They didn't learn shit

MB20 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Going into the season pinning their hopes on a kid who hasn't played an NFL snap in his life? They really learned nothing from last season, did they? So when the kid misses a critical block that lands Rodgers in sick bay for another 6 weeks this year, is their piss-poor performance going to be due to "bad luck" again?

Nahhhhhh--*Rodgers holding the ball too long* I believe was the official party-endorsed platform coming from the spandex shrink-wrapped nut-sack crowd out of the Oakland sports bar on that one.  It's all good as long as Don Barclay or Marshall Newhouse can be shifted over to Center.  It shouldn't be any harder for them to whiff there than it was for them in doing such a good job of it at RT...  After all, Fatty sees them both as legit starters in this league.  You just gotta find a way to get that talent in the game...   

MB20 wrote:Oh, he's nothing special, but he's adequate. I'd have liked him for another year or two while they groom the next long-term starter, or at least while they see what they have.

_HD_ wrote:

Breaking down first-rounders
Charting teams’ success in the first round since 2010.

Team	Total No. of Picks	Avg. draft spot	Avg. starts per year per pick	Avg. games per year per pick
Carolina	3	8.0	16.0	16.0
Houston	4	21.0	14.2	15.7
New England	4	22.5	14.6	15.3
Washington	3	7.3	14.6	14.7
Dallas	4	17.5	13.0	14.7
San Francisco	5	16.6	12.6	14.3
Tampa Bay	4	15.3	12.5	12.6
Detroit	4	10.8	12.0	14.7
Cincinnati	5	18.0	12.0	14.0
St. Louis	5	13.4	11.6	14.0
Atlanta	3	15.7	11.4	12.1
Jacksonville	4	6.8	11.4	11.7
Cleveland	5	11.8	11.3	13.6
Kansas City	4	10.8	11.3	13.2
Seattle	4	15.0	11.3	13.0
Buffalo	4	9.5	11.1	14.7
Indianapolis	4	19.5	10.9	14.3
San Diego	4	14.8	10.9	13.6
NY Jets	5	19.4	10.6	15.6
Miami	4	13.5	10.3	14.3
Minnesota	6	20.3	10.3	13.7
Oakland	2	10.0	10.0	12.3
Arizona	4	12.7	9.9	13.4
New Orleans	4	24.8	9.1	13.0
Tennessee	4	13.5	9.1	12.0
Baltimore	2	29.5	9.0	13.8
Denver	4	19.3	8.8	11.7
Pittsburgh	4	22.5	8.5	12.7
Chicago	3	22.7	8.4	12.4
NY Giants	4	21.3	8.2	13.2
Philadelphia	4	13.0	7.8	13.1
Green Bay	4	27.3	4.4	8.2

JnC4GB wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

Breaking down first-rounders
Charting teams’ success in the first round since 2010.

Team	Total No. of Picks	Avg. draft spot	Avg. starts per year per pick	Avg. games per year per pick
Carolina	3	8.0	16.0	16.0
Houston	4	21.0	14.2	15.7
New England	4	22.5	14.6	15.3
Washington	3	7.3	14.6	14.7
Dallas	4	17.5	13.0	14.7
San Francisco	5	16.6	12.6	14.3
Tampa Bay	4	15.3	12.5	12.6
Detroit	4	10.8	12.0	14.7
Cincinnati	5	18.0	12.0	14.0
St. Louis	5	13.4	11.6	14.0
Atlanta	3	15.7	11.4	12.1
Jacksonville	4	6.8	11.4	11.7
Cleveland	5	11.8	11.3	13.6
Kansas City	4	10.8	11.3	13.2
Seattle	4	15.0	11.3	13.0
Buffalo	4	9.5	11.1	14.7
Indianapolis	4	19.5	10.9	14.3
San Diego	4	14.8	10.9	13.6
NY Jets	5	19.4	10.6	15.6
Miami	4	13.5	10.3	14.3
Minnesota	6	20.3	10.3	13.7
Oakland	2	10.0	10.0	12.3
Arizona	4	12.7	9.9	13.4
New Orleans	4	24.8	9.1	13.0
Tennessee	4	13.5	9.1	12.0
Baltimore	2	29.5	9.0	13.8
Denver	4	19.3	8.8	11.7
Pittsburgh	4	22.5	8.5	12.7
Chicago	3	22.7	8.4	12.4
NY Giants	4	21.3	8.2	13.2
Philadelphia	4	13.0	7.8	13.1
Green Bay	4	27.3	4.4	8.2

Go back just one more year and include BJ Raji and Clay Mathews and this chart has a VERY different look.

