uffda udfa
9 years ago

Last playoff game against San Fran looked competitive to me. It was a thrilling yet heartbreaking game. It came down to who had the ball last, and we were playing with our most important guys on defense out and a rookie DE playing OLB. Hyde played very well last season but you can bet your ass Shields makes that pick at the end of the game and we probably end up winning and who knows what happens from there. We are getting close; just got to stay healthy.

Originally Posted by: DarkaneRules 



Yep...competitive. It took frigid temps that SF clearly wasn't used to to even the playing field for us.

So, we can almost beat SF, but then there's...SEATTLE who is better.

Graham helps us so much. Just a stud TE. We need studs to compete or are you going to trust Dom Capers is going to construct plans to stop SF and SEA? Now, that is funny or sad.

UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


dhazer
9 years ago

I doubt that very much. Most unsettled position on the team per Jerry Fontenot. I don't think they're any more confident than they were with what they had at S or ILB heading into last year. It's a huge risk rolling into the year with no proven option and the most experienced one missing all OTA's.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



No proven option hmmmmmmm, If I recall we have a guy that played alot the past few years including a guy that we wona Super Bowl with, but I guess he is unproven as you say.
Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)
UserPostedImage
uffda udfa
9 years ago

No proven option hmmmmmmm, If I recall we have a guy that played alot the past few years including a guy that we wona Super Bowl with, but I guess he is unproven as you say.

Originally Posted by: dhazer 



You think Andrew Quarless is a proven #1 TE? BTW, if that is what you really think and it must be...How proven is Frank Zombo? Do you even know where that proven SB winning OLB is these days?

Andrew Quarless in 2010...

21 receptions 238 yards and 1 TD in regular season

In 4 games in the playoffs during our SB run:

5 receptions 46 yards ZERO TD's

Yes, I can see how proven he is. His best game with Rodgers at the helm for a full game was 3 for 35. He is a PROVEN commodity. 3 for freaking 35. That is his career best with Rodgers at the helm for a full game. So, his highest total of receptions with Rodgers is THREE and his most yards with Rodgers is THIRTY FIVE. Proven! Case closed!


UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


DoddPower
9 years ago

You think Andrew Quarless is a proven #1 TE? BTW, if that is what you really think and it must be...How proven is Frank Zombo? Do you even know where that proven SB winning OLB is these days?

Andrew Quarless in 2010...

21 receptions 238 yards and 1 TD in regular season

In 4 games in the playoffs during our SB run:

5 receptions 46 yards ZERO TD's

Yes, I can see how proven he is. His best game with Rodgers at the helm for a full game was 3 for 35. He is a PROVEN commodity. 3 for freaking 35. That is his career best with Rodgers at the helm for a full game. So, his highest total of receptions with Rodgers is THREE and his most yards with Rodgers is THIRTY FIVE. Proven! Case closed!

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



I suppose you are correct. It's obvious the Packers can't win without a top-flight tight end. You have proved your point and history is on your side. An elite quarterback, very good running back, and a very good to great wide receiving core combined with an OK-to-decent tight end group simply isn't enough for the Packers to achieve much of anything. If only the Packers had an elite tight end, they could be champions. 2010 was a complete fluke, and should have an asterisk by it in the history books.

Either way, I still don't think an elite tight end would make anywhere near as much of a different as a good to very-good defense would. It's not even close.
uffda udfa
9 years ago

I suppose you are correct. It's obvious the Packers can't win without a top-flight tight end. You have proved your point and history is on your side. An elite quarterback, very good running back, and a very good to great wide receiving core combined with an OK-to-decent tight end group simply isn't enough for the Packers to achieve much of anything. If only the Packers had an elite tight end, they could be champions. 2010 was a complete fluke, and should have an asterisk by it in the history books.

Either way, I still don't think an elite tight end would make anywhere near as much of a different as a good to very-good defense would. It's not even close.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 



You might be right about the D but how many high picks do you want to shuttle to Dom's careful hands? The defense has had issues for years and several attempts to fix it have failed. That is TT, that is Dom and now it's Mike McCarthy also.

