uffda udfa
7 years ago

No shit... unless we're using sarcasm, we all post what we truly believe. You always repeat this stupid line, like you're the only one... which is just arrogant .


People were certain that the Packers were going to have a winning record you verbally attacked them, suggesting they'll never wake up to reality, that they're just dreamers who can't take off their rose color glasses and dismissed them. That has been your line year after year... so yes you have clearly been proven wrong year after year... as you're the one that's not in reality.

I get it, you're a perfectionist and always have try to improve things... but it fucking sucks that you're happy when the Packers lose and pissy&bitchy when the Packers win.... and feels like crap when you dump all over the team, and having your shout box hit and runs...


Threatened? WTF are you taking about... no one feels threatened... this is on the internet... no one feels threatened about going on their computers. I'm not threatened about questions I can't answer... if fact the only people I know would be threaten about that is 1) People that are about to take a test 2) Perfectionist which feel the need and desire to know the correct answers.

And I'm not even close perfectionist. But you are... so you're probably just projecting your own feelings out on that one.

Also, that would completely explain why you feel the need to ask answers like "Why did Aaron Rodgers make no Guarantees for the Playoffs?" and why you feel the need to come up with a theory for everything... and why you response to each and and every post in the past.

So thanks for the insight on yourself, and maybe you need to work on not feeling threatened by others. Also feeling threatened and being a perfectionist combo would explain a lot of your behavior on here... Sorry, I never thought about that before.

Originally Posted by: beast 



I post what I truly believe is to mitigate the accusation that I'm a troll. Trolls type anything to sow discord. Plus, I don't believe everyone posts what they believe. I do. Arrogant? You get personally attacked and questioned like I do? No. You don't.

I'm not threatened by anyone. I would say that's a textbook case of projection.

It's much more interesting creating topics that don't exist than to plagiarize every day typical old and boring ones. I have theories because I have thoughts of my own. It isn't arrogance but could you carry a forum solely on fresh and new topics you created?

Z doesn't want any poster over doing it here or I would be posting more topics for you to rip. The Rodgers question was a good one. He had an opportunity to double down an didn't. There is a reason why and that's where the topic comes into play.

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."


Zero2Cool
7 years ago

Z doesn't want any poster over doing it here or I would be posting more topics for you to rip

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



What we do not like at PACKERSHOME is one person overtaking an entire thread (or multiple) threads by replying to each person. This is a discussion board. You have a lot of good thoughts, even if I think most are whacky (hey so are mine at times). The problem I've seen with you is someone will bring up 7 points saturating your argument and you'll completely ignore them (while quoting them) and jumping all over one thing that doesn't even have much quality in the context of the matter. Reminds me of the OJ trial where the defense says "hey, hey that evidence PSSSH, don't look over there, look over here --- the glove don't fit, you must acquit"

I'm not sure why you need this re-told to you. I must not be saying clearly enough.
UserPostedImage
uffda udfa
7 years ago

What we do not like at PACKERSHOME is one person overtaking an entire thread (or multiple) threads by replying to each person. This is a discussion board. You have a lot of good thoughts, even if I think most are whacky (hey so are mine at times). The problem I've seen with you is someone will bring up 7 points saturating your argument and you'll completely ignore them (while quoting them) and jumping all over one thing that doesn't even have much quality in the context of the matter. Reminds me of the OJ trial where the defense says "hey, hey that evidence PSSSH, don't look over there, look over here --- the glove don't fit, you must acquit"

I'm not sure why you need this re-told to you. I must not be saying clearly enough.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Sorry, I just pick out the one thing I have the most issue with. I'll do better at acknowledging all the criticism I get in reply. Some points don't merit a reply and some do. IE: Who do you want if Mike McCarthy gets fired? If you don't tell someone who else you want then they think that completely negates your desire for regime change. It doesn't. I may not know who I want at CB next season but I know I don't want the ones we have now. The ones next year may be worse (unlikely) or better buy you at least have to try to be better.

Just like is alleged toward me...I think most feel like their points are salient and worthy of discourse. I may not respond at all but that's better than making some big production out of it when a point isn't responded to. Maybe, it's not deemed worthy of response? That shouldn't be offensive. Everyone has to determine what they feel they should or shouldn't respond to. IE: Almost every single question/point I've raised since being back with the exception of Porforis.

