David Carr?

[Rastak]

No generic comment from McCarthy there, nope none at all. What do you expect him to say? He sucks and I want someone else? In fact, when was the last time you heard any coach from any organization tell the media, "yeah he sucks" about any player on the roster? Even Ryan Leaf got the benefit of the doubt.

We can agree or disagree about whether McCarthy could easily have (or would likely have) stopped short of saying what he said if he didn't think Rodgers can be a successful QB in this league. That is a debatable issue, but you can't legitimately (unless you're Mike McCarthy) state your opinion as "fact" as you attempt to do. That's what I'm taking exception with.

You originally said,

TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.

Then you said,

Just because you don't like something (or reality for that matter) doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean it isn't factual.

And you came out with this gem,

I know it's hard for people to analyze things to the extent that I do. That isn't a cut on you or anyone else, that's just how it is.

When you say that those who don't see things the same way you do either just don't see "reality," don't "get it", and/or aren't as analytical or intelligent as you, that is not only wrong, it's offensive to all the great posters on this board. I believe those facts justify my stated opinion of those responses.

I also believe you're wrong about your position that 1. TT is the only one in the Packer organization who believes Rodgers can play in this league, and 2. TT is dictating the depth chart to the coaching staff. I also disagree with you about th various individuals' respective roles in the draft process, which Patler and Harvey have posted about already, so I won't repeat what they have already stated, other than to say that I agree with their posts.

Wtfever you say man. Take whatever bits and pieces out of the context of the conversation to justify your childish remarks. You argue a point with an article that slams your point into submission by only taking what you like out of it. Why am I not surprised you are trying to justify your behavior the same way? I don't really care man, you lost all creditability with me because you fail to read and comprehend what is said. Again, don't let reality interfere with your logic....

NEXT!

I nominate Merlin as Ass Hat Rat. MTP can you hook that up?

Comon guys, the forum is to exchange opinions. Not only certain ones.....

[vince]

I couldn't agree more, Ras.

The problem with the exchange of opinions comes when certain posters say, in effect...

"My opinion is a FACT, and anyone who doesn't see that is an idiot, doesn't see reality, and has no business posting on this or any other board."

It's impossible to argue facts. They are inarguable.

There are a few people who use that kind of strong-arm tactic here, and it hinders the free exchange of opinions. Those people need to be called out for that, IMO, in order to have the kind of board everyone wants.

[Bretsky]

Back to Tedford QB's. I'm curious about the converse - has any QB that was under his tutelage ever done at least reasonably well? I'd qualify 'reasonably well' as meaning he started for a team for at least a few years. Their lack of success is always talked about. What about their successes (if any).

edit: just checked, and Dilfer was TB's starter for four years - including that one very good season he (21TD, 11INT).

Legit points to ponder; I've always felt that Tedford is the most QB friendly coach in college football and his system and wonderful coaching ability make them often appear better than they are coming out of college.

Most in here know I did not like the Rodgers pick....but....

Am I right ? Will Rodgers buck the trend and develop into a Hasslebeck type player ?

My gut says no, but at this point IMO we should give him a chance to prove himself since there is not enough evidence either way to make a good argument.

When I first read the MM article, though, I figured the writer wanted to create an interesting article and IMO MM said exactly what any coach would say of his player. He's certainly not going to be a negative quote machine and hurt his confidence.


Cheers,
B

[retailguy]

I couldn't agree more, Ras.

The problem with the exchange of opinions comes when certain posters say, in effect...

"My opinion is a FACT, and anyone who doesn't see that is an idiot, doesn't see reality, and has no business posting on this or any other board."

It's impossible to argue facts. They are inarguable.

There are a few people who use that kind of strong-arm tactic here, and it hinders the free exchange of opinions. Those people need to be called out for that, IMO, in order to have the kind of board everyone wants.

This is priceless.

While I agree conceptually with what you said, quite honestly, 95% of what is spewed here is opinion. Who appointed you "hall monitor"? When the "majority" opinion is presented as a FACT, it becomes a FACT, even if, in reality it is still an opinion.

