Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
6 Pages<1234>»

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
steveishere  
#21 Posted : Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:16:15 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
He had a nice turnout for his pro day and had scouts buzzing with the time he turned in.

Donald Driver was also in the same category as a 7th round WR and he turned out okay. Did teams think he wasn't very good or were they just unsure because he went to Alcorn State? Same for Marques Colston from Hofstra. Shoot, Shannon Sharpe is one of the greatest TE's of all time... 7th round. Did the Broncos think he couldn't play? Same for a guy like Julius Thomas now? Did we think Brandon Bostick couldn't play because we didn't draft him?

You are implying that every 7th rounder and UDFA there has ever been teams didn't think they were good players? There is a reason a guy is in the league. Some team somewhere thought they were good. Janis had several teams call him (I believe you may have posted the video clip) and wanted him as a UDFA.

We must not think any of our UDFA or 7th round guys are any good. Year after year UDFA's and 7th rounders make impact for the Green Bay Packers. Sam Shields and Tramon Williams. We must not have thought they were any good...we just got lucky that they turned into our starting CB tandem.


We didn't think they are very good, that's why we didn't draft them before the 7th round. We thought they were better than the rest of the guys available but that doesn't mean we thought they would end up being great players. I'm not saying late round players are never good or cannot be good I'm saying NFL teams obviously don't think very highly of those guys or they would have drafted them sooner. Very few 7th round or later players work out because very few of them are actually good. List the ones that worked out all you want, then list all the ones that didn't and see which list is longer.

I'm not buying the small school player thing either. Plenty of small school guys get drafted earlier than the 7th. Heck a small school guy got drafted a round before Charles Johnson in his same draft class. Brian Quick was a 2nd rounder, a guy got drafted in the 3rd or 4th this last year. Teams will take a small school guy early if they think he's worth it.
Zero2Cool  
#22 Posted : Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:40:20 PM(UTC)
steveishere said: Go to Quoted Post
We didn't think they are very good, that's why we didn't draft them before the 7th round. We thought they were better than the rest of the guys available but that doesn't mean we thought they would end up being great players.


If you knew others weren't going to draft said player until the later rounds, why would you grab him in an earlier round? Would you offer someone $15,000 for a pre-owned car when you know the sales price is $10,000?

I think this is what GM's mean when they say to trust their board.
steveishere  
#23 Posted : Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:44:09 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
If you knew others weren't going to draft said player until the later rounds, why would you grab him in an earlier round? Would you offer someone $15,000 for a pre-owned car when you know the sales price is $10,000?

I think this is what GM's mean when they say to trust their board.


How would a GM know what every other GM is planning to do in the draft? If we are assuming that the GMs are "trusting their board" then that means Charles Johnson was very low on every GMs board. Trusting the board means taking a player based on what you think his abilities are regardless of what anyone else thinks. Hence a if a GM thought CJ was the 5th best WR for example he would have taken him before 20+ WRs were already off the board.
uffda udfa  
#24 Posted : Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:24:42 PM(UTC)
steveishere said: Go to Quoted Post
How would a GM know what every other GM is planning to do in the draft? If we are assuming that the GMs are "trusting their board" then that means Charles Johnson was very low on every GMs board. Trusting the board means taking a player based on what you think his abilities are regardless of what anyone else thinks. Hence a if a GM thought CJ was the 5th best WR for example he would have taken him before 20+ WRs were already off the board.


This is really no different than drafting for fantasy football in a sense. When you do a fantasy draft everyone has access to the same info just like in an NFL draft with their subscription to central scouting.

Just as Zero said...it's a calculated gamble believing you're going to get value late that is worthy of being taken higher. I remember one fantasy draft taking Vincent Jackson coming off an injury with one of the final picks in the draft...he helped me to the Fantasy SB. VJax was a far better point producer than many guys taken high, and I could've taken him up high but I felt I could pull him late as nobody would be thinking of him. My gamble paid off. It doesn't always. Same kind of thing with LeVeon Bell last year...injured... someone scooped me on him but dropped him and I got him after all.

I'm sure the Packers thought highly of Donald Driver but also knew they could likely get him late so why take Driver high when you believe you can get him late.
steveishere  
#25 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 4:31:21 AM(UTC)
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
This is really no different than drafting for fantasy football in a sense. When you do a fantasy draft everyone has access to the same info just like in an NFL draft with their subscription to central scouting.