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."


Zero2Cool
7 years ago

Sorry, I just pick out the one thing I have the most issue with. I'll do better at acknowledging all the criticism I get in reply. Some points don't merit a reply and some do. IE: Who do you want if Mike McCarthy gets fired? If you don't tell someone who else you want then they think that completely negates your desire for regime change. It doesn't. I may not know who I want at CB next season but I know I don't want the ones we have now. The ones next year may be worse (unlikely) or better buy you at least have to try to be better.

Just like is alleged toward me...I think most feel like their points are salient and worthy of discourse. I may not respond at all but that's better than making some big production out of it when a point isn't responded to. Maybe, it's not deemed worthy of response? That shouldn't be offensive. Everyone has to determine what they feel they should or shouldn't respond to. IE: Almost every single question/point I've raised since being back with the exception of Porforis.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



No, you pick out what is easiest for you to attack in hopes of discrediting the premise of the author. I think it's cool how many reply to you, but I don't think you need to reply to every single person. That'd drive you crazy-go-nuts man! lol.

True, some points are not worth a response. But when someone takes the time to debate a point with you with item after item and you gloss over it pointing out one word and focusing on one word, you're kind of being rude, don't you think? I dunno, could just be me.

I've countered most if not all of your negativity with factual information that negates it. You refuse to acknowledge I have a valid point. Instead, you focused on a word, or some innocuous technicality to side step it. That I find frustrating because I feel I see your point, but you just jam your thumbs into your ears saying "I no hear you, i no hear you" and then begin to reply with something else.

In short, I think I farted out more football knowledge than you possess. 😂 [giddity]
UserPostedImage
Barfarn
7 years ago

I post what I truly believe is to mitigate the accusation that I'm a troll. Trolls type anything to sow discord. Plus, I don't believe everyone posts what they believe. I do.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



Z2C is right, wacky thinking like yours [like Z2C’s, like mine] can be good; but you undermine your ability to contribute.

Step 1: admit you’re an alcoholic. You are a Troll [a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often to satiating the troll's lack of esteem and need for attention].

1. Look at everything you post; then look at the topic! You sabotage topics with most, if not every post you make. 3 or 4 People will be contributing on the topic, EG “CB Waters.” Then comes UFFDA, chiming in about how Waters wouldn’t be here if Ted signed FAs, or didn’t draft so poorly or kept Hayward.

Note: Packer fans lurk the net lusting for topics like this. These people will return over and over to, EG, PH to read similar stuff. Eventually, they’ll have a morsel of info or a perspective not discussed, they’ll, throw caution to the wind and post; they’ll be thanked, embraced and begin to post more regularly. This is the lifeblood of a good forum.


2. You don’t believe what you write. If you believe your schtick, there is no need to cherry-pick, exaggerate or misrepresent. People that truly believe their position know it will stand up to the ultimate truth, there simply is no need to exaggerate, cherry-pick and/or misrepresent anything.

Example 1: You state that Ted should not sign Hayward, so Ted not signing Hayward should be counted as a good decision. But opportunistically, a year later, when it’d be damn nice to have Casey materialize on the roster, you use Ted’s good decision on not signing Hayward to excoriate Ted for not singing him.

Example 2: Someone writes “loved Tripp as a 6th rounder.” But, when your personal agendas call for it or you’re seeking discord and a little extra attention, you misrepresent the statement as “you said you loved Tripp.”

You falsely quote what others say routinely. If you were sincere you wouldn't feel the need to do this. The Troll does this because he believes he’ll get a response.

3. In disagreement, the non-troll desperately seeks areas of common ground by recognizing the uncontroverted facts and issues. This provides fertile ground for minds to be changed or at least impetus for movement toward middle ground. The troll is hysterical and accentuates the points of disagreement.

