Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
6 Pages<1234>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline gbguy20  
#11 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 9:20:06 AM(UTC)
gbguy20

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/28/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 208
Applause Received: 285

terrible article idea, i hope the writer knocked on wood.
call me Dan
Offline DoddPower  
#12 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 11:05:14 AM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,086
Applause Received: 528

Nerdmann so dumb. But we all knew that, anyway. Wanna Box? Wanna Box?
Offline sschind  
#13 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 4:01:15 PM(UTC)
sschind

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN

Applause Given: 123
Applause Received: 449

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
This makes absolutely no sense, and Texas liking it proves the theorem. I know you guys are old, but Alzheimer's already?


I guess it depends on what Nerd meant by "this team" If he meant the Green Bay Packers then yes, he is right If he meant the current team then no, they have not won anything besides 5 games this season. All of them with Aaron Rodgers.

If Rodgers were to go down against the Bears I think Wallace could easily manage 4-5 even 5-4 against the remainder of the schedule. 4-5 might get a WC 5-4 would probably get a WC and might even get the division depending on the wins.

Could he win vs playoff caliber opponents? I think he could. Could he win the SB, again I think he could but I wouldn't bet on it.
I respect your right to have your opinion but that doesn't mean I agree with it or respect you for having it.
Offline wpr  
#14 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 4:30:40 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 3,143
Applause Received: 1,515

Originally Posted by: sschind Go to Quoted Post
I guess it depends on what Nerd meant by "this team" If he meant the Green Bay Packers then yes, he is right If he meant the current team then no, they have not won anything besides 5 games this season. All of them with Aaron Rodgers.

If Rodgers were to go down against the Bears I think Wallace could easily manage 4-5 even 5-4 against the remainder of the schedule. 4-5 might get a WC 5-4 would probably get a WC and might even get the division depending on the wins.

Could he win vs playoff caliber opponents? I think he could. Could he win the SB, again I think he could but I wouldn't bet on it.


Of course nerd meant the Packers organization as a whole which is a little silly. It doesn't matter what any other team did. Not even 2012 team which had so many of the current players on it. The team can only deal with the next game on their schedule not look backwards t years gone by in order to predict future victories.

If Wallace the full complement of starters he would have some chance of success but stripped as they are he will struggle because one thing is certain try as he might Wallace is no Rodgers and can not expect to have the same success Rodgers achieves.
UserPostedImage

"Will you follow me, one last time?" Thorin Oakenshield
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#15 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 7:24:43 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 481
Applause Received: 291

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
Of course nerd meant the Packers organization as a whole which is a little silly. It doesn't matter what any other team did. Not even 2012 team which had so many of the current players on it. The team can only deal with the next game on their schedule not look backwards t years gone by in order to predict future victories.

If Wallace the full complement of starters he would have some chance of success but stripped as they are he will struggle because one thing is certain try as he might Wallace is no Rodgers and can not expect to have the same success Rodgers achieves.


I applauded wpr's post because I thought it was nice sarcasm. It's a big duh that WE won Super Bowls before Aaron Rodgers - before he was born. Oops, I said WE, and none of us were there blocking for or catching passes from Bart or Brett. At least I don't think so hahahaha.

To me, there's nothing sacred about the WCO. The scheme didn't make the personnel; The personnel made the scheme successful.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
wpr on 11/4/2013(UTC)
Online nerdmann  
#16 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 7:33:22 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,704
Applause Received: 663

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
I applauded wpr's post because I thought it was nice sarcasm. It's a big duh that WE won Super Bowls before Aaron Rodgers - before he was born. Oops, I said WE, and none of us were there blocking for or catching passes from Bart or Brett. At least I don't think so hahahaha.

To me, there's nothing sacred about the WCO. The scheme didn't make the personnel; The personnel made the scheme successful.


HISTORICAL FACT: Only ONE Superbowl winning team in the history of the league, had Aaron Rodgers on it.

It CAN be done.

Here's another fact: The WCO is a system that is based on the "modern football era" rules protecting the passing game. When the rules changed in 1970, teams began to experiment with the passing game, chiefly among them "Air Coryell." Well the WCO was derivative of that, and is based upon the fundamentals of high percentage passing, ball control and hogging time of possession.

High percentage is high percentage. Let's say you have shitty players. Well, high percentage plays with those shitty players are more likely to be successful than low percentage plays with those same players, no? Now let's say you have great players. Still, high percentage plays are more likely to be successful.