Case in point - "It is a FACT that Sherman was a bad GM. The evidence is overwhelming." The majority believes this, therefore, it has become a FACT.

LMAO Vince. You have become what you despise... judgmental.

[vince]

I couldn't agree more, Ras.

The problem with the exchange of opinions comes when certain posters say, in effect...

"My opinion is a FACT, and anyone who doesn't see that is an idiot, doesn't see reality, and has no business posting on this or any other board."

It's impossible to argue facts. They are inarguable.

There are a few people who use that kind of strong-arm tactic here, and it hinders the free exchange of opinions. Those people need to be called out for that, IMO, in order to have the kind of board everyone wants.

This is priceless.

While I agree conceptually with what you said, quite honestly, 95% of what is spewed here is opinion. Who appointed you "hall monitor"? When the "majority" opinion is presented as a FACT, it becomes a FACT, even if, in reality it is still an opinion.

Case in point - "It is a FACT that Sherman was a bad GM. The evidence is overwhelming." The majority believes this, therefore, it has become a FACT.

LMAO Vince. You have become what you despise... judgmental.

Thanks for joining this fray, retailguy. I don't despise judgements at all, so long as they aren't misrepresented as FACT in order to stifle opposing opinions.

I believe the problem is that you - judging by your words - and others, don't know the difference between a FACT and an opinion. The problem with that is it demonstrates your closed-mindedness and stifles the exchange of ideas.

It's not a FACT that Sherman was a bad GM. It's an opinion. No matter WHO or HOW MANY people believe that opinion doesn't change that. You may have FACTS to support that opinion, but someone else (not me) may have FACTS to support another opinion.

Stupid example, but in 1400, pretty much everyone in Europe believed the world was flat. By your logic, they all believed it, so it was FACT, right? Was it a FACT? Someone came along with some new FACTS didn't they?

When I read the words that people write, I judge them. We all do. I don't despise that at all. That's why we're here. When people try to stifle other opinions with illegitimate strong arm tactics, the only way to effectively counter them is through strong arm tactics. Those people often get defensive and lash out, which is expected. In doing so, they help make the point.

[vince]

Back to Tedford QB's. I'm curious about the converse - has any QB that was under his tutelage ever done at least reasonably well? I'd qualify 'reasonably well' as meaning he started for a team for at least a few years. Their lack of success is always talked about. What about their successes (if any).

edit: just checked, and Dilfer was TB's starter for four years - including that one very good season he (21TD, 11INT).

Legit points to ponder; I've always felt that Tedford is the most QB friendly coach in college football and his system and wonderful coaching ability make them often appear better than they are coming out of college.

Most in here know I did not like the Rodgers pick....but....

Am I right ? Will Rodgers buck the trend and develop into a Hasslebeck type player ?

My gut says no, but at this point IMO we should give him a chance to prove himself since there is not enough evidence either way to make a good argument.

When I first read the MM article, though, I figured the writer wanted to create an interesting article and IMO MM said exactly what any coach would say of his player. He's certainly not going to be a negative quote machine and hurt his confidence.


Cheers,
B

I think "Hasselback-like" is the absolute ceiling for Rodgers in terms of his personal QB skills, and that's probably too high, but with the way that this team is being put together - over the next couple years when he takes over, he has a chance to be serviceable.

McCarthy has a philosophical preference for running the ball well, and trying to build a team that will run the ball well and play sound defense. Then they can utilize a completion-oriented passing attack, which they already do.

That's the environment in which he can thrive.

[retailguy]

Thanks for joining this fray, retailguy. I don't despise judgements at all, so long as they aren't misrepresented as FACT in order to stifle opposing opinions.

I believe the problem is that you - judging by your words - and others, don't know the difference between a FACT and an opinion. The problem with that is it demonstrates your closed-mindedness and stifles the exchange of ideas.

It's not a FACT that Sherman was a bad GM. It's an opinion. No matter WHO or HOW MANY people believe that opinion doesn't change that. You may have FACTS to support that opinion, but someone else (not me) may have FACTS to support another opinion.