4. The Troll has to get in the last word. His battered self-esteem can then say, “yep, I won that argument too.”

Try this: Dont respond to this post; you cant defend yourself against what was said here because it is ultimate truth and you know it...just stop being a troll because I like ya!
uffda udfa
7 years ago
Z... I addressed your point about the D and turnovers. The D is still bad, regardless. Not sure why you feel the need to put lipstick on a pig? It isn't going to kill any Packers fan no matter how positive to say our D is substandard and very well may be a quick end to our post season. Say it with me... Our D is terrible and it very well could cost us. Not so hard. It's just truth. Not negativity.

Barfarn... that post is beneath you.

Here we go again... I have to defend myself because I'm personally attacked.

I'll have to do this again. If ANY poster said they thought letting Hayward go was smart comes back and say TED made a mistake by letting him go would be...CORRECT. His former opinion has no bearing on that truth. Now, if you want to rip the person who made that post have at it, but it doesn't change.

Sabotage topics? Yeah, I post in every single thread because I'm a troll and want to sabotage it? I pick threads I like. Yours on Kerridge was a good one. One not seen or talked about elsewhere other than maybe a tweet or two. I was buoying your points that really didn't need it save for all the backlash your post created because it was NOT PACKERS FLATTERING. You and I both know that ANYTHING not Packers flattering is going to be upsetting to the masses here save for nerds boorish and childish self crapping that gets a pass for some odd reason. You KNEW when you posted what you did about Mike McCarthy being STUPID you would get strong negative reaction. Hmmm...that is TROLLISH? Is it? Look hard at your definition? In my view, it's not trollish at all. It's factually based and something you appeared to truly believe. Nothing trollish about that ...you can't control people's reactions to things they don't like. The same goes for me. I will admit to despising a lot of the blind homerism I see in all facets of life. Perhaps, I post with that too much in mind. It's reverse troll behavior to post some Packers flattering topic and get a flock of fleas to get off on it because it gives warm and fuzzies when it's not really factually defensible. IE: Packers are team to beat because they're on a 6 game winning streak. The reverse trolls want to fawn all over it, while the "trolls" point out that the D is toasted cheese and was recently blistered by Chicago's 3rd string QB. How terrible to point that out to slow the hype train that is fueled by hopes and wishes plus the past more than current reality. I don't live in that area that reverse trolls seems to need to live in or they die. See: Buck. Once it's not all Packers flattering he quits. He needs the honey to survive when there is some honey but plenty of maggot rotted meat, too. Don't ignore the honey or the rotted meat but when the focus is only on honey it's needed to hear about the rotted meat, also, for balance sake. Alas, balance isn't the goal...it's honey, honey, honey. Packers are great! Packers are going to win it all because media is saying NOBODY WANTS TO PLAY US. I just see the manipulation of honey lovers and point out another side not being talked about. It's not wrong.
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."


nerdmann
7 years ago

Z2C is right, wacky thinking like yours [like Z2C’s, like mine] can be good; but you undermine your ability to contribute.

Step 1: admit you’re an alcoholic. You are a Troll [a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often to satiating the troll's lack of esteem and need for attention].

1. Look at everything you post; then look at the topic! You sabotage topics with most, if not every post you make. 3 or 4 People will be contributing on the topic, EG “CB Waters.” Then comes UFFDA, chiming in about how Waters wouldn’t be here if Ted signed FAs, or didn’t draft so poorly or kept Hayward.

Note: Packer fans lurk the net lusting for topics like this. These people will return over and over to, EG, PH to read similar stuff. Eventually, they’ll have a morsel of info or a perspective not discussed, they’ll, throw caution to the wind and post; they’ll be thanked, embraced and begin to post more regularly. This is the lifeblood of a good forum.


2. You don’t believe what you write. If you believe your schtick, there is no need to cherry-pick, exaggerate or misrepresent. People that truly believe their position know it will stand up to the ultimate truth, there simply is no need to exaggerate, cherry-pick and/or misrepresent anything.

Example 1: You state that Ted should not sign Hayward, so Ted not signing Hayward should be counted as a good decision. But opportunistically, a year later, when it’d be damn nice to have Casey materialize on the roster, you use Ted’s good decision on not signing Hayward to excoriate Ted for not singing him.

Example 2: Someone writes “loved Tripp as a 6th rounder.” But, when your personal agendas call for it or you’re seeking discord and a little extra attention, you misrepresent the statement as “you said you loved Tripp.”