Just as Zero said...it's a calculated gamble believing you're going to get value late that is worthy of being taken higher. I remember one fantasy draft taking Vincent Jackson coming off an injury with one of the final picks in the draft...he helped me to the Fantasy SB. VJax was a far better point producer than many guys taken high, and I could've taken him up high but I felt I could pull him late as nobody would be thinking of him. My gamble paid off. It doesn't always. Same kind of thing with LeVeon Bell last year...injured... someone scooped me on him but dropped him and I got him after all.

I'm sure the Packers thought highly of Donald Driver but also knew they could likely get him late so why take Driver high when you believe you can get him late.


It's not fantasy football lol you think it's more likely that NFL teams had a guy highly rated and just let him drop to the 7th round to get a good deal than it is that he simply wasn't highly rated to begin with? I don't see it going down like that. Every team had a pick in the 6th round presumably that would have been a good deal for a highly rated WR right? Yet he still fell.

Not very likely IMO that we even had him as a 5th roundish WR and took an unknown out of nowhere guy like Nate Palmer first. It's more likely that we had Palmer as a higher rated prospect and took BPA.
play2win  
#26 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:39:58 AM(UTC)
Um, is this the offseason? [laughing] [laughing] [laughing]

More than an entire page of posts in a Chris Harper thread dedicated to Charles Johnson? Who in the fuck is Charles Johnson? I mean, really, a guy we drafted late, never saw play, hung onto via IR for a year and waived, picked up by the world beater Browns.

As worthless as 7th round picks may be perceived to be, in walks Jeff Janis...

Some picks work. Some picks don't.

Every team invests heavily in gaining more or better draft info than their competitors. Scouting staffs and their evaluations, along with scheduled visits for private workouts, etc give teams their own info on players to go along with the canned info we fans get in Combines and pro days. This accounts for teams stacking their draft boards differently than others.

Some fans wanted heads to roll after our 3rd round selections this year. Were they reaches? We can't really know. If there are 5-8 other teams below us who feel the same player is rising on their board and we take him 10-20 spots ahead of their picks to insure we secure the player, is it really a reach?

Maybe our scouting staff feels the difference between other players on their board near to this selection is negligible based on their millions of $ worth of research.

Talents in scouting vary as widely as talents in playing the game. That is what heightens the fun of the offseason to me with regards to FA, the draft, and UDFA, and we won't know who trumps who until well after the season starts.

July seems very, very far away...
steveishere  
#27 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:46:16 AM(UTC)
Enough derailment for me. I am much more excited about the WR competition this year than last year. We've got a lot of so far unknown guys like Harper, Dorsey, and our rookies to compete for 2 or 3 spots it should be fun to see. Hopefully talent decides things and not injuries. We've also got Myles White who made it on to the 53 for a short time last year. The big question is if someone like Harper looks like he's legit ready to play in games do you still take him over someone like Janis who possibly isn't ready to make that kind of impact yet but could be better in a couple years?
play2win  
#28 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:52:46 AM(UTC)
steveishere said: Go to Quoted Post
Enough derailment for me. I am much more excited about the WR competition this year than last year. We've got a lot of so far unknown guys like Harper, Dorsey, and our rookies to compete for 2 or 3 spots it should be fun to see. Hopefully talent decides things and not injuries. We've also got Myles White who made it on to the 53 for a short time last year. The big question is if someone like Harper looks like he's legit ready to play in games do you still take him over someone like Janis who possibly isn't ready to make that kind of impact yet but could be better in a couple years?


Completely agree, and hell yeah, there are some very compelling questions and variables going into the decisions that will be made in establishing our WR group for 2014.

There is some incredible talent 1-9 of all the WRs in house competing for the final roster, including Harper, Janis, Dorsey and White. I don't know about Gillette...

steveishere, after seeing all of them in practice, Harper was looking like he could compete with nearly anyone outside of Nelson & Cobb.
nerdmann  
#29 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:55:32 AM(UTC)
I remember this time of year 15 years ago, when I read articles about how Charles Lee and Corey Bradford were gonna have breakout seasons, because they were rededicating themselves. lol

This team has been very good of late at developing these late pick/undrafted FA types, but I'll wait until I actually see it before I start popping a woody.
sschind  
#30 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:55:06 AM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
I remember this time of year 15 years ago, when I read articles about how Charles Lee and Corey Bradford were gonna have breakout seasons, because they were rededicating themselves. lol

This team has been very good of late at developing these late pick/undrafted FA types, but I'll wait until I actually see it before I start popping a woody.



