Patler's Pompous Pre-season Pontifications

[texaspackerbacker]

Curiously, Policy also said this:



So, why isn't he extending them now????

I don't know ...... and more to the point, neither do whichever media assholes are trying to stir up trouble about this. If I had to guess, maybe it has to do with Policy being brand new on the job and just wanting to take a little time to get acclimated. Or maybe just because that is "the normal time" for those extensions, it might not be his way of doing things. Either way, no big deal. Both LaFleur and Gutekunst have done damn good jobs and are not gonna get fired - sheeeeesh, why would anybody even think that? Maybe Policy is just waiting to consider whether to give them a huge pay raise or just a moderately big one hahahaha - all speculation, which is about all those God damned media pukes do. The sick difference is that they get paid for it while you and I and others in here who make just as much or more sense do not. All those media bastards do is stir up trouble - fuck 'em all.

[Fritz]

I don't know ...... and more to the point, neither do whichever media assholes are trying to stir up trouble about this. If I had to guess, maybe it has to do with Policy being brand new on the job and just wanting to take a little time to get acclimated. Or maybe just because that is "the normal time" for those extensions, it might not be his way of doing things. Either way, no big deal. Both LaFleur and Gutekunst have done damn good jobs and are not gonna get fired - sheeeeesh, why would anybody even think that? Maybe Policy is just waiting to consider whether to give them a huge pay raise or just a moderately big one hahahaha - all speculation, which is about all those God damned media pukes do. The sick difference is that they get paid for it while you and I and others in here who make just as much or more sense do not. All those media bastards do is stir up trouble - fuck 'em all.

First of all, I just want to say it would very likely be one of the highlights of my life if some how, some way, a Packer beat reporter could show up with a media badge that said "Media Puke" on it.

Secondly, the concerns that Bobble and Patler have suggested are real. Bobble's focused more on the "whuuut?" of how this defense has been constructed and what Parsons does to that (does anyone think Dan Campbell is NOT poring over running game plans featuring runs to the interior of the line?). Also, Bobble makes a good point about Cooper. I seriously doubt Colby ("Very") Wooden will be the starting nose tackle by the bye week - but who do they have in the wings? Also, Bobble's concerns about Parsons being a less-than-superb run defender are very real. Again, don't you think Dan Campbell isn't scheming a "run the ball at Parsons" offensive game plan? It's weird that Halfley and Co. have worked hard to (finally) contain running QB's, but then bringing in a pass rusher who will go wide and leave holes open, like a HS slut.

Patler's opinion about this being an all-or-nothing move also make sense. Guter has staked his career on this trade. If they get a SB win, seems great, and I guess Guter and The Flower would get extensions. But, as a fan - if you end up in Ram-Land two years later, how happy will you be, for real? You can say all you want about being satisfied with a SB win, but for how long? The ongoing excitment of being in the hunt every year, and being one-good-run away from it (see 2010) might be more fun than one SB and then cap hell and shit records for several years. Guter is gambling his - and The Flower's - future on a single move.

I think there is an element of luck and circumstance in every team's SB year. Injuries, obscure players stepping up, picking up a mid-season savior, all of that. I don't think getting one guy like Parsons guarantees anything at all. I'm not even sure how much more likely it makes it that GB gets to the SB.

If Parsons played the run better I'd be more excited.

[Teamcheez1]

I see people are concerned about teams running at the interior of our line. They already did before we lost Clark.
I’m sorry, he was the definition of average last year. Could we be worse? Sure, but we certainly can be average or even better again.

I would take a SB anytime, even if it means a rebuild is around the corner.

[texaspackerbacker]

Great first line there, Fritz. It kinda went downhill from there, though.

Hafley's base defense calls for two D Tackles, not one Nose Tackle. If they did go with a NT, either Stackhouse or Brinson would be very adequate, maybe as good or better than Clark woulda been. Wooden did pretty good last year at DT. Pairing him with either Brinson or Stackhouse or maybe Karl Brooks along with a couple of hard rushing DEs - Gary, Van Ness, Enagbare, maybe Brooks at DE against either pass or run situations. Then spice that up with Parsons occasionally at DE and look out.

Parsons can't play the run? Yeah right hahahaha. I wouldn't want him as a full time in line DE, but as a ILB or OLB when the other team might try to run on him? No problem for us and big problem for their offense.

This all or nothing crap is just weird. The Packers were gonna be a top level team before the trade, and if haven forbid, Parsons went down this week for the season or something like that, the team would still be top level - Thanks a helluva lot to Gutekunst - and two years later, with or even without Parsons, there's every indication the Packers would still be top level. And of course, LaFleur has been and continues to be a damn good coach. It's just stupid to fantasize about either getting fired.

Good call about the element of luck in getting to and/or winning the SB. But of course, it's a helluva lot more likely that you get there if your team is loaded with talent - as the Packers are.

And cheez, I'd do without a damn SB for ten or twenty years if it meant the team won 12 -15 or so games every year. Fuck rebuilding. That's for losers.

[Bretsky]

I know Kenny was beloved by the media; but PFF 's rating of Parson't run defense last year was not that much worse than Kenny Clark

[NewsBruin]

Uh....Policy is the one who said it, not the media. At the same time, he also said he is generally opposed to having the GM or coach go into a lame duck season. In other words, he will either extend them or replace them next offseason. If he was sure he would extend their contracts, there is no reason to say he won't do it now. He does not seem sure about what he wants to do.

One thing you wrote was that if Gutes' moves with Love and Parsons fall through, we're sunk on players, picks, and cap space. That's true, but it also seems like that's the case for most replaced GMs. I don't know if someone's been fired because they were too conservative in their gambling.