You falsely quote what others say routinely. If you were sincere you wouldn't feel the need to do this. The Troll does this because he believes he’ll get a response.

3. In disagreement, the non-troll desperately seeks areas of common ground by recognizing the uncontroverted facts and issues. This provides fertile ground for minds to be changed or at least impetus for movement toward middle ground. The troll is hysterical and accentuates the points of disagreement.

4. The Troll has to get in the last word. His battered self-esteem can then say, “yep, I won that argument too.”

Try this: Dont respond to this post; you cant defend yourself against what was said here because it is ultimate truth and you know it...just stop being a troll because I like ya!

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



If you prove him wrong he starts to attack you personally and psychoanalyze you. YOU JUST DISAGREE, BECAUSE OF THIS OR THAT RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR MOTHER or weird shit like that. That's why I blocked him. He kept PMing me telling me I was wrong and fail to disagree with him for psychiatric reasons.

“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.”
beast
7 years ago

Z2C is right, wacky thinking like yours [like Z2C’s, like mine] can be good; but you undermine your ability to contribute.

Step 1: admit you’re an alcoholic. You are a Troll [a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often to satiating the troll's lack of esteem and need for attention].

1. Look at everything you post; then look at the topic! You sabotage topics with most, if not every post you make. 3 or 4 People will be contributing on the topic, EG “CB Waters.” Then comes UFFDA, chiming in about how Waters wouldn’t be here if Ted signed FAs, or didn’t draft so poorly or kept Hayward.

Note: Packer fans lurk the net lusting for topics like this. These people will return over and over to, EG, PH to read similar stuff. Eventually, they’ll have a morsel of info or a perspective not discussed, they’ll, throw caution to the wind and post; they’ll be thanked, embraced and begin to post more regularly. This is the lifeblood of a good forum.


2. You don’t believe what you write. If you believe your schtick, there is no need to cherry-pick, exaggerate or misrepresent. People that truly believe their position know it will stand up to the ultimate truth, there simply is no need to exaggerate, cherry-pick and/or misrepresent anything.

Example 1: You state that Ted should not sign Hayward, so Ted not signing Hayward should be counted as a good decision. But opportunistically, a year later, when it’d be damn nice to have Casey materialize on the roster, you use Ted’s good decision on not signing Hayward to excoriate Ted for not singing him.

Example 2: Someone writes “loved Tripp as a 6th rounder.” But, when your personal agendas call for it or you’re seeking discord and a little extra attention, you misrepresent the statement as “you said you loved Tripp.”

You falsely quote what others say routinely. If you were sincere you wouldn't feel the need to do this. The Troll does this because he believes he’ll get a response.

3. In disagreement, the non-troll desperately seeks areas of common ground by recognizing the uncontroverted facts and issues. This provides fertile ground for minds to be changed or at least impetus for movement toward middle ground. The troll is hysterical and accentuates the points of disagreement.

4. The Troll has to get in the last word. His battered self-esteem can then say, “yep, I won that argument too.”

Try this: Dont respond to this post; you cant defend yourself against what was said here because it is ultimate truth and you know it...just stop being a troll because I like ya!

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

Great post!!: As this post perfectly describes him... if it was about the Packers it would potentially be nominee for post of the year (if there were such things). Thank you for that amazing post.
UserPostedImage
beast
7 years ago

You and I both know that ANYTHING not Packers flattering is going to be upsetting to the masses here save for nerds boorish and childish self crapping that gets a pass for some odd reason.

I will admit to despising a lot of the blind homerism I see in all facets of life.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



You always miss the point... always... and that almost impossible to do unless your doing in on purpose.

There are clearly other fans that are unflattering to the Packers... and they don't get even a tenth of the shit you do, because they're living in reality, where you're just as blind as the blind homerism just in the complete opposite different.

You have taken facts and twisted them into bullshit over and over and over again, until you find the most negative things possible to say... and if you never willing to stay on the same opinion once it's no longer the most negative one. You clearly actively seek the most negative opinion possible.

Perfect example... Thompson did what you wanted... and you attack him for it... why? Because it's the most negative thing possible... you are blind just as much (or more) as the blind homerism.