JnC4GB wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

[size=18.399999618530273]Breaking down first-rounders[/size]
Charting teams’ success in the first round since 2010.

Team	Total No. of Picks	Avg. draft spot	Avg. starts per year per pick	Avg. games per year per pick
Carolina	3	8.0	16.0	16.0
Houston	4	21.0	14.2	15.7
New England	4	22.5	14.6	15.3
Washington	3	7.3	14.6	14.7
Dallas	4	17.5	13.0	14.7
San Francisco	5	16.6	12.6	14.3
Tampa Bay	4	15.3	12.5	12.6
Detroit	4	10.8	12.0	14.7
Cincinnati	5	18.0	12.0	14.0
St. Louis	5	13.4	11.6	14.0
Atlanta	3	15.7	11.4	12.1
Jacksonville	4	6.8	11.4	11.7
Cleveland	5	11.8	11.3	13.6
Kansas City	4	10.8	11.3	13.2
Seattle	4	15.0	11.3	13.0
Buffalo	4	9.5	11.1	14.7
Indianapolis	4	19.5	10.9	14.3
San Diego	4	14.8	10.9	13.6
NY Jets	5	19.4	10.6	15.6
Miami	4	13.5	10.3	14.3
Minnesota	6	20.3	10.3	13.7
Oakland	2	10.0	10.0	12.3
Arizona	4	12.7	9.9	13.4
New Orleans	4	24.8	9.1	13.0
Tennessee	4	13.5	9.1	12.0
Baltimore	2	29.5	9.0	13.8
Denver	4	19.3	8.8	11.7
Pittsburgh	4	22.5	8.5	12.7
Chicago	3	22.7	8.4	12.4
NY Giants	4	21.3	8.2	13.2
Philadelphia	4	13.0	7.8	13.1
Green Bay	4	27.3	4.4	8.2

Go back just one more year and include BJ Raji and Clay Mathews and this chart has a VERY different look.

The bottom line is just as we saw last season...  Take away what Aaron Rodgers brings--and this team really isn't very good.  TT has determined to live by the draft and live by the draft alone--but when what you're living starts to kill you--then that's calling dying, my friend...    

duck wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

[size=18.399999618530273]Breaking down first-rounders[/size]
Charting teams’ success in the first round since 2010.

Team	Total No. of Picks	Avg. draft spot	Avg. starts per year per pick	Avg. games per year per pick
Carolina	3	8.0	16.0	16.0
Houston	4	21.0	14.2	15.7
New England	4	22.5	14.6	15.3
Washington	3	7.3	14.6	14.7
Dallas	4	17.5	13.0	14.7
San Francisco	5	16.6	12.6	14.3
Tampa Bay	4	15.3	12.5	12.6
Detroit	4	10.8	12.0	14.7
Cincinnati	5	18.0	12.0	14.0
St. Louis	5	13.4	11.6	14.0
Atlanta	3	15.7	11.4	12.1
Jacksonville	4	6.8	11.4	11.7
Cleveland	5	11.8	11.3	13.6
Kansas City	4	10.8	11.3	13.2
Seattle	4	15.0	11.3	13.0
Buffalo	4	9.5	11.1	14.7
Indianapolis	4	19.5	10.9	14.3
San Diego	4	14.8	10.9	13.6
NY Jets	5	19.4	10.6	15.6
Miami	4	13.5	10.3	14.3
Minnesota	6	20.3	10.3	13.7
Oakland	2	10.0	10.0	12.3
Arizona	4	12.7	9.9	13.4
New Orleans	4	24.8	9.1	13.0
Tennessee	4	13.5	9.1	12.0
Baltimore	2	29.5	9.0	13.8
Denver	4	19.3	8.8	11.7
Pittsburgh	4	22.5	8.5	12.7
Chicago	3	22.7	8.4	12.4
NY Giants	4	21.3	8.2	13.2
Philadelphia	4	13.0	7.8	13.1
Green Bay	4	27.3	4.4	8.2

Go back just one more year and include BJ Raji and Clay Mathews and this chart has a VERY different look.

Of course, JnC.  The above table is a meaningless and self-serving example of bad statistics.  Four data points per team?  Give me a break.

More than anything else, the Packers have been hit with bad luck with their #1 picks. You can't plan for injuries.  I'm not saying they were great picks or anything but this hatchet job does little to give a fair assessment of Thompson's drafting.

Wolf did not do particularly well with his #1 picks either.