A candidate's lucky if they can replace a GM who's retiring, but otherwise, it's like "Which morass do you want to step in?"

(Maybe Jerry would do that, but he's his own GM.)

[bobblehead]

The health of Love is their only excuse for not making post season noise. If Parsons goes down...oh well.

So why do YOU think Policy has said he is not interested in talking extensions with Gutekunst or LaFleur at this time? Typically, discussions would start now, the year before their contract year. Apparently, Policy has shut that door. Why?

He has no good excuse. If he were new to the organization it would make sense. He is not new so he should probably be in talks. That said I don't believe in extending anyone with 2 years left.

[bobblehead]

I see people are concerned about teams running at the interior of our line. They already did before we lost Clark.
I’m sorry, he was the definition of average last year. Could we be worse? Sure, but we certainly can be average or even better again.

I would take a SB anytime, even if it means a rebuild is around the corner.

As someone (Joe?) pointed out we were 3rd in ypc last year on D. Thats really good. Its the difference in scheme that made it happen as the personnel wasn't demonstrably different. Clark was hurt last year and is getting older, but the only way I see us not slipping A LOT vs. the run with the clark out, Parsons in is if Parsons reverts to his original position of off ball LB on 1st down (which might be in the cards).

[bobblehead]

I know Kenny was beloved by the media; but PFF 's rating of Parson't run defense last year was not that much worse than Kenny Clark

Different position. Different expectations. And parson's rating is likely bolstered by his splash plays. Think Barry sanders average per carry vs. emmit smith. 14, -3, 12, -3 for avg of 5.0. Emmit 4, 5, 6, 5. Which leads to more success? (and I'm not talking about OL, I think Barry was better than emmit). Parsons might kill some offensive possessions with splash plays, but he might give up a few explosive runs as well.

edited because I can't do math

[NewsBruin]

Great first line there, Fritz. It kinda went downhill from there, though.

Hafley's base defense calls for two D Tackles, not one Nose Tackle. If they did go with a NT, either Stackhouse or Brinson would be very adequate, maybe as good or better than Clark woulda been. Wooden did pretty good last year at DT. Pairing him with either Brinson or Stackhouse or maybe Karl Brooks along with a couple of hard rushing DEs - Gary, Van Ness, Enagbare, maybe Brooks at DE against either pass or run situations. Then spice that up with Parsons occasionally at DE and look out.

I don't know, and I'm too lazy to look, but do we have one of our DTs play nose and the other over/near guard, or are they both equal Defensive Tackles?

One of the things that confuses me is the differences in tackle duties on different coordinaters' 4-3s. And then you have some Galaxy Brain yahoo who says that 3-4s and 4-3s are all the same principle despite the different personnel, while simultaneously, everyone's 3-4 or 4-3 is uniquely different from everyone else's 3-4 and 4-3.

And don't get me started on calling one Defensive End an "Elephant" when he's not the biggest one on the line.

[bobblehead]

Offensive formation dictates a lot. Stong/weak side dictates so.e things. Run downs are more likely to draw a nose. Sometimes we use one, others we don't.

[NewsBruin]

And this helps clarify my Carnival des animeaux question:

The elephant front is simply another shorthand designation, and the ‘elephant end’ or LEO in the front isn’t a massive defensive tackle, but a linebacker or smaller defensive end who is primarily a pass rusher, meaning that he’s definitely not the biggest guy on the defensive front.

[smuggler]

And don't get me started on calling one Defensive End an "Elephant" when he's not the biggest one on the line.

I always thought it was because they were long fellas and their long arms pointed down was like an elephant's trunk.

[Patler]

Tex; In this and another thread you have insulted my initial post here, even calling it "90% wrongheaded". OK, let's discuss the points I made.

I called the trade the biggest "all-in" deal I have ever seen from the Packers. That is neither positive nor negative. Merely factual. Do you disagree with my characterization of the trade?

I then discussed the often times negative results from training camp holdouts being a concern. Again, neither positive nor negative. Just raising a potential concern from past history. No different than wondering about Lloyds durability.

My next two paragraphs were about the trade itself, my feelings before and after the trade, which you apparently concurred with, since you wrote this in the "Parsons" thread:

I've read/heard that the Packers offered two #1s, a #2, and a "talented defensive player" for Parsons. And of course, Parsons would get ridiculously big money. Is this a good idea - if in fact it is true at all, not fake news?

My first take on this is that if Jerry Jones doesn't think Parsons is worth that much, then the Packers should back off such a deal. Parsons is good, for sure, but THAT good? I sorta doubt it.

If we could get him cheaper, though, then maybe.

My next point was strictly opinion, that Parons struck me as a bit of a diva. I may be backing away from that opinion.

No one has responded to my query about whether they might have tried to keep Slatton if they had known they would be trading Clark. Simple roster question.

Next I discussed this maybe being the impetus to something great.

My last few points were to hopefull stir discussion by raising the potential opposites to the positive.


So, which do you want to discuss???

[texaspackerbacker]

Well, first of all, there is a huge difference between insulting your post and insulting you. I even quantified that at 90% hahahaha.

I have to cop to the idea of being one of those who was against the trade before it happened and very much for it after. The reason I don't buy the "all in" thing is that I considered the Packers a loaded team before the trade, and as I said someplace, if heaven forbid, Parsons got hurt, they still would be a loaded team. The other aspect of that I don't buy is that LaFleur or Gutekunst are in any job danger - their sum total of accomplishments makes that idea just plain silly.

Regarding Slaton, I heard Cincinnati paid him $14 million for two years. He wasn't worth that much. Stackhouse, who is pretty much a direct replacement is IMO as good or better for a whole lot less.

Thank you for the serious and civil post. And no, that ain't sarcasm.