Example 1: You state that Ted should not sign Hayward, so Ted not signing Hayward should be counted as a good decision. But opportunistically, a year later, when it’d be damn nice to have Casey materialize on the roster, you use Ted’s good decision on not signing Hayward to excoriate Ted for not singing him.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



You're just as blind as the people you claim to be against...
UserPostedImage
uffda udfa
7 years ago

You always miss the point... always... and that almost impossible to do unless your doing in on purpose.

There are clearly other fans that are unflattering to the Packers... and they don't get even a tenth of the shit you do, because they're living in reality, where you're just as blind as the blind homerism just in the complete opposite different.

You have taken facts and twisted them into bullshit over and over and over again, until you find the most negative things possible to say... and if you never willing to stay on the same opinion once it's no longer the most negative one. You clearly actively seek the most negative opinion possible.

Perfect example... Thompson did what you wanted... and you attack him for it... why? Because it's the most negative thing possible... you are blind just as much (or more) as the blind homerism.


You're just as blind as the people you claim to be against...

Originally Posted by: beast 



Yup...Dakota and Barfarn. They get pounced on pretty good, too. He and Barfarn are the two most similar to me. Sorry, Barfarn. Dakota sees that you "hyena" me. You have some kind of code that will allow a little criticism once the media has been on it for a long time like what was wrong with Rodgers and this offense. Then and only then will we see some "negativity" from here. The degree to which you are willing to call something what it is is sugar coated...a hedging if you will...like you feel dirty or naughty for speaking against the org. I don't have those hang ups. A hundred times over I've said here I can view this team like you would the Bears or Vikings or Browns or Niners, etc. Take emotion out of it. I do that as well as anyone here and you hate me for it.

Of course you're going to say this about me...you hate what I represent which is opposite of you. Same goes for me. I hate feel good homerism. I don't hate you, though. There's the difference. You have to hate me because of what I say. You can't separate what I say from being personal with me. I'd cite Galatians 4:16...it's a tried and true tested thing. People are hated for this down through the centuries.

So, beast what is your truth? Have you answered any of the charges I've levied at this team? No. You hide and piggyback on Barfarn's wrong assertion on Hayward. You don't get it. What I said or thought about Hayward means NOTHING in the scope of whether TED THOMPSON made a mistake any more than it would something had I said something positive and what Ted did worked. My positive or negative or right or wrong take on what he did is MEANINGLESS to whether HE HIMSELF made a mistake. My opinion BEFORE OR AFTER the fact doesn't change that in either direction but you don't get that.

If I thought Justin Harrell was going to be a total star and got on my high horse praising Ted Thompson for picking him an saying he was going to be a HOF it would not mean that I couldn't say that Ted Thompson made a major mistake in drafting him. I would also be wrong but that wouldn't impact Ted being wrong. You can cite I was wrong on Hayward all day that's fine...but that doesn't change that Ted was wrong. Further, ol Barfarn cherry picked my thoughts on Hayward. I did love the guy as a rook...great ball skills and had knack for INT's. He had a rep for being injured here and I thought it was fine to let a guy walk who was oft injured. This forum just spoke about not adding a CB because he might have gotten injured ala like Hayward used to do.

For the record, I'm fine with letting Perry walk. I love the guy but he's injured all the time, too. Now, if Ted lets him go because he thinks Fackrell is a great replacement and Fackrell bombs then Ted made a mistake REGARDLESS OF MY OPINION. I liked Rollins a lot coming out...not a huge fan of Randall's selection but did like Rollins and thought he would develop. He didn't. That's TT's job to gauge and he gauged WRONG and my opinion has nothing to do with that FACT.
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."


Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (10h) : Belichick * whatever
Zero2Cool (10h) : "There's a lot of depth at Offensive Tackle and Wide Receiver." Bill Bellichick
Zero2Cool (16h) : Thanks! I can't believe it's over haha
Martha Careful (16-Apr) : Congratulations
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Boom. Student Loan. $0.00. Only took about 20 years.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : Packers DT Kenny Clark: New defensive coordinator Jeff Hafley will 'allow us to be way more disruptive'
Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : Saints have agreed to terms on a contract with former Packers wide receiver Equanimeous St. Brown.
beast (12-Apr) : No, but of it's for legislation, then half of the country will find it evil, not good, whatever it says....
Mucky Tundra (12-Apr) : Draft is still 2 weeks away. UGH
dhazer (11-Apr) : Does anyone know of a good AI generator to create letters of Support for legislation?
Zero2Cool (11-Apr) : Gordon "Red" Batty retires as equipment manager
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Sounds like that's pretty certain now.
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Packers "at" Eagles in Brazil. Week One
dfosterf (10-Apr) : Va' Fazer As Malas Va' !
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Mark Murphy tipping us off?
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : “We’re either the first- or second-most popular team in Brazil.”
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Christian Watson got married. Wife better be careful with those hamstrings!! 😂😂
dfosterf (9-Apr) : Those poor bastards
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Falcons have signed former Packers CB Kevin King, who has been out of football since 2021.
dfosterf (8-Apr) : Collectively, we need to spend more time in what we have, when analyzing ostendible needs and historical proclivities
dfosterf (8-Apr) : I say he is better than so many of these draft picks
dfosterf (8-Apr) : Question of the week for me: Has anyone besides me done any deep dive into the potential of Alex McGough, our 3rd string qb?
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Or in Tunsil's case, something gets released day of draft or day before lol
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Seems every year someone does something pre-draft.
dfosterf (8-Apr) : Falling down drunk. The draft board
dfosterf (8-Apr) : Allright! Potential character guy/f#×k up pickup in D'Vondre Sweat!
Zero2Cool (7-Apr) : Go Badgers!!!
Martha Careful (6-Apr) : Go Boilermakers!!!
Martha Careful (5-Apr) : Diggs has not stepped up in the playoffs and has a high cost
beast (5-Apr) : Probably not going to let Diggs walk away unless he's horrible... but according to reports he also might not be as good as he used to be.
beast (5-Apr) : The 25th pick in the draft has been an offensive player since 2017, 2 TE, 2 WR, 1 RB, 1 OC
Mucky Tundra (5-Apr) : Odd, why give up a 2025 2nd Rounder for him if you're just gonna let him walk?
Zero2Cool (4-Apr) : Texans to let Diggs be free agent in '25
buckeyepackfan (4-Apr) : 49r's aign RB Patrick Taylor.
Martha Careful (4-Apr) : Reversion to the mean would indicate we will keep it
Zero2Cool (4-Apr) : It's also been utilized in a trade in 14 of the past 20 years
Zero2Cool (4-Apr) : The 25th pick in the draft hasn't been made by it's original holder since 2016.
Mucky Tundra (4-Apr) : Gotta imagine that Green Bay vs Houston will be a primetime game this upcoming season
Zero2Cool (3-Apr) : No. Kill QB. No worries. 😁
Mucky Tundra (3-Apr) : Diggs, Collins, Dell and Schultz is gonna be tough to cover
Zero2Cool (3-Apr) : Stefon Diggs' trade will not be processed as a post-June 1 designation, so that is just over $31 million in dead cap this year.
Zero2Cool (3-Apr) : Bills trading WR Stefon Diggs to the Texans in exchange for a 2025 2nd-round pick. (via @rapsheet)
beast (3-Apr) : Using Patterson as RB and RB/WR tweener... so I think they also signed Patterson as a 3rd down RB, not just a kick returner as articles are
beast (3-Apr) : I think PFT missed the real Steelers/Patterson connection, Steelers new OC Arthur Smith has been Patterson's head coach the last 3 years
wpr (2-Apr) : It has Martha. I was stunned when I was in HS to learn Iowa was still playing half court BB in the 70's.
Martha Careful (2-Apr) : Caitlin Clark, Angel Reese...women's sports has come a long way. GREAT TO SEE!!
Martha Careful (31-Mar) : Happy Easter everyone. I hope you all have a great day.
dfosterf (28-Mar) : Maybe
Mucky Tundra (28-Mar) : Yes
Zero2Cool (28-Mar) : No.
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
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

5h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Apr / Random Babble / Martha Careful

15-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

12-Apr / Random Babble / Nonstopdrivel

12-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

11-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

8-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

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