Have you recently seen the team head into the season with such a terrible group of TE's?

We're all about to see just how much the lack of a TE means to the Packers. The year we won the SB we had a good D. I would say we don't have one now. Let's see if the pairing of no good TE and no good D works out for us. Many here think Quarless and his ring justify him and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt we can win it all without a good TE this year. We shall see.


UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


DoddPower
9 years ago

You might be right about the D but how many high picks do you want to shuttle to Dom's careful hands? The defense has had issues for years and several attempts to fix it have failed. That is TT, that is Dom and now it's Mike McCarthy also.

Have you recently seen the team head into the season with such a terrible group of TE's?

We're all about to see just how much the lack of a TE means to the Packers. The year we won the SB we had a good D. I would say we don't have one now. Let's see if the pairing of no good TE and no good D works out for us. Many here think Quarless and his ring justify him and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt we can win it all without a good TE this year. We shall see.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



There's no definitive proof of anything. There is no single path of becoming a championship football team. Every team is going to have weaknesses, especially one paying an elite quarterback and a few other top of league players. If a tight end group of Quarless, Rodgers, Taylor, Lyerla, Bostick, Stoneburner, et al. is the Packers biggest weakness, most people would be more than OK with that. Recent history has proven that the Packers can still be very deadly with a below average tight end group. Of course it would be better if the Packers had a more "proven" option, but that doesn't mean they can't win without one. It's also not unreasonable to think one of the players currently on the roster might actually be pretty good. The factors that will limit the Packers chance at becoming champions again are:

1.) Injuries
2.) Defense (basically every position except cornerback, maybe)
3.) Offensive Line
4.) Coaching
5.) Tight ends

One could probably even find other items to put in front of number 5. The gap between #5 and 1-4 is substantial. The Packers could still easily lose with Jimmy Graham and a horrible defense. Last year's Super Bowl is a pretty good example of that. Personally, I would rather the team go in with a mediocre tight end group with some potential and a very good defense, than an elite tight end and a horrible defense. It's unrealistic to expect a team to have it all, despite how much we would all love that. It's not the way the league is designed to function.
uffda udfa
9 years ago

There's no definitive proof of anything. There is no single path of becoming a championship football team. Every team is going to have weaknesses, especially one paying an elite quarterback and a few other top of league players. If a tight end group of Quarless, Rodgers, Taylor, Lyerla, Bostick, Stoneburner, et al. is the Packers biggest weakness, most people would be more than OK with that. Recent history has proven that the Packers can still be very deadly with a below average tight end group. Of course it would be better if the Packers had a more "proven" option, but that doesn't mean they can't win without one. It's also not unreasonable to think one of the players currently on the roster might actually be pretty good. The factors that will limit the Packers chance at becoming champions again are:

1.) Injuries
2.) Defense (basically every position except cornerback, maybe)
3.) Offensive Line
4.) Coaching
5.) Tight ends

One could probably even find other items to put in front of number 5. The gap between #5 and 1-4 is substantial. The Packers could still easily lose with Jimmy Graham and a horrible defense. Last year's Super Bowl is a pretty good example of that. Personally, I would rather the team go in with a mediocre tight end group with some potential and a very good defense, than an elite tight end and a horrible defense. It's unrealistic to expect a team to have it all, despite how much we would all love that. It's not the way the league is designed to function.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 



Right, there may be no proof... but there rarely ever is in anything. However, when I type something that I strongly believe (no real proof) I'm a F'ing blankety blank but when you or others do it (no real proof) you're right and all of a sudden there is a board that has a mind that is anti what I'm all about even though neither side has no real proof. It's fine that you find strength in numbers. I know you do. That is why I played the Schefter, Werder, Davis, Florio card. You think that this is all of you against me and me only. It wasn't. I was hardly alone, maybe here, but not among people who are very rigorous followers of the NFL. That was meant to remove your collective superiority complex against my way of thinking by citing the numbers on this board were in your favor. I even was told that someone here asked about 20 of his Packers friends about this. BTW, if it was truly insane, that question would never have been posed to 20 of his Packers fan buddies. That poster got some confidence that I was wrong by asking 20 of his friends who follow the Packers if that made sense. Of course, I know none of these people and all of them might not be able to spell cat if spotted the c and the t but that is validation I'm wrong. However, 4 respected members of the NFL media are just nobodies and I get mocked for stating that to buoy my point. Again, if you don't see the richness of the irony.