_HD_ wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

Breaking down first-rounders
Charting teams’ success in the first round since 2010.

Team	Total No. of Picks	Avg. draft spot	Avg. starts per year per pick	Avg. games per year per pick
Carolina	3	8.0	16.0	16.0
Houston	4	21.0	14.2	15.7
New England	4	22.5	14.6	15.3
Washington	3	7.3	14.6	14.7
Dallas	4	17.5	13.0	14.7
San Francisco	5	16.6	12.6	14.3
Tampa Bay	4	15.3	12.5	12.6
Detroit	4	10.8	12.0	14.7
Cincinnati	5	18.0	12.0	14.0
St. Louis	5	13.4	11.6	14.0
Atlanta	3	15.7	11.4	12.1
Jacksonville	4	6.8	11.4	11.7
Cleveland	5	11.8	11.3	13.6
Kansas City	4	10.8	11.3	13.2
Seattle	4	15.0	11.3	13.0
Buffalo	4	9.5	11.1	14.7
Indianapolis	4	19.5	10.9	14.3
San Diego	4	14.8	10.9	13.6
NY Jets	5	19.4	10.6	15.6
Miami	4	13.5	10.3	14.3
Minnesota	6	20.3	10.3	13.7
Oakland	2	10.0	10.0	12.3
Arizona	4	12.7	9.9	13.4
New Orleans	4	24.8	9.1	13.0
Tennessee	4	13.5	9.1	12.0
Baltimore	2	29.5	9.0	13.8
Denver	4	19.3	8.8	11.7
Pittsburgh	4	22.5	8.5	12.7
Chicago	3	22.7	8.4	12.4
NY Giants	4	21.3	8.2	13.2
Philadelphia	4	13.0	7.8	13.1
Green Bay	4	27.3	4.4	8.2

Go back just one more year and include BJ Raji and Clay Mathews and this chart has a VERY different look.

True...but success is fleeting.  When you have gotten precious little to date out of the first round in your draft for 4 consecutive years--that's a killer that helps in a big way to bring you from SuperBowl champ--to 8-7-1 and tieing the fucking Christian Ponder/Lezbo Frazier Minnesota Vikings at Lambeau Field in 15 degree weather in those 4 years...  This is especially impactful when you hang your hat on being a draft guru--and rebuke other means of player acquisition...


The bottom line is just as we saw last season...  Take away what Aaron Rodgers brings--and this team really isn't very good.  TT has determined to live by the draft and live by the draft alone--but when what you're living starts to kill you--then that's calling dying, my friend...    


As we've discussed--this whole organization lost it's edge after winning the superbowl in '10.  Paractically every objective measure of performance bears that out..  Whitey and the Fat Man need to step up or swirl the bowl.  The time for patience has been consumed.

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

[size=18.399999618530273]Breaking down first-rounders[/size]
Charting teams’ success in the first round since 2010.

Team	Total No. of Picks	Avg. draft spot	Avg. starts per year per pick	Avg. games per year per pick
Carolina	3	8.0	16.0	16.0
Houston	4	21.0	14.2	15.7
New England	4	22.5	14.6	15.3
Washington	3	7.3	14.6	14.7
Dallas	4	17.5	13.0	14.7
San Francisco	5	16.6	12.6	14.3
Tampa Bay	4	15.3	12.5	12.6
Detroit	4	10.8	12.0	14.7
Cincinnati	5	18.0	12.0	14.0
St. Louis	5	13.4	11.6	14.0
Atlanta	3	15.7	11.4	12.1
Jacksonville	4	6.8	11.4	11.7
Cleveland	5	11.8	11.3	13.6
Kansas City	4	10.8	11.3	13.2
Seattle	4	15.0	11.3	13.0
Buffalo	4	9.5	11.1	14.7
Indianapolis	4	19.5	10.9	14.3
San Diego	4	14.8	10.9	13.6
NY Jets	5	19.4	10.6	15.6
Miami	4	13.5	10.3	14.3
Minnesota	6	20.3	10.3	13.7
Oakland	2	10.0	10.0	12.3
Arizona	4	12.7	9.9	13.4
New Orleans	4	24.8	9.1	13.0
Tennessee	4	13.5	9.1	12.0
Baltimore	2	29.5	9.0	13.8
Denver	4	19.3	8.8	11.7
Pittsburgh	4	22.5	8.5	12.7
Chicago	3	22.7	8.4	12.4
NY Giants	4	21.3	8.2	13.2
Philadelphia	4	13.0	7.8	13.1
Green Bay	4	27.3	4.4	8.2

Go back just one more year and include BJ Raji and Clay Mathews and this chart has a VERY different look.