You realize that uffda wants a Bradford type guy right. A fast guy who is just that, a guy. Nothing special. If I were going to look into the Packers past and pick a type I would want on my team Corey Bradford probably wouldn't be at the top of my list.

Just bustin' your chops uffda, I know what you meant. I just couldn't resist seeing as how you and nerd both brought up Bradford
uffda udfa  
#31 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:55:40 PM(UTC)
play2win said: Go to Quoted Post
Um, is this the offseason? [laughing] [laughing] [laughing]

More than an entire page of posts in a Chris Harper thread dedicated to Charles Johnson? Who in the fuck is Charles Johnson? I mean, really, a guy we drafted late, never saw play, hung onto via IR for a year and waived, picked up by the world beater Browns.

As worthless as 7th round picks may be perceived to be, in walks Jeff Janis...

Some picks work. Some picks don't.

Every team invests heavily in gaining more or better draft info than their competitors. Scouting staffs and their evaluations, along with scheduled visits for private workouts, etc give teams their own info on players to go along with the canned info we fans get in Combines and pro days. This accounts for teams stacking their draft boards differently than others.

Some fans wanted heads to roll after our 3rd round selections this year. Were they reaches? We can't really know. If there are 5-8 other teams below us who feel the same player is rising on their board and we take him 10-20 spots ahead of their picks to insure we secure the player, is it really a reach?

Maybe our scouting staff feels the difference between other players on their board near to this selection is negligible based on their millions of $ worth of research.

Talents in scouting vary as widely as talents in playing the game. That is what heightens the fun of the offseason to me with regards to FA, the draft, and UDFA, and we won't know who trumps who until well after the season starts.

July seems very, very far away...


I'm just shocked you've forgotten who Charles Johnson was....I would've thought you had him pegged as better than Sterling and the best ever to play in Green Bay without ever seeing him play a regular season snap for the Packers. Nah, you would never do such a thing. [laughing]

sschind... Bust me all day every day. Makes it fun. I want a guy who can run... really fast. I know it continually is discounted here, but think Sam Shields. I loved when we grabbed him. He had speed beyond belief. He wasn't even drafted and Joe Whitt was saying he had more talent than any 1st rounder from that draft he didn't get taken in. Bold, bold words. I recall that YouTube clip where he ran that KO reverse for a TD vs. our beloved Badgers. If you've never seen it... do yourself a favor and go watch it. We have a nice WR group with some great skill set but the one subset that is missing is pure speed. Janis has that. Harper doesn't. Harper is just another guy with middling speed. Diversify the portfolio!

Oh, and here's that clip... called back by penalty, but watch the entire clip to see just how far and how fast he ran.



play2win  
#32 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:42:35 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm just shocked you've forgotten who Charles Johnson was....I would've thought you had him pegged as better than Sterling and the best ever to play in Green Bay without ever seeing him play a regular season snap for the Packers. Nah, you would never do such a thing. [laughing]




Yep. Completely forgot who he was. RollEyes

You are mistaken in saying that people here do not appreciate, or "discount" speed. Everyone here wants the fastest players with the best hands, abilities and instincts for the game.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to want to acknowledge that a player's 40 time might not exactly be completely and fully indicative of his on field speed, game speed, with all of his gear on, running on turf. Nor that plenty of track stars in 40 times don't necessarily make exceptional football players.

Regardless, I do think we all want exactly the same thing for the Packers. Players who are fast, instinctual, with great ball skills, and highly motivated to be the best they can possibly be at their positions.
DakotaT  
#33 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:59:22 PM(UTC)
Every time Uffda goes on his speed rants, I think of guys like Willie Gault, Troy Williamson, Hayward Bey, Renaldo Nehimiah - you know, track stars that can't catch or play football. Then I think about that slow piece of shit Jerry Rice and if could have only unhitched the plow when he was on the field.

Just give me the guys that can catch the fuckin ball when it hits them between the numbers.
nerdmann  
#34 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:19:05 PM(UTC)
DakotaT said: Go to Quoted Post
Every time Uffda goes on his speed rants, I think of guys like Willie Gault, Troy Williamson, Hayward Bey, Renaldo Nehimiah - you know, track stars that can't catch or play football. Then I think about that slow piece of shit Jerry Rice and if could have only unhitched the plow when he was on the field.

Just give me the guys that can catch the fuckin ball when it hits them between the numbers.