I would add SAFETY to the top of your list...ILB is up there, too. DL might be up there also. TE is the only one you mentioned that is a skill position that plays with Aaron Rodgers. We may have the weakest overall receiving unit in the NFCN when the TE is factored in. Again, Packer fan thinks that Green Bay is superior in this position group because that's how it was when we had Jennings, Jordy, Driver, Cobb, Jones and Finley. We aren't the same anymore. We've changed...not a little....a lot. I'm not so sure WR is such a great strength. I love Cobb and I really like Jordy... the rest I'm not so sure about. I have high hopes for Abby and Janis and am worried about Adams.

One big point is... it is silly to say Quarless is good because we won the SB with him at TE. It is also silly to say we don't need a good TE to win the SB, if the defense in 2014 isn't anywhere near as good as it was in 2010. We may need the TE position to be a great strength with our weak D this year. Having a weak TE and a weak D won't be a good combo.


UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


DoddPower
9 years ago

Right, there may be no proof... but there rarely ever is in anything. However, when I type something that I strongly believe (no real proof) I'm a F'ing blankety blank but when you or others do it (no real proof) you're right and all of a sudden there is a board that has a mind that is anti what I'm all about even though neither side has no real proof. It's fine that you find strength in numbers. I know you do. That is why I played the Schefter, Werder, Davis, Florio card. You think that this is all of you against me and me only. It wasn't. I was hardly alone, maybe here, but not among people who are very rigorous followers of the NFL. That was meant to remove your collective superiority complex against my way of thinking by citing the numbers on this board were in your favor. I even was told that someone here asked about 20 of his Packers friends about this. BTW, if it was truly insane, that question would never have been posed to 20 of his Packers fan buddies. That poster got some confidence that I was wrong by asking 20 of his friends who follow the Packers if that made sense. Of course, I know none of these people and all of them might not be able to spell cat if spotted the c and the t but that is validation I'm wrong. However, 4 respected members of the NFL media are just nobodies and I get mocked for stating that to buoy my point. Again, if you don't see the richness of the irony.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



What? These are the type of responses that don't even merit responses. I'll just let you have your space there.

I would add SAFETY to the top of your list...ILB is up there, too. DL might be up there also. TE is the only one you mentioned that is a skill position that plays with Aaron Rodgers. We may have the weakest overall receiving unit in the NFCN when the TE is factored in. Again, Packer fan thinks that Green Bay is superior in this position group because that's how it was when we had Jennings, Jordy, Driver, Cobb, Jones and Finley. We aren't the same anymore. We've changed...not a little....a lot. I'm not so sure WR is such a great strength. I love Cobb and I really like Jordy... the rest I'm not so sure about. I have high hopes for Abby and Janis and am worried about Adams.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



That's exactly why I listed the entire defense, except for potentially cornerback. You are worried about the Packers offense, I am not. I think they will be fine. Eddie Lacy and James Starks have to be factored into the equation, as well. The Packers might not have the best offensive weapons on paper, but I think they will still have a top offense in terms of production, which is really all that matters in the end. It could be better. That will always be the case. But I have more faith in the young options developing nicely than you do and I see little reason to doubt Ted Thompson or the Green Bay Packers coaching staffs ability in that arena. They consistently develop talent there. Boykin has already proven he can be a solid #3 or 4 wide receiver. The combination of Adams, Abbrederis, Janis, and others makes me feel comfortable for the number 4 and 5 wide receiver spots.