Stupid example, but in 1400, pretty much everyone in Europe believed the world was flat. By your logic, they all believed it, so it was FACT, right? Was it a FACT? Someone came along with some new FACTS didn't they?

When I read the words that people write, I judge them. We all do. I don't despise that at all. That's why we're here. When people try to stifle other opinions with illegitimate strong arm tactics, the only way to effectively counter them is through strong arm tactics. Those people often get defensive and lash out, which is expected. In doing so, they help make the point.

Nice try Vince, but you're not even close to what I think.

I was 'mocking' the whole "fact" thing. You stated my point. The "majority opinion" in these rooms is almost always presented as an "inarguable fact".

On Aaron Rodgers, it is an OPINION on both sides of the fence, however, the opinion of the GM and the COACH of the Green Bay Packers will BECOME a fact, if has not already become a fact.

You argue that no decision has been made on Aaron Rodgers, therefore, Merlin has an OPINION. Perhaps, but, perhaps NOT.

It is possible that Thompson and McCarthy have made a determination about the ability of Aaron Rodgers, and if they chose Merlin's point of view, then, it becomes a fact. Since Thompson in not in the process of speaking about his decisions, we won't know until an ACTION is taken. An action is different than a decision. That may already have been made.

My view - ANY drafted player is "capable" of playing NFL football. They earn that designation by their draft status. Some draft picks are busts, but that doesn't mean they aren't capable of playing, it just means that they didn't succeed. Failure happens, it doesn't change ability.

Some players need a certain type of offense/defense, others need the right coaching, and finally, some need a bit of luck. (Disclaimer - The above is my OPINION)

Facts are RARE in the NFL, and are mostly based upon conjecture, consistent with my claims of majority opinion.

[vince]

Thanks for joining this fray, retailguy. I don't despise judgements at all, so long as they aren't misrepresented as FACT in order to stifle opposing opinions.

I believe the problem is that you - judging by your words - and others, don't know the difference between a FACT and an opinion. The problem with that is it demonstrates your closed-mindedness and stifles the exchange of ideas.

It's not a FACT that Sherman was a bad GM. It's an opinion. No matter WHO or HOW MANY people believe that opinion doesn't change that. You may have FACTS to support that opinion, but someone else (not me) may have FACTS to support another opinion.

Stupid example, but in 1400, pretty much everyone in Europe believed the world was flat. By your logic, they all believed it, so it was FACT, right? Was it a FACT? Someone came along with some new FACTS didn't they?

When I read the words that people write, I judge them. We all do. I don't despise that at all. That's why we're here. When people try to stifle other opinions with illegitimate strong arm tactics, the only way to effectively counter them is through strong arm tactics. Those people often get defensive and lash out, which is expected. In doing so, they help make the point.

Nice try Vince, but you're not even close to what I think.

I was 'mocking' the whole "fact" thing. You stated my point. The "majority opinion" in these rooms is almost always presented as an "inarguable fact".

On Aaron Rodgers, it is an OPINION on both sides of the fence, however, the opinion of the GM and the COACH of the Green Bay Packers will BECOME a fact, if has not already become a fact.

You argue that no decision has been made on Aaron Rodgers, therefore, Merlin has an OPINION. Perhaps, but, perhaps NOT.

It is possible that Thompson and McCarthy have made a determination about the ability of Aaron Rodgers, and if they chose Merlin's point of view, then, it becomes a fact. Since Thompson in not in the process of speaking about his decisions, we won't know until an ACTION is taken. An action is different than a decision. That may already have been made.

My view - ANY drafted player is "capable" of playing NFL football. They earn that designation by their draft status. Some draft picks are busts, but that doesn't mean they aren't capable of playing, it just means that they didn't succeed. Failure happens, it doesn't change ability.

Some players need a certain type of offense/defense, others need the right coaching, and finally, some need a bit of luck. (Disclaimer - The above is my OPINION)

Facts are RARE in the NFL, and are mostly based upon conjecture, consistent with my claims of majority opinion.