Driver was a track guy. Then again he had his share of drops earlier in his career.
uffda udfa  
#35 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:40:44 PM(UTC)
play2win said: Go to Quoted Post
Yep. Completely forgot who he was. RollEyes

You are mistaken in saying that people here do not appreciate, or "discount" speed. Everyone here wants the fastest players with the best hands, abilities and instincts for the game.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to want to acknowledge that a player's 40 time might not exactly be completely and fully indicative of his on field speed, game speed, with all of his gear on, running on turf. Nor that plenty of track stars in 40 times don't necessarily make exceptional football players.

Regardless, I do think we all want exactly the same thing for the Packers. Players who are fast, instinctual, with great ball skills, and highly motivated to be the best they can possibly be at their positions.


The things you've ascribed to me are false. Use the search function on 40 times and my posts regarding them. The part about you stating that track stars don't make great football players is especially false. I've never come anywhere near contending they do or have. What I have tried to consistently say is I want the Packers to feature at least ONE WR who has blazing speed. Sadly, we routinely trot out a group that doesn't feature a burner.

This little blurb from rotoviz.com was interesting when it comes to speed:

As I mentioned, Boldin and Mike Clayton are the only wide receivers to post slower than 4.65 40 and have a top 30 wide receiver season since 1999. When speaking of Boldin and Rice, what you’re pointing out isn’t that a slower WR can succeed; you’re also pointing out exactly how rare it is for a slower WR to post usable fantasy numbers. It isn’t that it can’t be done, it’s just that it’s rare when it does happen.

As that little blurb points out, it is very rare for a slow WR to fare well at NFL level. The Packer fan that wants to shout...Boykin!...Boykin! doesn't realize how truly rare that is that he is able to produce as he does.

What do you routinely hear about NFL WR's when they get older? They lost their legs and can't run anymore... clearly speed is very important. I have never said it is the only thing that is important but it is critical. AD ain't AD without his speed... Megatron ain't megatron without his either.
mi_keys  
#36 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:12:37 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
The things you've ascribed to me are false. Use the search function on 40 times and my posts regarding them. The part about you stating that track stars don't make great football players is especially false. I've never come anywhere near contending they do or have. What I have tried to consistently say is I want the Packers to feature at least ONE WR who has blazing speed. Sadly, we routinely trot out a group that doesn't feature a burner


P2W can correct me if I'm wrong but he's not claiming you literally stated track stars don't make great football players. The comment about track stars comes from the inordinate amount of attention you give 40 times. It's taking the piss.

You seem obsessed with 40 times to an unhealthy level. If 40 times could be manifested as a woman I could almost see you sneaking into her house while she's out and stealing her finger nail clippings. It's creepy.

uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
This little blurb from rotoviz.com was interesting when it comes to speed:

As I mentioned, Boldin and Mike Clayton are the only wide receivers to post slower than 4.65 40 and have a top 30 wide receiver season since 1999. When speaking of Boldin and Rice, what you’re pointing out isn’t that a slower WR can succeed; you’re also pointing out exactly how rare it is for a slower WR to post usable fantasy numbers. It isn’t that it can’t be done, it’s just that it’s rare when it does happen.


When I compiled the 40 times of all 34 receivers taken in the 2014 draft, only 1 had a 40 time slower than 4.65 (Jarvis Landry, and he has a pro day time at 4.58). 1 in 34.

I don't know how that compares to other years because I haven't pulled them. That said, I'd bet the sample size of wide receivers with a 40 time slower than 4.65 is quite small. If so, then it's not surprising that the subset of wide receivers posting top 30 seasons also contains a small percentage of receivers with a 40 time slower than 4.65. It's ultimately not a very revealing or meaningful statistic with zero context.

To put it another way with a slightly more extreme example, I could say no receiver taller than 7'6" has posted a top 30 season since 1999. Someone could read into that what they want: that being shorter than 7'6" must somehow be advantageous for NFL receivers. Yet, it wouldn't actually mean anything because no receiver in the league is taller than 7'6".

uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
AD ain't AD without his speed... Megatron ain't megatron without his either.


Both of those players are so much more than just their 40 times.
uffda udfa  
#37 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:50:48 PM(UTC)
mi_keys said: Go to Quoted Post
P2W can correct me if I'm wrong but he's not claiming you literally stated track stars don't make great football players. The comment about track stars comes from the inordinate amount of attention you give 40 times. It's taking the piss.

You seem obsessed with 40 times to an unhealthy level. If 40 times could be manifested as a woman I could almost see you sneaking into her house while she's out and stealing her finger nail clippings. It's creepy.