Before the rules were changed to protect the passing game, it was more advantageous to run the ball. You might have heard of the guy who mastered that. The Superbowl trophy was named after him.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline olds70supreme  
#17 Posted : Monday, November 4, 2013 6:22:20 AM(UTC)
olds70supreme

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/10/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 18
Applause Received: 42

I'm guessing that Wallace might be able to split the final games, +/- 1. I don't think that would be good enough for the playoffs this year.

As for McGinn, I have to echo the question about him earlier in the thread. I've heard he is very well regarded among his peers, but I have trouble seeing it. I expect better than a complete homer for a beat writer, but he seems to either actively resent the team's success or is overcompensating in an effort to appear objective. The end result often is an article with really questionable logic.
blank
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 11/5/2013(UTC)
Offline wpr  
#18 Posted : Monday, November 4, 2013 6:36:46 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 3,143
Applause Received: 1,515

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
HISTORICAL FACT: Only ONE Superbowl winning team in the history of the league, had Aaron Rodgers on it.

It CAN be done.

Here's another fact: The WCO is a system that is based on the "modern football era" rules protecting the passing game. When the rules changed in 1970, teams began to experiment with the passing game, chiefly among them "Air Coryell." Well the WCO was derivative of that, and is based upon the fundamentals of high percentage passing, ball control and hogging time of possession.

High percentage is high percentage. Let's say you have sh!tty players. Well, high percentage plays with those sh!tty players are more likely to be successful than low percentage plays with those same players, no? Now let's say you have great players. Still, high percentage plays are more likely to be successful.

Before the rules were changed to protect the passing game, it was more advantageous to run the ball. You might have heard of the guy who mastered that. The Superbowl trophy was named after him.


Historical fact: past results are never the basis for future success.

I am not saying the Wallace could never win games. I am saying it is very unlikely to have Super Bowl success with him in charge. Look at all the WCO teams that have not won the SB year in and year out. Some pretty skillful QBs have come up short. They have to have talent around them in order to succeed. Aaron has succeeded in the absence of a lot of talent. Wallace would most likely not. Why it is not because the WCO is a failure (and GB doesn't run a true WCO by the way.) it is because he is not talented enough and with all the injuries the team's talent level has dropped. Don't look at the success GB has had Rodgers at the helm and assume it will be exactly the same without him. Boykin and White will not look as good. Even Jones when he comes back and Jordy will see their numbers drop. All you have to do is look at Jennings in MN to know it is so.
UserPostedImage

"Will you follow me, one last time?" Thorin Oakenshield
thanks Post received 1 applause.
texaspackerbacker on 11/4/2013(UTC)
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#19 Posted : Monday, November 4, 2013 9:05:23 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 481
Applause Received: 291

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
Historical fact: past results are never the basis for future success.

I am not saying the Wallace could never win games. I am saying it is very unlikely to have Super Bowl success with him in charge. Look at all the WCO teams that have not won the SB year in and year out. Some pretty skillful QBs have come up short. They have to have talent around them in order to succeed. Aaron has succeeded in the absence of a lot of talent. Wallace would most likely not. Why it is not because the WCO is a failure (and GB doesn't run a true WCO by the way.) it is because he is not talented enough and with all the injuries the team's talent level has dropped. Don't look at the success GB has had Rodgers at the helm and assume it will be exactly the same without him. Boykin and White will not look as good. Even Jones when he comes back and Jordy will see their numbers drop. All you have to do is look at Jennings in MN to know it is so.


Seems like I've been applauding you a lot lately.

You must have borrowed that past results/future success line from mutual funds disclaimers hahahaha.

I could learn to like Seneca Wallace real quick if he ever had to get on the field and did a decent job.

My Point in this whole thing is that the PROBLEM is Packer weakness in the O Line, as well as RB until this season, and to a great extent, our D also. Aaron Rodgers is like an addiction. He is so damn good that we have been able to win big time even with all those other weaknesses. Losing him would be like getting off of whatever meds somebody is taking - suddenly all those aches and pains and weaknesses would really come to the surface and we'd be in a world of hurt.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline Yerko  
#20 Posted : Monday, November 4, 2013 9:26:52 AM(UTC)
Yerko

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 10/15/2008(UTC)
Location: Chicago, IL

Applause Given: 160
Applause Received: 261

Didn't even read the article because the title alone is dumb...just dumb.


Reading the article is probably like being inside one of nerdmann's dreams.

I'll pass. Laughing
UserPostedImage
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
6 Pages<1234>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
6m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / RaiderPride

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / macbob

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / macbob

21-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Since69

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

19-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

19-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

19-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

18-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / luigis