True...but success is fleeting.  When you have gotten precious little to date out of the first round in your draft for 4 consecutive years--that's a killer that helps in a big way to bring you from SuperBowl champ--to 8-7-1 and tieing the fucking Christian Ponder/Lezbo Frazier Minnesota Vikings at Lambeau Field in 15 degree weather in those 4 years...  This is especially impactful when you hang your hat on being a draft guru--and rebuke other means of player acquisition...


The bottom line is just as we saw last season...  Take away what Aaron Rodgers brings--and this team really isn't very good.  TT has determined to live by the draft and live by the draft alone--but when what you're living starts to kill you--then that's calling dying, my friend...    


As we've discussed--this whole organization lost it's edge after winning the superbowl in '10.  Paractically every objective measure of performance bears that out..  Whitey and the Fat Man need to step up or swirl the bowl.  The time for patience has been consumed.

This is where the Fuck Fatty and Fuck Whitey stuff gets tiresome.

I suppose if your standard is winning the Super Bowl every year, Green Bay has slipped.  However, as we all know, that's not at all realistic.  The Packers have, however, made it to the playoffs five straight years in a row. That's a more realistic goal and speaks well of the coaching and organization to maintain that level of consistency in a league in which teams' W/L records bounce around like yo-yos.

Let's review what the Packers have done since hoisting the Lombardi trophy.  Three straight NFC North titles.  A playoff loss in 2011 to the eventual Super Bowl winner.  A playoff loss in 2012 to the eventual Super Bowl loser.  A much closer playoff loss in 2013 to the team that almost beat the Seattle juggernaut.  Side note here:  last year was destined to be Seattle's year, period.  Had the Packers advanced, they would have eventually ran out of gas at Century Link field.

What do the prospects look like for Green Bay in 2014?  Well, the oddsmakers have them as a 16/1 shot, ranked 5th in the NFL.  I'd be stunned if they didn't have another winning season, making the playoffs.

You know perfectly well that when the season rolls around, you and everyone else on this board will be predicting Packer wins in 80-90% of the games.

Let's face it, we'll all spoiled.

Instead of saying Fuck Fatty and Fuck Whitey, I say Thank You Fatty and Thank You Whitey.

JnC4GB wrote:"Tail wagging the dog," is a situation where a small part is controlling the whole of something,  and is not really the idiom you want here. For example, the Tea Party activists dictating the whole of the Republican Party's political agenda is the tail wagging the dog.



What you are accusing Duck of is of being myopic i.e., nearsightedly focused on one thing in front of him and drawing conclusions without regard to other multiple, larger factors. 


Also known as "not seeing the forest for the trees."    

LOL!  Thanks for the helper, Chet...but I think I've got my idiom duck's in a row with the duck idioms I've chosen...    

No--myopic is what you were when you essentially stated that the financial ramifications of Shield's deal were really meaningless to the product on the field...    

_HD_ wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:"Tail wagging the dog," is a situation where a small part is controlling the whole of something,  and is not really the idiom you want here. For example, the Tea Party activists dictating the whole of the Republican Party's political agenda is the tail wagging the dog.



What you are accusing Duck of is of being myopic i.e., nearsightedly focused on one thing in front of him and drawing conclusions without regard to other multiple, larger factors. 


Also known as "not seeing the forest for the trees."    

LOL!  Thanks for the helper, Chet...but I think I've got my idiom duck's in a row with the duck idioms I've chosen...    


No--myopic is what you were when you essentially stated that the financial ramifications of Shield's deal were really meaningless to the product on the field...    

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

Breaking down first-rounders
Charting teams’ success in the first round since 2010.

