rns90 Posted April 29, 2020 Report Share Posted April 29, 2020 1 minute ago, BudAdams said: The legit beef on GB is that they didn't participate at all in FA until this GM was hired. In addition, McCarthy is an awful game manager and they hung on with Capers way too long. Bitching that they didn't draft a WR in round one, though, when you see what they added in round 2 or 3, is disingenuous, especially when you do compare it with other elite QB's. I'd say the bolded would be first amongst complaints. I mean you don't have to participate in week one of FA (most of the smart teams don't actually). But hanging onto Capers when he couldn't/wouldn't do basic shit like play contain vs Kaepernick in a playoff game is retarded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepingTitan Posted April 29, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2020 21 minutes ago, BudAdams said: Well, yes I can. It's a BS argument, incorrectly premised that first round picks equate to good players and WR is the one position that consistently busts in similar fashion to QB. The value of first round receivers is grossly overrated and most good NFL teams know better than to do it and that doesn't even consider that in most years GB was drafting late in round 1 where it becomes BPA. If you include 2nd and 3rd round picks, it becomes a whole lot different. GB in the Rodgers era drafted Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, and Davante Adams in round 2 and James Jones and Jermichal Finley in round 3 not to mention drafting OT's early in other years. As for NE, they added Moss for a 4th rounder and traded #32 for Cooks for what one year? It's undeniable that Brady did just fine with Gronk, Edelman, Welker, etc. Same with Ben R. Same with Wilson in Seattle. Yes, it's a BS stat. But that begs the question, were they good BECAUSE of Rodgers, Brady, et al? Or could production be improved by adding a higher valued prospect? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rns90 Posted April 29, 2020 Report Share Posted April 29, 2020 17 minutes ago, SleepingTitan said: But that begs the question, were they good BECAUSE of Rodgers, Brady, et al? Or could production be improved by adding a higher valued prospect? You do realize that the Packers lost a playoff game when Rodgers and the offense put up 45 pts and close to 500 yards of offense. If you want to argue that they haven't built good teams around him, sure. But just because they didn't add a WR/TE in round 1 isn't really a great argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudsOilers Posted April 29, 2020 Report Share Posted April 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, SleepingTitan said: But that begs the question, were they good BECAUSE of Rodgers, Brady, et al? Or could production be improved by adding a higher valued prospect? The assumption that the ROI on a first round WR is better that day 2, especially when considering picks in the mid/late 20's, is not there. Rodgers was putting up elite production up until the last couple of seasons in this environment and won a SB with Jennings, Jones, and Nelson as his skill guys. Same situations for Brady, Brees, Ben, Wilson..... What are the numbers between these guys when you include day 2 picks? In Rodgers case, it's 284 of his 404 TD passes (70%) were from players drafted in rounds 1-3...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepingTitan Posted April 29, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2020 4 minutes ago, rns90 said: You do realize that the Packers lost a playoff game when Rodgers and the offense put up 45 pts and close to 500 yards of offense. If you want to argue that they haven't built good teams around him, sure. But just because they didn't add a WR/TE in round 1 isn't really a great argument. They also didn't trade or sign any first round graded prospects either. What if that receiver would have gotten them more points and more yards? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudsOilers Posted April 29, 2020 Report Share Posted April 29, 2020 The argument being made is that GB didn't invest any resources on offense to support Rodgers. It's inherently false. The 1st round TD pass stat was a gotcha for shock value but it's out of context and hence BS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted April 30, 2020 Report Share Posted April 30, 2020 I don't think it's a coincidence that Rodgers play started falling off around the same time Jamal bought a stake in the Packers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callidus Posted April 30, 2020 Report Share Posted April 30, 2020 10 minutes ago, OILERMAN said: I don't think it's a coincidence that Rodgers play started falling off around the same time Jamal bought a stake in the Packers Why the fuck on earth would you buy packers stock? It pays no dividend and unless you want to buy 500 shares and sit on it for 30 years you won't make dick. Edit: by you I was saying anyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryBoats Posted April 30, 2020 Report Share Posted April 30, 2020 11 minutes ago, OILERMAN said: I don't think it's a coincidence that Rodgers play started falling off around the same time Jamal bought a stake in the Packers It's for the same reason that Brady was washed up in 2013 at age 36- his receivers sucked balls. Pretty easy correlation to make. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted April 30, 2020 Report Share Posted April 30, 2020 30 minutes ago, Callidus said: Why the fuck on earth would you buy packers stock? It pays no dividend and unless you want to buy 500 shares and sit on it for 30 years you won't make dick. Edit: by you I was saying anyone. I'm pretty sure Jamal said he did it as more or less a joke not a real investment Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callidus Posted April 30, 2020 Report Share Posted April 30, 2020 10 minutes ago, OILERMAN said: I'm pretty sure Jamal said he did it as more or less a joke not a real investment Ok that sounds like him. Are there any side benefits like free tickets if you own % of the team? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supernope Posted April 30, 2020 Report Share Posted April 30, 2020 46 minutes ago, Callidus said: Why the fuck on earth would you buy packers stock? It pays no dividend and unless you want to buy 500 shares and sit on it for 30 years you won't make dick. The stock actually cant be sold or traded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callidus Posted April 30, 2020 Report Share Posted April 30, 2020 6 minutes ago, Supernope said: The stock actually cant be sold or traded. That dosn't make sense. It is a public company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supernope Posted April 30, 2020 Report Share Posted April 30, 2020 20 minutes ago, Callidus said: That dosn't make sense. It is a public company. You could buy the certificate from someone but the "rights" are not transferable. Theyre publicly issued but not traded on the markets. It's at best a collectable. Read up on it, genius scam even by NFL standards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callidus Posted April 30, 2020 Report Share Posted April 30, 2020 1 minute ago, Supernope said: You could buy the certificate from someone but the "rights" are not transferable. Theyre publicly issued but not traded on the markets. It's at best a collectable. Read up on it, genius scam even by NFL standards. So it is like a taxi pendent in nyc with no benefits then? Other than being able to jerk off at the yearly meeting? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.9809deea0264333909f9a078fe70504c.thumb.jpg.253eb7dc6b332683b4509edded26c5c8.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.