wins, since AFL and NFL teams didn't play one another - and I don't think even AFC and NFC teams played each other for a number of years.

Maybe they didn't have big enough enough sample sizes, but John Hadl, Jack Concannon, Scott Hunter and David Whitehurst sure seem like stiff competition for being the biggest stiff.

[Patler]

It was strange wording, but maybe he meant Starr's 100% winning percentage against the AFL - K.C. and Oakland being AFL teams. You know, I always like to give the benefit of the doubt to those media types (that's sarcasm, bobblehead hahahaah).

Nah, those two games mean nothing when he's talking about a winning percentage from the combined records of Starr, Favre and Rodgers. Wouldn't be worth mentioning.

Dang, Tex, why do you always jump to the defense of the sports media?

[Patler]

First...damn Patler, you're old.

Yup, and getting older all the time!

[MadtownPacker]

It’s nice that you guys finally taught Tex what sarcasm is after 20 years.

[texaspackerbacker]

But I still don't like it hahahaha.

[Joemailman]

The only Packer QB I know of who had a lot of wins in the AFL was John Hadl. Did the writer actually confuse Bart Starr with John Hadl?

[bobblehead]

Yup, and getting older all the time!

Beats the alternative.

[Patler]

Thought I would revive this thread, since the off-season is in full swing and idiotic articles are appearing daily.

I HOPE I am proven wrong about the stupidity of this:

Kristopher Knox of Bleacher Report suggests a trade package that would see Alexander move to Cincinnati, with Green Bay receiving pass rusher Trey Hendrickson and the Bengals' third-round pick (No. 81 overall) in return.

Hendrickson and pick #81? I would be ecstatic if they got Hendrickson or pick#81. I think they could get a day 3 pick at most for Alexander, .... but more likely nothing at all, and they simply release him.

I sure hope Knox is right and I am wrong about the value of Alexander in a trade.

[smuggler]

Wrong thread

[MadScientist]

Thought I would revive this thread, since the off-season is in full swing and idiotic articles are appearing daily.

I HOPE I am proven wrong about the stupidity of this:



Hendrickson and pick #81? I would be ecstatic if they got Hendrickson or pick#81. I think they could get a day 3 pick at most for Alexander, .... but more likely nothing at all, and they simply release him.

I sure hope Knox is right and I am wrong about the value of Alexander in a trade.

Pundits that don't closely follow a team tend to go by name and reputation and not recent history, reasonable projections and contract details. Would love that trade to be true, but I'm not holding my breath.

[texaspackerbacker]

Wrong thread

Yeah, this doesn't seem so idiotic.

I suspect the rest of the world is not nearly as negative about Jaire as a lot of Packer fans are. I think the way that article was worded, They get Alexander AND a 60 something pick while we get Hendrickson plus the 81st or whatever. I have to admit, it seems slightly too good a deal to be true, but not to the level of idiotic.

[Fritz]

Yeah, this doesn't seem so idiotic.

I suspect the rest of the world is not nearly as negative about Jaire as a lot of Packer fans are. I think the way that article was worded, They get Alexander AND a 60 something pick while we get Hendrickson plus the 81st or whatever. I have to admit, it seems slightly too good a deal to be true, but not to the level of idiotic.

It's only idiotic if you're the Bengals' front office.