Team	Total No. of Picks	Avg. draft spot	Avg. starts per year per pick	Avg. games per year per pick
Carolina	3	8.0	16.0	16.0
Houston	4	21.0	14.2	15.7
New England	4	22.5	14.6	15.3
Washington	3	7.3	14.6	14.7
Dallas	4	17.5	13.0	14.7
San Francisco	5	16.6	12.6	14.3
Tampa Bay	4	15.3	12.5	12.6
Detroit	4	10.8	12.0	14.7
Cincinnati	5	18.0	12.0	14.0
St. Louis	5	13.4	11.6	14.0
Atlanta	3	15.7	11.4	12.1
Jacksonville	4	6.8	11.4	11.7
Cleveland	5	11.8	11.3	13.6
Kansas City	4	10.8	11.3	13.2
Seattle	4	15.0	11.3	13.0
Buffalo	4	9.5	11.1	14.7
Indianapolis	4	19.5	10.9	14.3
San Diego	4	14.8	10.9	13.6
NY Jets	5	19.4	10.6	15.6
Miami	4	13.5	10.3	14.3
Minnesota	6	20.3	10.3	13.7
Oakland	2	10.0	10.0	12.3
Arizona	4	12.7	9.9	13.4
New Orleans	4	24.8	9.1	13.0
Tennessee	4	13.5	9.1	12.0
Baltimore	2	29.5	9.0	13.8
Denver	4	19.3	8.8	11.7
Pittsburgh	4	22.5	8.5	12.7
Chicago	3	22.7	8.4	12.4
NY Giants	4	21.3	8.2	13.2
Philadelphia	4	13.0	7.8	13.1
Green Bay	4	27.3	4.4	8.2

Go back just one more year and include BJ Raji and Clay Mathews and this chart has a VERY different look.

True...but success is fleeting.  When you have gotten precious little to date out of the first round in your draft for 4 consecutive years--that's a killer that helps in a big way to bring you from SuperBowl champ--to 8-7-1 and tieing the fucking Christian Ponder/Lezbo Frazier Minnesota Vikings at Lambeau Field in 15 degree weather in those 4 years...  This is especially impactful when you hang your hat on being a draft guru--and rebuke other means of player acquisition...


The bottom line is just as we saw last season...  Take away what Aaron Rodgers brings--and this team really isn't very good.  TT has determined to live by the draft and live by the draft alone--but when what you're living starts to kill you--then that's calling dying, my friend...    


As we've discussed--this whole organization lost it's edge after winning the superbowl in '10.  Paractically every objective measure of performance bears that out..  Whitey and the Fat Man need to step up or swirl the bowl.  The time for patience has been consumed.

This is where the Fuck Fatty and Fuck Whitey stuff gets tiresome.

I suppose if your standard is winning the Super Bowl every year, Green Bay has slipped.  However, as we all know, that's not at all realistic.  The Packers have, however, made it to the playoffs five straight years in a row. That's a more realistic goal and speaks well of the coaching and organization to maintain that level of consistency in a league in which teams' W/L records bounce around like yo-yos.

Let's review what the Packers have done since hoisting the Lombardi trophy.  Three straight NFC North titles.  A playoff loss in 2011 to the eventual Super Bowl winner.  A playoff loss in 2012 to the eventual Super Bowl loser.  A much closer playoff loss in 2013 to the team that almost beat the Seattle juggernaut.  Side note here:  last year was destined to be Seattle's year, period.  Had the Packers advanced, they would have eventually ran out of gas at Century Link field.

What do the prospects look like for Green Bay in 2014?  Well, the oddsmakers have them as a 16/1 shot, ranked 5th in the NFL.  I'd be stunned if they didn't have another winning season, making the playoffs.

You know perfectly well that when the season rolls around, you and everyone else on this board will be predicting Packer wins in 80-90% of the games.

Let's face it, we'll all spoiled.

Instead of saying Fuck Fatty and Fuck Whitey, I say Thank You Fatty and Thank You Whitey.

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

Breaking down first-rounders
Charting teams’ success in the first round since 2010.

Team	Total No. of Picks	Avg. draft spot	Avg. starts per year per pick	Avg. games per year per pick
Carolina	3	8.0	16.0	16.0
Houston	4	21.0	14.2	15.7
New England	4	22.5	14.6	15.3
Washington	3	7.3	14.6	14.7
Dallas	4	17.5	13.0	14.7
San Francisco	5	16.6	12.6	14.3
Tampa Bay	4	15.3	12.5	12.6
Detroit	4	10.8	12.0	14.7
Cincinnati	5	18.0	12.0	14.0
St. Louis	5	13.4	11.6	14.0
Atlanta	3	15.7	11.4	12.1
Jacksonville	4	6.8	11.4	11.7
Cleveland	5	11.8	11.3	13.6
Kansas City	4	10.8	11.3	13.2
Seattle	4	15.0	11.3	13.0
Buffalo	4	9.5	11.1	14.7
Indianapolis	4	19.5	10.9	14.3
San Diego	4	14.8	10.9	13.6
NY Jets	5	19.4	10.6	15.6
Miami	4	13.5	10.3	14.3
Minnesota	6	20.3	10.3	13.7
Oakland	2	10.0	10.0	12.3
Arizona	4	12.7	9.9	13.4
New Orleans	4	24.8	9.1	13.0
Tennessee	4	13.5	9.1	12.0
Baltimore	2	29.5	9.0	13.8
Denver	4	19.3	8.8	11.7
Pittsburgh	4	22.5	8.5	12.7
Chicago	3	22.7	8.4	12.4
NY Giants	4	21.3	8.2	13.2
Philadelphia	4	13.0	7.8	13.1
Green Bay	4	27.3	4.4	8.2

Go back just one more year and include BJ Raji and Clay Mathews and this chart has a VERY different look.