One more try, then I'm going to give up on this Retail.

I have no problem whatsoever with people stating their opinions. That's what I'm most interested in. Actually, even in they state them as FACTS, which they aren't.

What I don't appreciate, and therefore challenge, is when someone says, in effect, "My opinion is a FACT, and you're an idiot if you disagree."

That is - as I said previously, an ignorant and arrogant tactic designed to stifle legitimate debate (which is what we all want to read), and the only way to deal with it is to take it on. Enough said on that.

Back to Tedford QB's?

[Merlin]

I think you need to take a hard look at who called who an idiot here. I never said you were an idiot. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. I base what I believe to be fact off of the whole picture, not from a sound byte. As far as arrogance goes, as stated previously, you don't have a clue who I am.

I am all for open debate on topic but for some reason someone who I won't name took this off topic. That person went on the offensive and personally attacked me and then sat there all arrogant and innocent.

You of course would have no clue who took this off topic would you?

[vince]

I think you need to take a hard look at who called who an idiot here. I never said you were an idiot. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. I base what I believe to be fact off of the whole picture, not from a sound byte. As far as arrogance goes, as stated previously, you don't have a clue who I am.

I am all for open debate on topic but for some reason someone who I won't name took this off topic. That person went on the offensive and personally attacked me and then sat there all arrogant and innocent.

You of course would have no clue who took this off topic would you?

I didn't call you an idiot. I accused you of spewing unsubstantiated idiocy. You STILL have not substantiated the opinions you stated as facts, other than with more unsubstantiated opinions.

Here are your "facts":

1. TT is the only one in the Packer organization who believes Aaron Rodgers can amount to anything in this league.
2. TT is dictating the depth chart to the coaching staff, and Mike McCarthy can't "go with his gut" and place Martin ahead of Rodgers as he wants to do.

To support these "facts," you bring more "facts":

Obviously the decision to pick up Rodgers wasn't Mike Sherman's when he was with Green Bay.

You justify this statement based on the fact that the Texans cut David Carr! But it got better.

The 49er's passed up on Rodgers in favor of Alex Smith by who? Then offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy

It's my opinion that the Niners General Manager was responsible for their draft. I didn't know that Mike McCarthy was both the Offensive Coordinator AND General Manager in San Francisco! Care to verify that claim?

But you take your theory farther yet to surmise that BECAUSE the Niners drafted Alex Smith that THAT means Mike McCarthy THEREFORE, thinks Aaron Rodgers sucks! Huh?

And you back that up with this.

Enter McCarthy in Green Bay. Nall is let go and Ingle Martin is drafted in the 5th round (148th Pick) overall. So it's easy to see who made this call, not TT, McCarthy.

Are you sure?

And to support all that, you said,

I guess when articles are published I must be the only one that reads them and actually thinks about it

Where are these articles to support your "facts?" And I must apologize on behalf of the rest of the board for not thinking about the articles that have been published.

And again, you come back with this.

I base what I believe to be fact off of the whole picture, not from a sound byte.

Like you - oh, I guess not like you, since it's "hard" for anyone else to analyze situations the way you do. Yeah, I know, "that's just the way it is." But the rest of us, try as we might, also look at the REAL facts of the WHOLE situation, and then support our opinions with actual FACTS - yes, from articles - the only actual FACTS necessary to prove a point.

On March 27, Mike McCarthy was quoted as saying the folowing about Aaron Rodgers,

He knows how we feel about him. We're not blind to the fact that you're always trying to improve through player acquisition. But Aaron Rodgers, I think he has a bright future here. He's going to take over one of the toughest situations ever (succeeding Favre). It's my job and Tom Clements' job and Joe Philbin's job to get him ready.

There are more actual facts that I could bring (you know, the bigger picture that you're the only one capable of seeing?) about this situation if it were necessary, but my hope would be that you bring something substantive to support your arguments besides wild speculation and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

But as you stated, I don't know you. You're right. I have no idea who you are. To me, you are what you write on this board, but I know what I've read, and that's the only thing I'm responding to.