When I compiled the 40 times of all 34 receivers taken in the 2014 draft, only 1 had a 40 time slower than 4.65 (Jarvis Landry, and he has a pro day time at 4.58). 1 in 34.

I don't know how that compares to other years because I haven't pulled them. That said, I'd bet the sample size of wide receivers with a 40 time slower than 4.65 is quite small. If so, then it's not surprising that the subset of wide receivers posting top 30 seasons also contains a small percentage of receivers with a 40 time slower than 4.65. It's ultimately not a very revealing or meaningful statistic with zero context.

To put it another way with a slightly more extreme example, I could say no receiver taller than 7'6" has posted a top 30 season since 1999. Someone could read into that what they want: that being shorter than 7'6" must somehow be advantageous for NFL receivers. Yet, it wouldn't actually mean anything because no receiver in the league is taller than 7'6".



Both of those players are so much more than just their 40 times.


Yes, both those players are more than their 40 times, but they wouldn't be what they are without them which is the point.

Your 7'6 comment seems irrelevant to this discussion. There are time constraints beyond which a guy will all but be guaranteed of not being successful as an NFL WR. 4.65 is the threshold used in that piece quoted. I gave you a graph earlier that had 10 years worth of data.

I think you'll find, if you use the search function, that my perspective on 40 times is right on the money, not obsessive even though you feel that way because the majority of you are obsessed in the other direction as it doesn't really matter much. This all started with our drafting a 4.56 and 4.87 guy in the draft in the first 3 rounds and my disappointment with it. Not sure how many times I need to say it but I was hopeful for a guy with unique speed...not another mid 4.5 guy...got enough guys in 4.5 range.

I'm thrilled with the Jeff Janis selection. A rare athlete. My kind of guy. Hoping he can play, too.
mi_keys  
#38 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:24:33 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
Your 7'6 comment seems irrelevant to this discussion. There are time constraints beyond which a guy will all but be guaranteed of not being successful as an NFL WR. 4.65 is the threshold used in that piece quoted.


And you missed the point. 7'6" is irrelevant because no receiver is 7'6" or taller. 4.65 is irrelevant if almost no receiver was clocked at slower than 4.65. In such a case they might as well have said receivers running slower than an 8 second 40. It does almost nothing in establishing the correlation of 40 times and success as an NFL receiver, let alone any potential causal effects.


uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
I gave you a graph earlier that had 10 years worth of data.


Which watered the data down into averages of arbitrarily selected draft pick ranges, giving no context to sample size, medians, outliers or what the distribution actually looks like. As such, it had almost no value in the context of showing how 40 times were correlated to where players are selected in the draft.


uffda udfa  
#39 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:47:00 PM(UTC)
There is nothing that says a 7'6 WR can't be found... there is no issue with height being a bad thing. However, there is an issue with not enough speed being an issue and you know that and I know that.

Most guys who run 4.65+ aren't going to be WR's. Correct? Why is it so wrong to be concerned when we have guys who are closer to it rather than further away? I don't think Davante Adams can't be a very good WR because of his 4.56 speed. However, I think he'd be an even better and more attractive one if he ran 4.36. Right?

Would the Packers have ever picked up Sam Shields if he ran in the 4.6 range? No...he was added for his unique gift of speed. I'm not sure what the issue is with drafting it instead of UDFA'ing it? Again, I was hopeful we'd find guys who were great prospects up high who had very good speed. We did not. We found two bottom end guys speed wise. That's disappointing to me... Dix can be thrown in there, also. Another middling speed guy. You aren't bothered by middle to low end speed prospects and I am. Just a different view between you and me. I get the Jerry Rice example...painfully Boykin type slow and one of the best of all time. I can only imagine how much more dominant he would've been running like Randy Moss.
play2win  
#40 Posted : Friday, June 20, 2014 12:50:37 AM(UTC)
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
The things you've ascribed to me are false.


No, they are not.
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

Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (11h) : Click the Clear link to force new files to load for style.
Smokey (20h) : A little yellow for contrast maybe ?
Zero2Cool (26-Feb) : Thanks. Took about 16-20 hours.
wpr (26-Feb) : looks great.
Zero2Cool (25-Feb) : avatars aren't displaying
Zero2Cool (25-Feb) : plain look
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

26-Feb / Announcements / dhazer

22-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / shield4life

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Feb / Community Welcome! / wpr

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

19-Feb / Around The NFL / uffda udfa

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Barfarn

17-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

17-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / warhawk

Headlines