True...but success is fleeting.  When you have gotten precious little to date out of the first round in your draft for 4 consecutive years--that's a killer that helps in a big way to bring you from SuperBowl champ--to 8-7-1 and tieing the fucking Christian Ponder/Lezbo Frazier Minnesota Vikings at Lambeau Field in 15 degree weather in those 4 years...  This is especially impactful when you hang your hat on being a draft guru--and rebuke other means of player acquisition...


The bottom line is just as we saw last season...  Take away what Aaron Rodgers brings--and this team really isn't very good.  TT has determined to live by the draft and live by the draft alone--but when what you're living starts to kill you--then that's calling dying, my friend...    


As we've discussed--this whole organization lost it's edge after winning the superbowl in '10.  Paractically every objective measure of performance bears that out..  Whitey and the Fat Man need to step up or swirl the bowl.  The time for patience has been consumed.

This is where the Fuck Fatty and Fuck Whitey stuff gets tiresome.

I suppose if your standard is winning the Super Bowl every year, Green Bay has slipped.  However, as we all know, that's not at all realistic.  The Packers have, however, made it to the playoffs five straight years in a row. That's a more realistic goal and speaks well of the coaching and organization to maintain that level of consistency in a league in which teams' W/L records bounce around like yo-yos.

Let's review what the Packers have done since hoisting the Lombardi trophy.  Three straight NFC North titles.  A playoff loss in 2011 to the eventual Super Bowl winner.  A playoff loss in 2012 to the eventual Super Bowl loser.  A much closer playoff loss in 2013 to the team that almost beat the Seattle juggernaut.  Side note here:  last year was destined to be Seattle's year, period.  Had the Packers advanced, they would have eventually ran out of gas at Century Link field.

What do the prospects look like for Green Bay in 2014?  Well, the oddsmakers have them as a 16/1 shot, ranked 5th in the NFL.  I'd be stunned if they didn't have another winning season, making the playoffs.

You know perfectly well that when the season rolls around, you and everyone else on this board will be predicting Packer wins in 80-90% of the games.

Let's face it, we'll all spoiled.

Instead of saying Fuck Fatty and Fuck Whitey, I say Thank You Fatty and Thank You Whitey.

It's been obvious for a long time that you/I just have very different standards through which we measure performance.  You're impressed that the Pack won the North last season.  I'm not.  To me--it speaks to how weak the division is that an 8-7-1 team could possibly win it.  You pull yourself a frothy helmet because the Pack somehow managed to be marginally better than a host of other shit teams in the division (2 out of 3 of which who just fired their head coach)


You have generally begun to constantly wag the dog by the tail, Duck.  Rather than assess/observe with an open mind and let the facts paint the reality you accept--whatever that reality might be--you instead have adopted an approach like many do.  You start with your preferred conclusion (tail) and wag it until you are satisfied the dog moves in concert with your logical gyrations...


I assess things much differently--relative to potential.  I don't give a fleeting shit so much about the outcome as long as something close to the potential was reached.  Two children standing side by side with one having straight A's and one having nothing but C's could draw equally hearty accolades from me.  Why?  Measured against unequal potential--they both could have put in an effort/performace equally worthy of praise...


My point is this:  The Pack has woefully underachieved in recent years.  The GM has made a number of obvious, easily foreseeable errors.  The Head Coach has made a number of obvious, easily foreseeable errors.  The whole program lacks proper accountability/urgency and the fleeting gift of the window with the best QB the world has ever seen is being utterly wasted because of precisely the type off complacency in this organization that you exhibit.  The potential was there for SO much more--and that falls back on the people making the decisions.  Hey--we won the North again sporting a .500 record.  Hoo rah-rah!  I guess that saves us again from having to make any tough choices.  Who wants to hit the links!  Dom?  Your turn to buy the first round you synthetic hair motherfucker!  :::backslap:::     

Sorry Duck...  I'm trained to come in and sniff out shit like this.  It's too easy to be part of the problem...  Anybody can succeed with that.