One big point is... it is silly to say Quarless is good because we won the SB with him at TE. It is also silly to say we don't need a good TE to win the SB, if the defense in 2014 isn't anywhere near as good as it was in 2010. We may need the TE position to be a great strength with our weak D this year. Having a weak TE and a weak D won't be a good combo.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



I never said Quarless is good because the Packers won a Super Bowl. I said recent Packers history has proven it's possible to win with a mediocre tight end group. In other words, it's not absolutely essential to have an elite tight end. I do, however, think it is essential to have a very good defense, at minimum. Which is why I would prefer resources devoted to that side of the ball rather than a position that I don't believe is an absolute requirement. I don't care how many draft picks it takes, so long as it gets fixed soon. I don't expect to win a Super Bowl every season, or even very often no matter who is running the team. But a couple holes filled on defense and the Packers are as much of a contender as anyone else. That's not a bad position to be in. Life is pretty good as a Packers fan.

uffda udfa
9 years ago

What? These are the type of responses that don't even merit responses. I'll just let you have your space there.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 



It absolutely merits a response. It is at the heart of the supposed issues with me. I say stupid things...I'm the one with a superiority complex. According to who? You and a couple of other guys on a message board? Oh no! Not that! Anything but some guys on a message board banding together to tell me I'm dumb and feel superior? How hurtful that is. You absolutely have to be right because you've been on a message board for some time together! No way it is you who is "dumb" and have a "superiority complex". I will ask this question again and again and again with no answer. Do you feel you are right when you offer an opinion? You absolutely believe it or you wouldn't post it. Same with me. Why the charge that I feel superior because I think my opinion is right when you think yours is right also? HYPOCRISY. Ultimate hypocrisy. The difference is presentation. I am sold out for my opinion. A lot of you say one line and try to hide behind the idea that my opinion is crazy and "doesn't merit a response". You don't respond because you can't respond intelligently so the best thing to do is label and mock me and my opinion. It's great reading. I know, I know this doesn't merit a response. Classic.







UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


sschind
9 years ago

I'll continue riding with Schefter, Werder, Nate Davis and Mike Florio on this one. We're the "stupid" group for sure. Packers are "well stocked" and ready to roll at TE. Oh, and even if they aren't there is so much overwhelming talent on O, plus, don't forget we have Aaron who makes everything all better to cover all of our deficiencies. So, instead of accentuating Aaron's abilities we're going to just drain them and hope we don't drain them enough to compete with the Seattle and SF's of the world. We think that much of him that he's got enough.

No Jimmy Graham news... So, it is assumed Graham did not appeal his decision of being a TE at 7 million for the franchise tag, yesterday. Tuesday the 15th is almost here.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



You looked for people who agreed with you and you ride with them but did you ever consider how many of these guy's peers think it is a bad idea? I've said it before but fans are not always the most objective people to be listening to. We have too much invested emotionally to think rationally at times (that goes both ways with this argument as well)

The problem is that this sort of topic is only going to come up from one of these guys if they think it is a good idea so if another thinks its a bad idea, unless he is responding directly, he is not going to come out and say "I think its a bad idea"

For example, lets just say someone thinks its a good idea if the Packers traded Rodgers for a bunch of players and picks to restock. He is going to write an article or post on a blog somewhere where he thinks this is a good idea. On the other hand, the guys who think this is a bad idea are not going to simply out of the blue fire off an article saying its a bad idea for the Packers to trade Rodgers.

Its the good idea people that start the whole thing and then a few bad idea people might respond but most will probably just ignore it unless specifically asked. They are too busy looking for their own headline grabbing good ideas to waste their time on such nonsense.

That is why it is not too difficult to find a few people who would agree with just about any idea.
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    dfosterf (16h) : Maybe
    Mucky Tundra (16h) : Yes
    Zero2Cool (17h) : No.
    Mucky Tundra (19h) : End of a Degu-era
    dhazer (20h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
    Zero2Cool (22h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
    Zero2Cool (23h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
    dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
    Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
    beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
    Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
    Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
    beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2023 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Falcons
    Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
    SAINTS
    Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
    LIONS
    Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
    Raiders
    Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
    RAMS
    Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
    CHARGERS
    Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
    CHIEFS
    Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
    BUCCANEERS
    Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
    Panthers
    Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
    Vikings
    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
    Cowboys
    Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
    49ers
    Recent Topics
    55m / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

    16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.