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

[size=18.399999618530273]Breaking down first-rounders[/size]
Charting teams’ success in the first round since 2010.

Team	Total No. of Picks	Avg. draft spot	Avg. starts per year per pick	Avg. games per year per pick
Carolina	3	8.0	16.0	16.0
Houston	4	21.0	14.2	15.7
New England	4	22.5	14.6	15.3
Washington	3	7.3	14.6	14.7
Dallas	4	17.5	13.0	14.7
San Francisco	5	16.6	12.6	14.3
Tampa Bay	4	15.3	12.5	12.6
Detroit	4	10.8	12.0	14.7
Cincinnati	5	18.0	12.0	14.0
St. Louis	5	13.4	11.6	14.0
Atlanta	3	15.7	11.4	12.1
Jacksonville	4	6.8	11.4	11.7
Cleveland	5	11.8	11.3	13.6
Kansas City	4	10.8	11.3	13.2
Seattle	4	15.0	11.3	13.0
Buffalo	4	9.5	11.1	14.7
Indianapolis	4	19.5	10.9	14.3
San Diego	4	14.8	10.9	13.6
NY Jets	5	19.4	10.6	15.6
Miami	4	13.5	10.3	14.3
Minnesota	6	20.3	10.3	13.7
Oakland	2	10.0	10.0	12.3
Arizona	4	12.7	9.9	13.4
New Orleans	4	24.8	9.1	13.0
Tennessee	4	13.5	9.1	12.0
Baltimore	2	29.5	9.0	13.8
Denver	4	19.3	8.8	11.7
Pittsburgh	4	22.5	8.5	12.7
Chicago	3	22.7	8.4	12.4
NY Giants	4	21.3	8.2	13.2
Philadelphia	4	13.0	7.8	13.1
Green Bay	4	27.3	4.4	8.2

Go back just one more year and include BJ Raji and Clay Mathews and this chart has a VERY different look.

True...but success is fleeting.  When you have gotten precious little to date out of the first round in your draft for 4 consecutive years--that's a killer that helps in a big way to bring you from SuperBowl champ--to 8-7-1 and tieing the fucking Christian Ponder/Lezbo Frazier Minnesota Vikings at Lambeau Field in 15 degree weather in those 4 years...  This is especially impactful when you hang your hat on being a draft guru--and rebuke other means of player acquisition...


The bottom line is just as we saw last season...  Take away what Aaron Rodgers brings--and this team really isn't very good.  TT has determined to live by the draft and live by the draft alone--but when what you're living starts to kill you--then that's calling dying, my friend...    


As we've discussed--this whole organization lost it's edge after winning the superbowl in '10.  Paractically every objective measure of performance bears that out..  Whitey and the Fat Man need to step up or swirl the bowl.  The time for patience has been consumed.

This is where the Fuck Fatty and Fuck Whitey stuff gets tiresome.

I suppose if your standard is winning the Super Bowl every year, Green Bay has slipped.  However, as we all know, that's not at all realistic.  The Packers have, however, made it to the playoffs five straight years in a row. That's a more realistic goal and speaks well of the coaching and organization to maintain that level of consistency in a league in which teams' W/L records bounce around like yo-yos.

Let's review what the Packers have done since hoisting the Lombardi trophy.  Three straight NFC North titles.  A playoff loss in 2011 to the eventual Super Bowl winner.  A playoff loss in 2012 to the eventual Super Bowl loser.  A much closer playoff loss in 2013 to the team that almost beat the Seattle juggernaut.  Side note here:  last year was destined to be Seattle's year, period.  Had the Packers advanced, they would have eventually ran out of gas at Century Link field.

What do the prospects look like for Green Bay in 2014?  Well, the oddsmakers have them as a 16/1 shot, ranked 5th in the NFL.  I'd be stunned if they didn't have another winning season, making the playoffs.

You know perfectly well that when the season rolls around, you and everyone else on this board will be predicting Packer wins in 80-90% of the games.

Let's face it, we'll all spoiled.

Instead of saying Fuck Fatty and Fuck Whitey, I say Thank You Fatty and Thank You Whitey.

It's been obvious for a long time that you/I just have very different standards through which we measure performance.  You're impressed that the Pack won the North last season.  I'm not.  To me--it speaks to how weak the division is that an 8-7-1 team could possibly win it.  You pull yourself a frothy helmet because the Pack somehow managed to be marginally better than a host of other shit teams in the division (2 out of 3 of which who just fired their head coach)


You have generally begun to constantly wag the dog by the tail, Duck.  Rather than assess/observe with an open mind and let the facts paint the reality you accept--whatever that reality might be--you instead have adopted an approach like many do.  You start with your preferred conclusion (tail) and wag it until you are satisfied the dog moves in concert with your logical gyrations...


I assess things much differently--relative to potential.  I don't give a fleeting shit so much about the outcome as long as something close to the potential was reached.  Two children standing side by side with one having straight A's and one having nothing but C's could draw equally hearty accolades from me.  Why?  Measured against unequal potential--they both could have put in an effort/performace equally worthy of praise...


My point is this:  The Pack has woefully underachieved in recent years.  The GM has made a number of obvious, easily foreseeable errors.  The Head Coach has made a number of obvious, easily foreseeable errors.  The whole program lacks proper accountability/urgency and the fleeting gift of the window with the best QB the world has ever seen is being utterly wasted because of precisely the type off complacency in this organization that you exhibit.  The potential was there for SO much more--and that falls back on the people making the decisions.  Hey--we won the North again sporting a .500 record.  Hoo rah-rah!  I guess that saves us again from having to make any tough choices.  Who wants to hit the links!  Dom?  Your turn to buy the first round you synthetic hair motherfucker!  :::backslap:::     

Sorry Duck...  I'm trained to come in and sniff out shit like this.  It's too easy to be part of the problem...  Anybody can succeed with that.

HD, I fully understand and generally agree with your central point:  success should be measured by the realization of potential.  However, I disagree with virtually all of your checkmarks along the way.  In fact I think it is you who brings reflexive negativity and preconceived notions to the table.  And no, JnC, I am hardly myopic.  I'm a sports nut and watch a shitload of football, including NFL Network even in the offseason and probably read as much about the Packers as anyone on the board.

I don't agree that the Packers have performed below potential in the last three years.  In 2011 we knew that their defense was an achilles heel and that if the offense had a bad day, we'd be in trouble.  Well guess what happened?  The Giants defense was peaking in January and went on to run the table.  In 2012, when the tattooed man lit us up for an unspeakable number of yards, does anyone think that the Packers were the better team but just underperforming?  Last year was a burn year summed up in one word:  injuries.

Do you really think the Packers had more "potential" than the 2011 New York Giants, the 2012 San Francisco Forty-Niners or the 2013 Seattle Seahawks?  If so, I'd like to have some of what you're smoking.  Also, if so, you really need to tip your hat to the albino for providing all that "potential."

Also, I don't agree with your statement that MM and TT have made a litany of egregious stupid blunders.  Many of what you called poor decisions at the time I felt were either correct or coin flip situations.  Heck, if you want to roast a coach for game-losing decisions, why not pick on Belichick who has pissed away a couple with debatable fourth quarter gambles?  Bottom line is that on balance MM and TT are solidly in the plus column.

Let's see how the 2014 Packers fare.  Reading between the lines in your posts it's clear that you and Milani see a floundering team with its needle pointed down.  I don't.  I see one of the most balanced and dangerous offenses in the league and a defense that needs work but could be improved dramatically with a healthy Matthews and a couple of decent safeties.  I predict a playoff berth for the Packers and think they are even a long shot for the Super Bowl.

If the Packers suck so much how about a little side bet?  If the Pack goes 8-8 and under I send you a C note.  If the Pack has a winning season you send me one.

My apologies, JnC.  I stand corrected--  Myopic is obviously also very valid...   

Duck--I'll just say this in the interest of not further wasting my time.  You start out professing to understand my central point--then you spend the rest of your post demonstrating how you really don't...  From my recent experience with you in this regard--continuing to try to shine the light for you is about as fruitful as picking through a turkey pot pie searching for chicken... It just ain't in there...     

JnC4GB wrote:Duck: And no, JnC, I am hardly myopic. 


Didn't say your were. Said that's what term HD should've used in trying to make his point.

Different.

You are, however, bald. 

duck wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:Duck: And no, JnC, I am hardly myopic. 


Didn't say your were. Said that's what term HD should've used in trying to make his point.

Different.

You are, however, bald. 

Balding since I was 23 and perfectly happy with it!

At least at almost 62 i don't need glasses.  Myopia would be a different problem altogether.    

JnC4GB wrote:

duck wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:Duck: And no, JnC, I am hardly myopic. 


Didn't say your were. Said that's what term HD should've used in trying to make his point.

Different.

You are, however, bald. 

Balding since I was 23 and perfectly happy with it!

At least at almost 62 i don't need glasses.  Myopia would be a different problem altogether.    

I've worn glasses since I was six.

So you win.